Open mike 31/01/2016

116 comments on “Open mike 31/01/2016 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. vto 1

   31 January 2016 at 7:49 am

   David Shearer. Really, what a fuck up. Fucked up his time in the chair. Now continuing. Fuck off.

   Phil Goff. Same.

   Pricks and selfish assholes.

   (apologies for the required language on a sunday morning)
   • BM 1.1

     31 January 2016 at 8:57 am

     What have they done now?
     • vto 1.1.1

       31 January 2016 at 9:08 am

       TPPA – Transgressed Party Political Arrangements.
       • BM 1.1.1.1

         31 January 2016 at 9:12 am

         I reckon Shearer should become a independent.

         Cut a deal with National in exchange for some overseas position.
         • Stuart Munro 1.1.1.1.1

           31 January 2016 at 9:31 am

           He’d do better to hit up Helen – like Goff he’s better out of the country.
         • Naturesong 1.1.1.1.2

           31 January 2016 at 9:36 am

           Why?

           He’s, much more useful to National staying where he is.
           • BM 1.1.1.1.2.1

             31 January 2016 at 9:46 am

             National needs another vote to get the RMA changes done.

             Maybe Shearer could be that vote?
             • Lanthanide …

               31 January 2016 at 9:48 am

               Only the whipped National MPs and puppet party ACT have any interest in the type of RMA reforms National are trying to ram through.
               • BM …

                 31 January 2016 at 9:55 am

                 Could be Shearers meal ticket.

                 Lets be honest, he knows his days are numbered with in Labour, he really only has three options.

                 1) Leave and retire from politics

                 2) Start another party

                 3) Do a deal with National.
                 • Lanthanide …

                   31 January 2016 at 10:49 am

                   Why are his days numbered? He holds a safe electorate seat, and Labour seem incapable of shifting electorate dead-wood on.
                   • BM …

                     31 January 2016 at 10:58 am

                     So, if Shearer doesn’t want to go, there’s nothing the party or the members can do to get rid of him?
                   • weka …

                     31 January 2016 at 11:00 am

                     Apparently not. He can be ejected from the party if he does something bad enough to warrant that, but they can’t take his seat from him. Which is probably fair given people actually voted for him not just the party.
             • Naturesong …

               31 January 2016 at 9:54 am

               Even Shearer isn’t that stupid.
             • Paul …

               31 January 2016 at 10:09 am

               Mt Albert needs to deselect him.
         • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1.3

           31 January 2016 at 9:47 am

           Then he wouldn’t be an independent MP for very long, would he?

           National managed to find a plum job for Shane Jones while he was a Labour MP, don’t see why Shearer would need to go independent first.
   • Muttonbird 1.2

     31 January 2016 at 9:45 am

     Shearer is pretty loose alright.

     But I suspect Phil Goff, Labour, and National have done some sort of deal. Goff’s leaving anyway and I think the Nats know they can’t win Auckland and have buttered Goff up to smooth that particular ride in exchange for visible and actual support on the TPP. Labour have agreed, losing a battle to win the war in Auckland where I think they’ll expect Goff to do some heavy lifting for them nationally on social issues.

     The Nats will insist of course that Goff sells Auckland’s assets to their rich mates once he’s in the role to pay for the CRL.
     • vto 1.2.1

       31 January 2016 at 10:16 am

       Yeah, who in the general public cares what Shearer thinks of the TPPA anyway?

       Nobody.

       So why did he do it?

       Shearer really does need to leave.

       Otherwise he will bumblef%#k again on the next big thing… what a goober
2. Gangnam Style 2

   31 January 2016 at 7:57 am

   Unfettered Neolib capitalism, doncha just love it! http://michaelmoore.com/10FactsOnFlint/ “A few months after Governor Snyder removed Flint from the clean fresh water we had been drinking for decades, the brass from General Motors went to him and complained that the Flint River water was causing their car parts to corrode when being washed on the assembly line. The Governor was appalled to hear that GM property was being damaged, so he jumped through a number of hoops and quietly spent $440,000 to hook GM back up to the Lake Huron water, while keeping the rest of Flint on the Flint River water. Which means that while the children in Flint were drinking lead-filled water, there was one — and only one — address in Flint that got clean water: the GM factory.”
3. Rosemary McDonald 3

   31 January 2016 at 8:56 am

   The Herald this morning carries an article about a young woman called Juliana Carvalho.

   Juliana is from Brazil, and has been living and working here in New Zealand since 2012.

   She has family here, two siblings and her mother, and another two siblings (one a doctor) plan to move to New Zealand next year.

   Juliana is an accomplished writer, film maker and launched a TV show in Brazil.

   She is working full time…did I say that already?….and yet…

   …she has been told she is not wanted in New Zealand and she has to return to Brazil.

   Why?

   She has a disability and uses a wheelchair.

   This government HATES disabled people.

   I met Juliana once. This was at the 2014 Health and Disability Conference in 2014.

   My partner and I were having a two person protest against the lack of accountability when disabled people have been neglected to death in care of Contracted Providers.

   As expected, we were shunned by the government funded ‘advocates’ attending this white table cloth conference….but Juliana, bless her, came over to speak with us and find out what we were protesting about.

   I wish there was something we could do to help her.

   Kia Kaha, Juliana.

   This government HATES disabled people….did I say that already?

