Open mike 27/06/2015

34 comments on “Open mike 27/06/2015 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Paul 1

   27 June 2015 at 7:50 am

   Petrobas got permission to drill for oil.
   Look what happened in Brazil.

   http://gu.com/p/4a3bt
2. Olwyn 2

   27 June 2015 at 8:41 am

   A good, concise article on Greece and the EU. It outlines what’s at stake, and shows, indirectly, why Western left wing parliamentary parties are prone to fail their supporters – they continually find themselves between a stone and a hard place.

   http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/manuel-barcia/greek-economy_b_7665240.html

   Independently of whether you are extreme left, extreme right, extreme centre (and yes, there is such a thing as extreme centre) or a moderate of any kind, you will have to agree that what is unfolding before our eyes today is a struggle for the future not only of the European ideal, but also of neoliberal capitalism…
   and
   Whether Syriza wins or loses the battle, the good news is that there has been a battle in the first place. The war against this sort of neoliberal capitalism that cares not about people but money is full on now.
   • AsleepWhileWalking 2.1

     27 June 2015 at 5:09 pm

     “the good news is that there has been a battle in the first place”… you know this is a catastrophic human rights disaster for the Greek people right?
     • Olwyn 2.1.1

       27 June 2015 at 9:39 pm

       I was quoting from an article written by someone else. However, what is happening in Greece was a catastrophic human rights disaster before the election of Syriza – I take the author to mean that it is good that the current government is at least standing up to those who are inflicting the disaster.
3. Penny Bright 3

   27 June 2015 at 9:03 am

   Fighting the neo-liberal ‘public is bad – private is good’ mantra at Auckland Council – PROVE IT!

   Got speaking rights at the Auckland Council Governing Body meeting on 25 June 2015 – exposed how there is no such thing as ‘public’ transport in Auckland, and asked why should the public subsidise that which we no longer own, operate or manage?

   http://councillive.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/video/250615-governing-body-items-7-part-2-11

   (Scroll to 7.30 for the start of my presentation …)

   There are 10 private bus companies, 4 private ferry companies and a French multi-national company operating and managing Auckland trains.

   How much do Auckland citizens and ratepayers subsidise PRIVATELY owned, operated and managed ‘passenger transport’ services?

   If the private sector got to own, operate and manage passenger transport services because they were purportedly ‘more efficient’ – then why do they need public subsidies?

   Where’s the ‘cost-benefit’ analyses that PROVE that public subsidy of private passenger transport services is a more ‘cost-effective’ use of public money than providing PUBLIC transport, under the ‘not for profit’ PUBLIC SERVICE model?

   Why aren’t the Mayor, Councillors and Auckland Council staff asking these questions?

   Why are Auckland citizens and ratepayers being told to pay a $114 per year ‘transport levy’ – when the question of the ‘cost-effectiveness’ of public money being used to subsidise privately owned, operated and managed ‘passenger transport’ apparently has never been asked?

   (I am supposed to get an extensive OIA reply from Auckland Transport by
   3 July 2015).

   Penny Bright

   http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz
4. Rodel 4

   27 June 2015 at 9:19 am

   John Stringer on Colin Craig:according to Philip Matthews in ‘the Press’

   “Colin seems to say whatever he needs to say to get what he wants and he disregards people he doesn’t need. He changes the narrative to suit his objective.”

   In other words Just another Tory politician.
   • JanM 4.1

     27 June 2015 at 9:55 am

     Exactly – is Stringer naive or cynical?
     I was brought up as the daughter of a Methodist minister (now quite removed from all of it), but I cannot get a grip on these right-wing religious weirdos, or work out how they justify their entitled, essentially unchristian stance !!??
   • Draco T Bastard 4.2

     27 June 2015 at 12:16 pm

     +1
5. Mandy Hager 5

   27 June 2015 at 9:43 am

   For those interested I have posted on my website about “The role of writers as truth tellers – and the threat to freedom of speech” http://www.mandyhager.com
   • Draco T Bastard 5.1

     27 June 2015 at 12:20 pm

     Actual link

     Why Corporations, Not Government, Are the Most Ruthless Enemies of Journalists (w/ Mark Ames)