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11582384
   • pete 3.1

     31 January 2016 at 9:28 am

     No not just this government, sadly I think there I long history of this regardless of who is in power.

     In this case, surely the basic human right of equal treatment should apply.

     Pity the Labour Party wouldn’t stop hugging scum bag criminals long enough to actually stand up for the human rights of decent people. If they did, the would once again get my vote.
     • Rosemary McDonald 3.1.1

       31 January 2016 at 10:06 am

       “No not just this government, sadly I think there I long history of this regardless of who is in power.”

       This government has ramped the hate up to a new level…but you are right…Labour was not much better.

       Under Labour…the ‘deserving disabled’, the ones under ACC certainly felt more secure, but the rest had to battle and manipulate the system to get the supports they needed.

       At the last election I emailed all opposition parties about their policy on one particular disability issue.

       Got no satisfactory answer from any of them.

       So I voted for no one. (a little contribution to the ‘stupid folk who don’t vote’ conversation the was had on TS yesterday!)

       As you say pete…it is about treating all people as equals.

       Apart from disabled people…as far as I know, few protections against hate speech or other forms of discrimination and persecution.
       • weka 3.1.1.1

         31 January 2016 at 10:26 am

         The only people that got called stupid yesterday where those that don’t vote as a way of changing National policy. Is that why you didn’t vote?
         • pete 3.1.1.1.1

           31 January 2016 at 10:39 am

           I have absolutely no idea what the significance of ‘yetsrday’ is. Nor do I care.

           And please do not make assumptions about what I did or did not do. Your kind of personal abuse is what undermines sites like this.

           Please return to your bedroom and your computer and be a big anonymous hero all on your own. Pathetic.
           • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1

             31 January 2016 at 10:52 am

             Pete, none of the comments I have made are anything to do with you or about you. My last comment was in reply to Rosemary and her point about a conversation that was happening on the standard yesterday. I was just clarifying what happened and asking Rosemary (not you) where she fitted in with the clarification.

             I’m not sure what to make of your comments about abuse given you then go on to be rude and mean.
           • Lanthanide 3.1.1.1.1.2

             31 January 2016 at 10:53 am

             pete, weka was directly replying to Rosemary, who both referenced a conversation that was on The Standard yesterday and she also said she didn’t vote.

             Your attacks on weka are entirely unfounded and unwarranted. Also I don’t think I’ve ever seen weka personally insult anyone, which is something I don’t think I can say about any other regular commenter on TS (actually maybe Mickey and r0b, but I think even they get fed up with the trolls sometimes).
           • fender 3.1.1.1.1.3

             31 January 2016 at 11:01 am

             Your disgust shouldn’t be directed at Weka. She is one of the best commenters here, as you must know if you have spent any time here.
         • Rosemary McDonald 3.1.1.1.2

           31 January 2016 at 10:56 am

           weka…I follow such discussions with a liberal dose of detachment now.

           Ask me….”what would encourage you to vote?”

           weka, I’ll vote when there is a candidate worth voting for, and a party with definite policies that fit with my principles.

           (and since the electoral office has finally caught up with me after a mere 33 years of non enrollment…I’ll vote against the flag change.)

           (I would have voted for Marilyn Waring…but she quit. Kinda convinced me that integrity and politics do not make good bedfellows.)

           I’ll vote for the party that allows Juliana permanent residency.
           • Lanthanide 3.1.1.1.2.1

             31 January 2016 at 11:01 am

             Right, so apparently you’ve never voted in 33 years, then?

             For someone who is politically aware to have chosen not to vote for 33 years, rather relegates them into a very, very small minority of the public. People in this group will likely have such incredibly diverse rationales for not voting that it’d be a massive sunk cost attempting to wring votes out of that group (and focussing those resources on such a minority would result in a net loss of votes from the mainstream who go elsewhere).
             • Rosemary McDonald …

               31 January 2016 at 11:38 am

               “For someone who is politically aware to have chosen not to vote for 33 years, rather relegates them into a very, very small minority of the public.”

               That is one of the reasons I try and avoid those sorts of conversations…the premise seems to be that non voters are apathetic, ill informed, poorly educated and the rest.

               I grew up being cynical and skeptical of politics and politicians. Hard to shake off that influence.

               But it is liberating in a way, as one can be totally and utterly impartial political partywise.

               In the last election…Mana popped up on my radar…then they hopped into bed with KDC….seduced by the dollars.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 31 January 2016 at 11:59 am

                 incredibly diverse rationale ≠ the premise seems to be that non voters are apathetic, ill informed, poorly educated.

                 Although it might be argued that you’re providing a pertinent example.
                 • Rosemary McDonald …

                   31 January 2016 at 1:34 pm

                   OAB… you never fail to proffer you very own special type of support.

                   Thank you.
               • marty mars …

                 31 January 2016 at 12:26 pm

                 Mana weren’t seduced by the dollars at all – they may have been seduced by the thought of getting a few MP’s in and changing the face of politics for the better though
                 • Lanthanide …

                   31 January 2016 at 12:43 pm

                   I guess Rosemary only wants to vote for loser underdogs, and not a party that actually has the resources and prospects to get elected and make a difference.
                   • marty mars …

                     31 January 2016 at 1:41 pm

                     the expectation of politics bar is set pretty high methinks
           • weka 3.1.1.1.2.2

             31 January 2016 at 11:03 am

             Fair enough Rosemary. There was just a bit of misrepresentation happening yesterday about what I actually meant and I didn’t want that carrying on again in another thread so felt I needed to say something. Not wanting to derail the conversation.

             Marilyn Waring would have been tricky back in the day, because she was a National MP. If the election weren’t close I might have voted for her too. It’s interesting to consider what party she would be in now.
       • pete 3.1.1.2

         31 January 2016 at 10:36 am

         Yes this sort of thing really annoys me. If Julianna deserves to stay or not, absolutely should be solely on whether she offers a net benefit to NZ or not (and from what you say it appears she would).

         If they made a judgement based on her colour, we all would be appalled, quite rightly. Yet disabled? Same discrimination yet somehow acceptable to many.
         • weka 3.1.1.2.1

           31 January 2016 at 10:56 am

           From what I read, it’s not her disability (which isn’t costing the state anything), it’s her illness and the probability of her costing the state over her lifetime over and above what other people would.

           I agree it should be about the net benefit. Forty odd thousand dollars over her lifetime doesn’t seem like a lot of money given what she brings. But from what I can tell immigration is often based on economic benefit brought in rather than other benefits. And in this case that adds another level of prejudice to the case, because what she brings is probably not considered relevant because it’s of benefit to people with disabilities.
           • Rosemary McDonald 3.1.1.2.1.1

             31 January 2016 at 11:04 am

             “And in this case that adds another level of prejudice to the case, because what she brings is probably not considered relevant because it’s of benefit to people with disabilities.”

             Exactly.

             Now, what are we going to do about it?

             There are people here on TS who are members of various parties….come on…what is the story on this?

             Or do all parties have this vision of a ‘perfect’ New Zealand populated by ‘perfect’ people?
             • weka …

               31 January 2016 at 11:09 am

               Unfortunately I would guess that immigration are acting consistently with the legislation, but it would be worth looking at policy and seeing how much discretion there is.

               How we decide who is valued to live here sucks but I think that’s a long term change rather than for one person. I hope she does well with the appeal and more media attention may help (??).

               the only party I can think that’s worth talking to is the Greens, because of Mathers and because they’re not anti-immigration.
           • Craig H 3.1.1.2.1.2

             31 January 2016 at 11:29 am

             Estimated cost is based on an independent Medical Assessor’s assessment of the medical certificates and usually a specialist report, and the threshold is $41,000 over 5 years.

             Paraplegia is automatically assessed as not being an Acceptable Standard of Health for residence (there is a list of conditions at A4.10.1 of the Immigration Instructions), so the cost was only relevant to the issue of whether or not to grant a medical waiver (waiving the requirement to be an Acceptable Standard of Health). Obviously INZ didn’t think a waiver was justified, hence the decision to decline the application (once the waiver was declined, there was no choice in the matter).

             From here, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) will consider her appeal, and either uphold the decision or send it back for reassessment of the waiver. If they uphold the decision, IPT can recommend that the Minister of Immigration consider granting residence as an exception to instructions – that’s reasonably rare, but it happens.
             • weka …

               31 January 2016 at 11:35 am

               Thanks! What are the criteria for a medical waiver?
               • Craig H …

                 31 January 2016 at 11:50 am

                 A4.70 Determination of whether a medical waiver should be granted (residence and temporary entry)

                 (a) Any decision to grant a medical waiver must be made by an immigration officer with Schedule 1-3 delegations (see A15.5).
                 (b) When determining whether a medical waiver should be granted, an immigration officer must consider the circumstances of the applicant to decide whether they are compelling enough to justify allowing entry to, and/or a stay in New Zealand.
                 (c) Factors that officers may take into account in making their decision include, but are not limited to, the following:
                 (i) the objectives of Health instructions (see A4.1) and the objectives of the category or instructions under which the application has been made;
                 (ii) the degree to which the applicant would impose significant costs and/or demands on New Zealand’s health or education services;
                 (iii) whether the applicant has immediate family lawfully and permanently resident in New Zealand and the circumstances and duration of that residence;
                 (iv) whether the applicant’s potential contribution to New Zealand will be significant;
                 (v) the length of intended stay (including whether a person proposes to enter New Zealand permanently or temporarily).
                 (d) An applicant who is the partner or dependent child of a New Zealand citizen or residence class visa holder, who would otherwise meet the criteria for residence under Partnership (see F2.5(a)) or Dependent Child (see F5.1(a)) instructions, will be granted a medical waiver unless the limitations on the grant of medical waivers to such persons set out at A4.60(a) and A4.60(b) apply.
                 (e) An applicant who has been recognised as having refugee or protection status will be granted a medical waiver, unless the limitation on the grant of medical waivers to such persons set out at A4.60(a) applies.
                 (f) An immigration officer should consider any advice provided by an Immigration New Zealand medical assessor on medical matters pertaining to the grant of a waiver, such as the prognosis of the applicant.
                 • weka …

                   31 January 2016 at 2:44 pm

                   Thanks. It sounds like it’s possible for them have said yes, although what they consider significant costs might be interesting to know (it was mentioned in the media).
                   • Craig H …

                     31 January 2016 at 3:35 pm

                     Same as above, $41000 over 5 years, no inflation adjustment.
                   • weka …

                     31 January 2016 at 3:55 pm

                     ok, thanks.

                     I had the impression that for this woman that was a theoretical number, that might not be needed.
             • Rosemary McDonald …

               31 January 2016 at 11:56 am

               Thanks Craig for that expansion of the criteria.