     I haven’t actually watched that yet but seems to be on the same subject.
6. Skinny 6

   27 June 2015 at 10:25 am

   This headline gave me a laugh on One News Facebook feed. Appears to me someone is having a crack at Hosking;

   “TPPA is one step closer to becoming reality in New Zealand. You can probably guess where Mike Hosking stands on the matter. Warning: If you’re among the many who oppose the deal, this may get your blood boiling”.
   • ianmac 6.1

     27 June 2015 at 10:42 am

     I heard Hosking raving on 7 TV1 last night on the subject of TPPA. He says TPPA is a marvellous opportunity and all those doom-sayers should butt out etc etc. What Hosking should be asked is how comes that he knows what is in it for NZ?
     And does he know what the contents in TPPA are? I don’t know. We don’t know.
     So either Hosking is in the elite group who do know, or he is a raving biased stooge.
     (PS I watch TV1 7 so I can judge it. Wouldn’t be too bad if Hosking wasn’t there.)
     • Skinny 6.1.1

       27 June 2015 at 11:11 am

       I heard an interview with that dude Jessie Mullens who originally co hosted Seven Sharp. He went on about feeling bullied on the show hinting at Hosking but stopped short of naming him. I think I’d wind him up abit if a ran into him and wait for him to over step the mark and give him a crack for bullying Jessie, call it Karma lol.
       • Jilly Bee 6.1.1.1

         27 June 2015 at 2:20 pm

         I think you mean Jessie Mulligan, Skinny. Jessie was a guest panelist several years ago at the Great Mt Albert Debate, (a major fundraiser for the Mt Albert Branch of the Labour Party) always a great night out with heaps of fun with the debate.
         • Skinny 6.1.1.1.1

           27 June 2015 at 7:31 pm

           Yes that’s him. Sounds like a decent guy Jilly Bee no wonder Hosking picked on him!
7. Skinny 7

   27 June 2015 at 11:16 am

   Go Bernie give Clinton a dealing too!
   http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/25/new-hampshire-poll-shows-bernie-sanders-in-dead-heat-with-hillary-clinton/?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
8. Penny Bright 8

   27 June 2015 at 11:23 am

   FYI.

   Freedom of expression is alive and well on the NBR!

   Taking on ‘Rogernomics’ from ‘inside the tent’ – as it were?

   My comment in response to a post by Rodney Hide:

   “State’s waste leaves fewer leftovers

   WEEKEND REVIEW Fri 26 Jun
   We should all be wishing Jordan Williams and the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union every success.”

   ———————————————————————
   Sorry Rodney – I beg to differ.

   In my considered opinion, the ingrained and chronic waste of taxpayer and ratepayer money at central and local government, has arisen from the myth and mantra upon which neo-liberal ‘Rogernomics’ was/is based.

   The ‘public is bad – private is good’ myth and mantra.

   Under this myth and mantra – services previously provided ‘in house’ under the single layer, not-for-profit, public service model, have been replaced with a double layer, for profit private sector model – where consultants ‘project manage’ works contractors – all out to make as much as they can.

   As soon as you get into contracting – you get into ‘contract management’.

   Government and Council ‘in-house’ staff are regarded as being too dumb to do that – so in come the consultants.

   A single layer public service ‘BUREAUCRACY ‘ is replaced with a double layer of private sector ‘CONTRACTOCRACY’.

   How on earth can that be a more ‘cost-effective’ use of public money?

   Where’s the ‘prudent stewardship’?

   Where’s the ‘cost-benefit’ analysis?

   How is this not corporate welfare – on steroids?

   Who else is asking THIS question Rodney?

   Kind regards

   Penny Bright
   • Draco T Bastard 8.1

     27 June 2015 at 12:45 pm

     A single layer public service ‘BUREAUCRACY ‘ is replaced with a double layer of private sector ‘CONTRACTOCRACY’.

     How on earth can that be a more ‘cost-effective’ use of public money?

     It can’t be but it does make the rich so much more profit.
9. Morrissey 9

   27 June 2015 at 11:33 am

   This shameless imposter should be in prison

   The late, great George Burns often quipped that the most important attribute for an actor is sincerity; fake that and you’ve got it made. Nowhere is that truism more appropriate than in the obscene farce of American politics.