               “However, a review of her health by the Ministry of Health concluded: “All [costs] are dependent on Juliana’s needs changing significantly due to physical deterioration which will possibly never occur.”” (from the herald article)

               God forbid that I say anything in support of the Misery of Health…. but they seem to be supporting her.

               Or am I misinterpreting this?

               Question.

               A ‘perfect’ person is granted residency and NZ Citizenship.

               Within a year they commit a hideous crime and are jailed for 10 years at a cost of $1000000.

               Upon their release, are they exiled?
               • Craig H …

                 31 January 2016 at 12:46 pm

                 A citizen would not be deported (citizens can’t be deported and citizenship can only be revoked if it was awarded as a result of fraud/false information) – we’d just have to suck it up.

                 A resident could be deported if the offense was committed within 10 years of residence being granted. Citizenship is normally available as an option 5 years after residence is granted (not that everyone who is eligible applies for it).

                 The MoH report was definitely favourable IMO, but has no specifics, so it’s hard to really do much with it.
       • Andre 3.1.1.3

         31 January 2016 at 10:39 am

         The Greens put Mojo Mathers high enough on their list that she became an MP in 2011, thereby picking a fight over getting the required support for her to do her job (and winning it, if I recall correctly).

         I’m curious, Rosemary. Isn’t that a demonstrable step in the right direction big enough and different enough to the other parties for you to go to a polling booth and tick a bit of paper? Your not voting strikes me as a case letting the perfect become the mortal enemy of the good.
         • Rosemary McDonald 3.1.1.3.1

           31 January 2016 at 11:29 am

           “The Greens put Mojo Mathers high enough on their list that she became an MP in 2011, thereby picking a fight over getting the required support for her to do her job (and winning it, if I recall correctly).”

           I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Green Party…but I’m pretty sure that Mojo got her higher ranking on her overall ability rather than her disability.

           The shit storm over facilitating her full participation in the House was a fucking embarrassment to the government.

           Someone should have looked up “reasonable accommodation” before they started gum beating about the extra cost for the technology.

           Roll on the day when we have a permanent wheelchair user elected.

           Also..look up the difference between “equity” and “equality”.

           Again…discrimination…against the disabled community it’s ubiquitous.
           • weka 3.1.1.3.1.1

             31 January 2016 at 11:33 am

             If you have two people of equal ability then choose the person that brings something extra that you want and that is needed and that there is an obligation to provide. Not Mather’s disability but her understanding and skill in disability politics of which much will be informed by her own experiences as a person with a disability.
             • Andre …

               31 January 2016 at 12:13 pm

               Hell, disabled people get such a crap deal I’d advocate some positive discrimination in favour of disabled people. For as long as it takes to eliminate prejudice against disabled people.
           • Andre 3.1.1.3.1.2

             31 January 2016 at 11:45 am

             As far as I’m aware, Mathers is the first MP in New Zealand to need an accommodation for a disability. I think it’s a reasonable inference that the Greens are the first party in New Zealand to not automatically disqualify someone (that happens to have a disability) for office regardless of ability.

             Isn’t the fact that the Greens choose to value her for her ability, rather than disqualify her because of a disability, a huge step forward that’s worthy of support?
           • Pasupial 3.1.1.3.1.3

             31 January 2016 at 3:20 pm

             Rosmary McD

             I’m not privy to the inner workings of the Green Party…but I’m pretty sure that Mojo got her higher ranking on her overall ability rather than her disability.

             I was pretty strongly involved with the GP at the time of the 2014 list selection, and it is largely decided by an STV proportional vote amongst the current members. Though there is a recommended candidate order by party central (which was much the same as the final result – though from memory; Shaw and Browning dropped down, while Hughes and Davidson went up). Also, the final vote can be adjusted for gender parity plus geographical and Māori inclusivity (by dropping or raising candidates a single place – which I don’t think was necessary last time).

             So yes; Mathers was ranked according to perceived ability by those GP members who voted. But part of her ability repertoire was her contacts within the disabled community eg; “Member of Disability Inclusion Group (2009-10)”.

             As for; “the day when we have a permanent wheelchair user elected”, I would suggest that this might one day be Chris Ford who was number 36 on the Green list in 2014 (previously with the Alliance):

             https://home.greens.org.nz/candidates/chris-ford

             He was brought in as a third Dunedin candidate in 2014, and ranked higher than Gallagher who had previously contested several elections for South Dunedin. My impression was that he is understudying for the day when Turei stops contesting the Dunedin North seat; either by either leaving parliament altogether, or going onto contesting the Te Tai Tonga seat (which is where she casts her vote).
             • Rosemary McDonald …

               31 January 2016 at 5:35 pm

               Thanks Parsupial.

               Chris Ford would be an asset in the house.

               He has written some sterling pieces….http://www.voxy.co.nz/blogs/chris-ford

               I might even be tempted to vote Green to increase his chances!
         • Jackal 3.1.1.3.2

           31 January 2016 at 11:31 am

           I think you’ll find that Mojo Mathers only won because the case was high profile and the Greens were able to leverage some public support for her case, not to mention the legal side of things.

           The vast majority of disabled people aren’t so lucky. Most certainly haven’t the profile to exert any political pressure nor the funds to fight the system endlessly through the courts. Most don’t even have the means to access our so called representatives.