   In December 2013, there was widespread anger after a shameless impostor perpetrated an outrageous display of fakery at the funeral service for Nelson Mandela. Comments included: “He was moving his hands around, but there was no meaning”; “What happened at the memorial service is truly a disgraceful thing to see”; “Disgusting”; “Shameful hypocrisy” and “It should not happen at all.”
   Here’s a photo of the fraudster, waving his arm in the air….

   http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/deaf-interpreter-nelson-mandela-memorial-fake-officials-article-1.1544251

   Six months before that outrage, the impostor had disgusted the world with a display of OTT method acting….
   http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jul/01/barack-obama-nelson-mandela-robben-island-video

   And now, unfortunately, the impostor is at it again. This time he’s pretending to be Martin Luther King….
   http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/06/26/obama-sings-amazing-grace-during-pinckney-eulogy-sot-nr.cnn
   • ianmac 9.1

     27 June 2015 at 12:32 pm

     Morrissey. If you say Obama is an imposter I suppose you would suggest that Key cliche-ing over the Whanganuian plight is equally impostering. Surely not?
     • Morrissey 9.1.1

       27 June 2015 at 2:33 pm

       As horrible and hypocritical as Key is, he is not presiding over a world-wide programme of torture, kidnapping and extra-judicial assassination.
10. Draco T Bastard 10

    27 June 2015 at 1:40 pm

    A short spiel on the Neutral Observer fallacy.
11. Draco T Bastard 11

    27 June 2015 at 2:41 pm

    It appears that the government is going to sell the state houses to Australia:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1506/S00499/national-to-put-state-houses-in-overseas-hands.htm
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1506/S00500/dont-sell-our-state-houses-to-the-aussies-mr-english.htm

    Good for Australia but we get to see even more of our hard work going to support foreigners for no gain.
    • marty mars 11.1

      27 June 2015 at 8:53 pm

      Can’t quite work out why you say, “Good for Australia” – do you mean it is good for the Australian country or good on those Australians?

      This idea is foul imo – this english state housing clusterfuck needs to be shut down and tied off.

      I agree with Labour, “Bill English should face reality and admit his state house sell off policy has collapsed.” and the Greens on this, “Bill English is also admitting that no-one in New Zealand wants to buy them, and that his grand sell-off plan is in tatters”

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11472186
      • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1

        27 June 2015 at 10:07 pm

        Can’t quite work out why you say, “Good for Australia” – do you mean it is good for the Australian country or good on those Australians?

        I mean Australia is going to be getting richer at our expense. I thought that was fairly obvious from the entire sentence.

        This idea is foul imo – this english state housing clusterfuck needs to be shut down and tied off.

        Yep. It’s just more legalised theft of NZs’ assets and wealth.
        • marty mars 11.1.1.1

          27 June 2015 at 10:30 pm

          “I thought that was fairly obvious from the entire sentence.”

          Well I asked for clarification as nicely as I could – pity you couldn’t answer the same way – although that may be mean because that might be as nice as you can be.

          “A Gold Coast non-profit charity, Horizon Housing, had visited New Zealand this week to look at the houses. It was interested in possibly buying at least 400 state houses.”

          Is that, “Australia is going to be getting richer at our expense”?
12. Michael 12

    27 June 2015 at 3:09 pm

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/26/gay-marriage-legal-supreme-court

    Same-sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states in the USA!

    The White House is also lit up in rainbow lights in celebration! https://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse/videos/vb.63811549237/10153566817364238/?type=2&theater Truly amazing sight.

    Being able to love who you love and show a legal commitment is a human right. Hopefully the USA legalising it will push other countries to, like Australia. There is much more to be done on global LGBTQ+ rights, including where in some countries you can be jailed or executed simply for being who you are, but hopefully this is part of a global movement towards equality.
13. Penny Bright 13

    27 June 2015 at 4:27 pm

    Where is the electoral mandate for the privatisation of State Housing – via ‘social housing’?

    How desperate and obscene is THIS?

    ————————————————————-

    Hundreds of New Zealand’s state houses could be sold to Australians, Bill English said this morning.

    Appearing on TV3’s The Nation this morning, Finance Minister Bill English said it was possible state houses could be sold to an Australian company.