           You cannot therefore complain when disabled people become disillusioned in New Zealands broken and repressive system that seems intent on punishing them for their impediments.
           • Andre 3.1.1.3.2.1

             31 January 2016 at 12:09 pm

             Jackal, I agree with all of that. I’d go further and say that to my very limited knowledge Australia and the US (at least California, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) are a lot better at assisting disabled people than New Zealand is.

             It seems to me the Greens have willingly picked a public fight and won it. Surely that’s a good thing, in terms of raising the public profile of disability issues, and showing that the bogeymen raised by people opposed to assisting disabled aren’t actually that scary. That must be an improvement on having all the parties in Parliament determined to ignore disability issues.

             But Rosemary’s and your reaction makes me think I’m missing something, beyond it just not being fast enough progress. I’d sure like to figure out what I am missing.
             • Jackal …

               31 January 2016 at 12:54 pm

               I wouldn’t call one case of a politician gaining some equipment “progress”. Some disabled people would even view that as a bit unfair, so I’m not sure that there’s much benefit for the Greens overall. Most disabled people don’t get $30,000 spent on them to ensure they have access to anything.

               It’s policy that really matters, and National is simply continuing Labour’s archaic policy direction that ensures a lack of available funding and services for disabled people.

               Unfortunately the current system is devised to get rid of anybody it perceives to be non-productive. This includes people with even mild disability that would benefit greatly from rehabilitation and then reintegration back into the workforce.

               I don’t see the broken system changing anytime soon just because of one high profile case.
               • Rosemary McDonald …

                 31 January 2016 at 1:30 pm

                 “It’s policy that really matters, and National is simply continuing Labour’s archaic policy direction that ensures a lack of available funding and services for disabled people.”

                 Agree with everything you say…other than a rider on the above statement.

                 National is continuing Labour’s policy of ensuring that pretty much every dollar that is used to support eligible disabled New Zealanders is channeled through the bank account of a Contracted Provider, or two.

                 The entire MOH:DSS system depends on these Contracted Providers…from assessment through to actual care.

                 MOH:DSS also pours $millions into so called disability’advocacy’ groups…who can be pretty much depended on to keep quiet on the most important issues.

                 And…National has set in law that support for(non ACC) disabled people living as part of a family is the responsibility of that family…and the fact that there is absolutely no ‘entitlement’ to support.

                 None at all.

                 Yet…over a billion dollars per year is funded through MOH:DSS…when I have the time I will find out how much of that goes to paying for actual hands on care, and how much is consumed by the bureaucracy.

                 I don’t see the broken system changing either…but I also don’t want to be a citizen of a country that treats disabled people like crap…so, we’ll keep squeaking away, giving the can another kick.
                 • adam …

                   31 January 2016 at 3:11 pm

                   Slightly off point of what you have been saying Rosemary McDonald. But maybe the finger should be pointed at some of these piss poor providers.

                   Two which spring to mind without much effort on my part as bloody awful service providers or dis-service providers to disable people are:

                   Deaf Aotearoa

                   http://www.deaf.org.nz/

                   and

                   Work Bridge

                   http://workbridgeincorporated.virtuozzo.co.nz/?page=1

                   Bureaucratic and wasteful of public money.

                   Both great at adding extra paper work, and time wasting tools to disabled peoples lives.

                   Old organisations re-branded for the 21st century, to look as P.C as possible.

                   Both really good at hiding there institutionalized racism under a great PR face.
                   • Kay …

                     31 January 2016 at 3:44 pm

                     Adam- Some years ago now the response I got from Workbridge was “You’re unemployable, go away” (direct quote). Needless to say I do not hold them in high regard.

                     Interesting you say institutionalised racisism, because they are also well know for despising certain “categories” of disability and extreme discrimination. For many years it was well known that they didn’t want to know you if you didn’t “look” disabled. I’ve heard conflicting reports in recent years about their change in attitude there so couldn’t say what they’re like now. Obviously I won’t have anything to do with them.
                   • Rosemary McDonald …

                     31 January 2016 at 6:00 pm

                     “…the finger should be pointed at some of these piss poor providers.”

                     Now that, Adam, is a post all of it’s own.

                     Snouts in the trough…and if they don’t perform to an acceptable standard…you know where the fault will lie?

                     “Bureaucratic and wasteful of public money.

                     Both great at adding extra paper work, and time wasting tools to disabled peoples lives.”

                     In a nutshell.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.2

       31 January 2016 at 11:46 am

       Why does Pete want an even higher recidivism level than we have now? Pete would rather that penal policy be a vehicle for Pete’s pathetic vengeance fantasies, rather than the crime prevention strategy that works all over the world.

       Pete’s attitudes and behaviour cause more crime, then Pete throws his toys and refuses to accept responsibility.

       What kind of trash behaves like that?

       PS: Pete is a late newcomer to his handle. I don’t believe the original Pete deserves to be associated with low-life.
4. Manuka AOR 4

   31 January 2016 at 9:53 am

   Bribery and corruption and the TPP:
   http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/01/29/top-tpp-negotiator-resigns-over-bribery-allegations-10000-people-demand
5. Manuka AOR 5

   31 January 2016 at 10:08 am

   “Corporate Crime Runs Rampant”
   Following the Law is optional for some of the mega corporations. And here we are about to sign away our future and our children’s futures to such as these? http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/01/29/corporate-crime-runs-rampant-thanks-rigged-system-elizabeth-warren
6. Paul 6

   31 January 2016 at 10:13 am

   Brilliant article by Dita de Boni about the TPPA and how the establishment smears those who oppose it.
   It’s also a very brave article given the current North Korean media mentality in NZ. Anyone questioning Dear Leader loses their job, it seems.

   https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/dita-deboni-the-smear-campaign-against-people-who-oppose-tppa-has-almost-stifled-proper-debate
   • vto 6.1

     31 January 2016 at 10:22 am

     It is worth noting that the subprime market in the US did not cause the GFC, as debone says. It was merely the spark that ignited the GFC. The GFC was caused by the unsustainable financial system that we have.

     It is still not sustainable today.
   • Manuka AOR 6.2

     31 January 2016 at 10:25 am

     Excerpt:
     “The smear campaign against people who oppose the TPPA – or see much to question in it – has almost completely stifled proper debate about this game-changing deal.

     “Doubters have been called ‘children’, hippies, dirty lefties, communists, ‘anti-trade’, and much worse.

     “Even if they are respected economists, doctors, business leaders or even revered rugby players, they are in for a drubbing for questioning the TPPA.”

     Not sure about the “almost” (stifling debate) – If there has been any open public debate on the signing, in NZ mainstream media, then I think I’ve missed it.
     • Reddelusion 6.2.1

       31 January 2016 at 10:35 am

       Saw one guy on news last night, part of anti TPP car rally, when asked what he did not like about TPP, 10 second pause and then something inane about petrol prices going up Talk about gullible been led
       • dv 6.2.1.1

         31 January 2016 at 10:41 am

         Yep red 0.7% improvement really good by 2030 eh.
         Just who has been gullible then?
         • Reddelusion 6.2.1.1.1

           31 January 2016 at 11:00 am

           i suggest the benefits are underestimated as per previous trade agreements, the real issue as articulated by Helen is the cost of opting out.
           • dv 6.2.1.1.1.1

             31 January 2016 at 11:11 am

             “i suggest the benefits are underestimated

             Yep as I though Gullible.
           • Macro 6.2.1.1.1.2

             31 January 2016 at 2:10 pm

             “ i suggest the benefits are underestimated as per previous trade agreements

             A “reckon” does not an argument make.

             The costs of opting in far out weight the costs of opting out.
       • vto 6.2.1.2

         31 January 2016 at 10:42 am

         Hey reddelusion, why is it that under the TPPA foreign investors can sue the government if it causes them losses through legitimate law changes but domestic investors have no such ability? Why do foreigners enjoy extra and substantial rights over us?

         Wayne Mapp cannot answer this – maybe you can with your amazing insight
         • Reddelusion 6.2.1.2.1

           31 January 2016 at 11:10 am

           Umm maybe vto becuase you are party to a trade agreement that by default reflects cross border transactions and international business , if you are domestic company you are not involved in a such but nz businesses have the same reciprocal rights if they trade internationally. There always have been differences between international and local commerce, just look at tax as one, nz fight with oz over access to apples etc, This is not new and just a red herring, not the end of the world and been over egged to the max,
           • Macro 6.2.1.2.1.1

             31 January 2016 at 2:16 pm

             🙄
             I suggest you will get the egging – all over your face.
             NZ is already treading water and holding back on legislation it can no longer introduce – at the continued cost of hundreds of NZ lives and heavy medical costs – because it is now a party to ISDS disputes under the Chinese FTA.
           • vto 6.2.1.2.1.2

             1 February 2016 at 8:51 am

             No Reddelusion, you miss the issue. Try again.
           • Paul 6.2.1.2.1.3

             1 February 2016 at 8:52 am

             It’s not a free trade agreement.
             It’s a forced trade agreement.
       • Lanthanide 6.2.1.3

         31 January 2016 at 10:56 am

         “Talk about gullible been led”

         Yeah, the odds are he probably voted for National.
       • Gangnam Style 6.2.1.4

         31 January 2016 at 12:52 pm

         You don’t think he was set up my the ‘news crew’? I mean out of all the people there they had to choose him right? Gullible indeed.
         • McFlock 6.2.1.4.1

           31 January 2016 at 2:05 pm

           No need to run straight to media bias:

           Option a) they chose one person, turned out he couldn’t think on his feet (bad luck)

           Option b) they chose many people, selected an average example because most couldn’t think on their feet (good reporting)

           Option c) they chose many people, selected the worst exception (media bias)

           Option d) they showed many people, red’s memory only registers a skewed reflection of the one who matches red’s delusion. (source bias)

           Option e) they chose one person, red’s memory only registers a skewed reflection in order to conform to red’s delusion. (source bias)

           lol
   • Manuka AOR 6.3

     31 January 2016 at 10:33 am

     “Doubters have been called ‘children’, hippies, dirty lefties, communists, ‘anti-trade’, and much worse.”
     That “much worse” is true. Someone posted a link here on TS yesterday which, when followed through, claimed that people on the left who opposed the TPP (and they specifically named several well known people) encouraged “violence against people and property”. (my emph) I will see if I can dig up that comment and link.
     • Manuka AOR 6.3.1

       31 January 2016 at 11:27 am

       http://nominister.blogspot.co.nz/2016/01/the-profile-of-those-opposed-to-tppa.html#links
       “So, if we look at those who oppose the signing of the TPPA… on the Left, assorted anarchists aided and abetted by the likes of the Bomber Bradburys, Sue Bradfords, John Mintos and Hone Harawiras of this world who believe in ‘direct action’ read violence against people and property) (emph added)
7. Paul 7

   31 January 2016 at 10:32 am

   Bernard Hickey on the Auckland housing bubble.