    A Gold Coast non-profit charity, Horizon Housing, had visited New Zealand this week to look at the houses. It was interested in possibly buying at least 400 state houses.

    “So far it looks interesting to us, Horizon Housing’s chief executive Jason Cubit said.

    “We’d like to expand our business because we’re good at it and we [will] hopefully make some surpluses and re-invest it into the community.”

    English told The Nation that Australians would be able to buy the state houses if they were registered as community housing providers.

    Labour’s housing spokesperson Phil Tywford described English’s admission as “the latest lurch in the Government’s stumbling, half-baked housing policy”.

    “Bill English should face reality and admit his state house sell off policy has collapsed. The Salvation Army didn’t want a bar of it. Iwi leaders said they’d only take them if they got them for free.

    “Now Bill English is so desperate to keep his failed policy afloat that he’ll even flick the houses off to the Aussies,” he said.
    ………

    Penny Bright
14. Penny Bright 14

    27 June 2015 at 6:58 pm

    What do folks think about this one?

    Especially the suggested remedy to ‘ghost housing’ in Auckland?

    ————————————————————————-

    As the Auckland property market continues to heat up, our readers share their ideas for cooling it down. Peter Johnson says it’s simple math.

    The numbers are self-evident – any high school student can work out these questions yet the so-called experts can’t see the basics:

    Question 1: If New Zealand has net immigration of 55,000 each year and 80 per cent move to Auckland, assuming we have four people per house how many extra houses are needed each year in Auckland?

    Answer 1: 11,000

    Question 2: If Auckland needs 11,000 houses per year just for immigration and is only building 7,500, how many houses short is Auckland each year?

    Answer 2: 3,500

    Question 3: If Auckland has been building 3,500 houses less than demand each year for 10 years, how many houses is Auckland short of?

    Answer 3: 35,000

    Question 4: Basic economics states that free market pricing is a combination of supply and demand. If supply is low but demand is high, what will happen to the commodity price?

    Answer 4: The price will go up

    Here’s how we answer these questions in relation to Auckland housing:

    Limit immigration: If we do not have the housing we have nowhere for immigrants to live. In effect it is time to hang out the No Vacancy sign until there is a surplus of housing.

    Build more houses: This is part of the plan and it should continue until the backlog is dealt with.

    Ghost housing: Auckland has the housing stock, it just has low utilisation, which in some ways could be seen as market manipulation. A simple law that makes it illegal to have a house unoccupied for a period of 12 months without a suitable reason should be implemented. To have a situation where houses are being bought for capital gain and taken out of circulation to add heat to the market is ridiculous. Failure to have your house occupied could result in forfeit to the crown for forced sale.

    Special legislation, similar to the Christchurch rebuild legislation, to fast-track building in Auckland: We have the skills, experience and personnel for the agency in Christchurch right now. Also, the agency that handled the fast-track of building Christchurch is about to be made redundant.

    How can we reduce demand?

    Firstly, by reducing immigration, as above.

    We can also give New Zealand citizens first rights over residents and over foreign buyers. If you are a New Zealand citizen then you can have multiple ownership rights. If you are a resident then you can only own one house – the house that you live in. If you want to have multiple houses then you need to commit to New Zealand and become a citizen.

    Anyone from overseas who wants to buy housing in New Zealand needs to stand in line behind New Zealand citizens and then residents. The house must first be offered to the domestic market and if it does not sell then it can be offered overseas.

    If the property does sell overseas for a premium then an overseas purchase levy of 10-20 percent as way of tax/stamp duty must be paid on both purchase and sale. If we are going to sell property offshore to the detriment of New Zealand citizens then there should be some additional benefit to New Zealand.

    Overseas interests can only own property for a maximum of 50 years, then the property must be put on the open market to give New Zealand citizens a chance to purchase their land back at market rates.

    I see the problem as very simple math. I know there are complexities of foreign exchange flow into New Zealand propping up a poorly performing economy, but the price we are paying is just too high.