   ‘Yet there are plenty of similarities. The debt under America’s housing bubble was only sustainable with very low interest rates forever. Anyone supremely confident about Auckland’s housing market simply needs to answer the question: how would it cope with 10 per cent mortgage rates and a 10 per cent unemployment rate. Unlikely right now, but plausible over the long run.’

   http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11582389
   • Reddelusion 7.1

     31 January 2016 at 10:38 am

     One big difference here is in the U.S. Mortgage are non recourse loans, you can just walk away and leave the keys in letter box, not the case here
     • Paul 7.1.1

       31 January 2016 at 11:01 am

       Did you read his article?
       • Reddelusion 7.1.1.1

         31 January 2016 at 3:41 pm

         Just did and I see hickey agrees with me, he simply raises the ? If interest rates rise to 10 pc what would happen, why not 20, why not 30, of course there is a tipping point but the US example is very different to NZ, ( the housing market itself, non recourse loans, Problem was US wide, key driver was Fannie Mae and fanny Mac, both gov institutions set up to encourage house ownership, creation of mortgage back bonds and the derivatives market that grew around these underlying bonds, level of sub prime mortgages and fraud etc etc ) By the way great movie the big short
     • Lanthanide 7.1.2

       31 January 2016 at 11:02 am

       Yes, Bernard says that in the article. Perhaps you should have read it.
       • Paul 7.1.2.1

         31 January 2016 at 11:36 am

         I know he said that.
         Then qualified it by saying he have worrying similarities.
         • Lanthanide 7.1.2.1.1

           31 January 2016 at 11:56 am

           You need to learn how threaded comments work. I was replying to Reddelusion, not you.
           • Paul 7.1.2.1.1.1

             31 January 2016 at 12:05 pm

             Sorry – do understand threads but did not look carefully
8. Reddelusion 8

   31 January 2016 at 10:32 am

   Modest turn out at TPP protest, in the 10s, a petition of 4000, hardly a sign of huge anti sentiment against TPP, I suggest labour on a real loser here, can they go below 22pc , suggest not. That’s their bedrock close mind support
9. Ray 9

   31 January 2016 at 10:38 am

   Andrew Little’s ‘State of the Nation’ speech time has been brought forward by an hour
   Who is organising this, late changes to the time, maybe less people attending certainly disorganisation, white anting anyone?
   • BM 9.1

     31 January 2016 at 10:45 am

     Cold be something to do with this.

     I wouldn’t want to be outdoors when it hits, especially under trees or in a rotunda.

     http://www.metservice.com/towns-cities/auckland/auckland-central
     • weka 9.1.1

       31 January 2016 at 11:06 am

       Looks like they’re pushing their luck http://metvuw.com/forecast/forecast.php?type=rain&region=nzni&noofdays=10
       • Rosemary McDonald 9.1.1.1

         31 January 2016 at 6:16 pm

         “Looks like they’re pushing their luck”

         Lucky indeed for us here in the Waikato. An hour of torrential rain, accompanied by rolling thunder and lightning.

         Preceded by an hour of rolling thunder…with us scanning Mt Pirongia and begging the rain falling there to come our way.

         At a rough guesstimate, we collected about 10,000 litres in our water tanks.

         This is gold in the middle of summer.

         Bummer about the cricket though.
         • weka 9.1.1.1.1

           31 January 2016 at 8:24 pm

           Crikey, lucky you indeed! Pretty dry down south too despite a cold summer.
   • Anne 9.2

     31 January 2016 at 11:47 am

     I understand the reason is because heavy, thundery showers have been forecast from about mid-afternoon so they’ve brought the time forward in the hope they will miss them. They have also advised members by email “to bring an umbrella”. If it buckets down, they’ve arranged to move to a nearby venue (prob. in the university) but they would want to avoid that if possible.
10. Chooky 10

    31 January 2016 at 10:53 am

    ‘Foxcatcher’ is a great film, based on fact, which shows what can happen when the poncy self-entitled wealthy takeover the lives and education of the impoverished gifted…exploitation, self delusion, self aggrandisement, abuse….and the destruction of excellence

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8361stZ8n0w

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxcatcher

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1100089/

    Labour is on to an Election winner if it makes Tertiary education FREE for New Zealand’s best and brightest youth .
    • Cricklewood 10.1

      31 January 2016 at 12:34 pm

      “Tertiary education FREE for New Zealand’s best and brightest youth”

      Who gets to define that? Or do you mean anyone that wishes to enroll in tertiary education?
      • Chooky 10.1.1

        1 February 2016 at 9:11 am

        To spell it out: at the moment Tertiary education is for the often mediocre children of the NZ wealthy , especially at post grad level…and overseas paying students

        New Zealand ‘A’ grade students ( NZs best and brightest) who have been invited to do honours by their universites have often been forced to decline

        …They already have $40,000 + debt for undergrad degrees( unless they have rich parents who pay for them)

        ….and jonkey Nactional has ensured there are no more student loans for these ‘A’ grade students invited and wishing to do further postgrad degrees…(and if there were more student loans it would increase their debt further)

        No young New Zealander should be forced into debt to pursue an education for which they are entitled and able

        This is why Labour is on to a winner by making undergraduate and other Tertiary studies free
    • Herodotus 10.2

      31 January 2016 at 3:05 pm

      Meanwhile We continual to underfund our schooling system, IMO better to adequately fund the education for every school at the expense of tertiary and the benefit of the few.
11. weka 11

    31 January 2016 at 11:20 am

    Good graphic showing equality vs equity,

    http://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equity/

    What is equity? In the simplest terms, it means fairness, which is not necessarily the same thing as equality.

    It’s not about everybody getting the same thing,” Parker said. “It’s about everybody getting what they need in order to improve the quality of their situation.”
12. weka 12

    31 January 2016 at 11:31 am

    Not sure how true this is but it’s amusing,

    From now on every post about Donald Trump on the Huffington Post will carry the following disclaimer:

    Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

    http://realtimepolitics.com/2016/01/30/huffington-post-adding-disclaimer-to-all-posts-about-donald-trump/

    Example,

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-foundation-charity_us_56aa90bae4b00b033aae659f
    • Manuka AOR 12.1

      31 January 2016 at 11:38 am

      Heh! Imagine if the equivalent was happening in media over here – any articles about certain serial liars contained a disclaimer to that effect.
      • weka 12.1.1

        31 January 2016 at 2:34 pm

        Yeah although to be fair they’d have to use a lot more ink on disclaimers than the Huffington Post.
13. Whispering Kate 13

    31 January 2016 at 11:38 am

    Just read Heather du Plessis’ column in the Herald and wonder what planet she is on. Where did she buy this house in Auckland? Where I live on the North Shore we have been inundated with immigrants to our suburb – they just LOVE the North Shore – I don’t know if it is the brick homes/no maintenance thingee or the proximity to private schools and the university, the beaches or whatever. In our street alone we now have 4 lone standing European NZ owners and the rest are Asian which has to be now about 95% ownership. No problems with us, mainly they keep their homes tidy and are quiet, absent owners are a trial as they leave their properties unkempt is the only bugbear as it brings down the value of the area. The only negative is, it has meant a slow evacuation of our NZ neighbours from the street and an isolation for the remaining left with language difficulties, cultural problems and a real sense of dislocation in our street life and interactions with neighbours.

    We probably will leave in the end because of this scenario – do these demographers ever research how this affects communities. I see in the future NZ Aucklanders will be forced out of AK because of rate increases and the cost of living plus the sense we are losing our city by a thousand cuts to immigrants with bottomless pockets. The latest house to be sold was bought by a Chinese man for his 21 year old son – it was $1.5 million – how can ordinary New Zealanders in our low wage economy ever compete with that. Just my grouch for the day.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11582356
    • Paul 13.1

      31 January 2016 at 11:51 am

      I believe same problems around Kumeu with absent owners and land banking.

      As to blame, at the macro level you can blame neoliberal system that promotes greed and selfish motivation.
      Both domestic and overseas speculators are to blame as they snap up properties, driving up prices so young people can’t afford a home to live in.
      Of course, much is speculation and anecdotal because our corporate government doesn’t collect data on how many houses some speculators own.
      • Macro 13.1.1

        31 January 2016 at 2:30 pm

        Yep you can blame me…..
        Sold our property in Coatesville (near Kumeu for those not familiar with the area) to a Chinese buyer – who has never visited the property in 6 years as far as I know. Rented out to a kiwi couple.
        Interesting discussion on the machinations of chinese funding for these properties.
        It was a very long settlement in our case, and now I understand why!
    • Rae 13.2

      31 January 2016 at 12:11 pm

      And fair enough too.
14. Jenny Kirk 14

    31 January 2016 at 3:09 pm

    This from the start of Labour’s policy on Future of Education, announced today –

    “Labour’s Working Futures Plan will provide three years of free post-school education across a person’s life so New Zealanders can thrive in the 21st century economy.

    The nature of work is changing constantly. To compete into the future and seize opportunities as they arise we need one of the best educated workforces in the world.

    Our Working Futures Plan means that no matter what path someone wants to take after school, be it university or an apprenticeship, they will be able to gain the skills they need to succeed without being shackled with years of debt.

    It will be available throughout a person’s lifetime, so that it can be used for retraining or if someone changes career part way through their working life………
15. Chris Lewis 15

    31 January 2016 at 3:52 pm

    When will socialist ever learn.
    There is no such thing as ‘free’.
    There is no money tree.
    Most Kiwis understand this, why not socialists ?
    • Craig H 15.1

      31 January 2016 at 6:33 pm

      Nothing in the policy suggests it’s free – it’s costed and paid for.
16. fisiani 16

    31 January 2016 at 4:22 pm

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22000973

    You may be surprised to find out what social class you are in.
    • joe90 16.1

      31 January 2016 at 4:48 pm

      Apparently I’m traditional working class so no, I’m not surprised.

      Result: the class group you most closely match is:
      Traditional working class

      This class group scores low for economic, social and cultural factors, but they do have some financial security. According to the Great British Class Survey results, lots of people in this group:

      Own their own home
      Are older
      Tend to mix socially with people similar to themselves
    • John Shears 16.2

      31 January 2016 at 5:12 pm

      Fizzi please go away, this thread is on a New Zealand blog why would we want