    This is basic math and economics 101. Trying to sell us on the idea that supply will fix the problem is utter dribble.
    ———————————————————————
    Penny Bright
    • G C Cameron 14.1

      27 June 2015 at 11:55 pm

      People don’t immigrate to Auckland Penny – people immigrate to New Zealand. If there is no housing in Auckland, new immigrates will have to live in another city or town. If the Hilton is full try the Holiday Inn – not the park bench.

      Also immigrates have been known to bring money into New Zealand and spend said money to build themselves a house(s), which ‘in theory boosts the economy’. Hanging out the ‘No Vacancy’ sign is premature – though your point is received.
15. Penny Bright 15

    27 June 2015 at 8:50 pm

    Has the Murray McCully – in my view – the ‘Minister of Bribery’s sordid Saudi sheep gate debacle, been the reason why National have not supported
    ALL ‘facilitation payments’ being outlawed as BRIBES?
    ————————————————————————-

    The Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Legislation Bill:

    Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand minority view

    The Green Party supports the majority of the Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Legislation Bill in its current form.

    The Green Party intends to continue with its support of this bill; it will bring us in line with our obligations under various international treaties and conventions dealing with national and international organised crime and corruption, and it will strengthen our ability to effectively respond to people trafficking and private sector corruption.

    However, the Green Party holds the view that this bill is a missed opportunity to address the issue of facilitation payments, which will still be excepted from the foreign bribery offence under section 105C(3) of the Crimes Act 1961–

    (3)This section does not apply if—

    (a)the act that is alleged to constitute the offence was committed for the sole or primary purpose of ensuring or expediting the performance by a foreign public official of a routine government action; and

    (b)the value of the benefit is small.

    The Ministry of Justice departmental report refers to these payments as being for things such as “small payments relating to the grant of a permit or licence, the provision of utility services, or loading or unloading cargo.

    The Ministry commented that these payments do not yield an “undue advantage”, and that measures in the bill to ensure the recording of these payments mitigate any concerns that the exception may be abused.

    However, the select committee heard persuasive submissions on the issue from the Human Rights Commission, Transparency International New Zealand and Michael Macaulay, Director of the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies at Victoria University of Wellington’s School of Government.

    These ‘grease’ payments are bribes, no matter their size, and help breed a culture where low-level corruption is permitted and accepted, contrary to international guidance from groups like the Serious Fraud Office, the UNCAC Implementation Review Group, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, and the OECD.

    New Zealand is seen as a leader in public sector ethics and transparency, and we are proud of that legacy.

    It is disappointing that when provided an opportunity to take a strong stance on a controversial and unethical practice like facilitation payments – a stance already taken by the United Kingdom and Australia, and allegedly being pursued in China and India – we choose to split hairs about semantics and ‘balance’, leaving the door open for facilitation payments and subtly undermining our international reputation for honesty and transparency.
    ———————————————————

    Absolutely agree with the Greens on this point.

    After the sordid Saudi sheep gate debacle – in my view – ALL political parties should support the outlawing of ‘facilitation payments’ as BRIBES – end of story.

    Penny Bright
    • G C Cameron 15.1

      28 June 2015 at 12:25 am

      Facilitation payments are fine with me if the desired result is achieved. Money certainly is a motivator. Facilitation payments aren’t a silver bullet though and diffidently could run parallel to bribery. If you have to bribe someone you should ask yourself, “do I really want to be in business with this kind of person/company”. I don’t see the government using facilitation payments as a magic wand… …yet…

      mmmmmmm tasty lamb
16. katipo 16

    27 June 2015 at 11:16 pm

    ‘Aotearoa Now’ a Short film by from Ryan Fielding.
    https://vimeo.com/122342786
    crikey!
17. NathanHaines 17

    28 June 2015 at 12:01 am

    Clearly McCully has had a bad week.
    1. Found out lying to cabinet about the real reason behind the Saudi Sheep in the desert saga
    2. Had to go to the dentist
    3. But this tops them all. His performance last night saying he was going to solve the Israeli – Palestinian conflict 1 day into the job. This sounds like he is either trying to take the heat off the Saudi Sheep saga or, is suffering under the heat and has gone completely mad! I would suggest both. If he thinks he can get the UN into accepting his way of thinking on the Palestinian issue when he can’t even get a bilateral relationship sorted.

    Maybe a very interesting cabinet conversation on Monday.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS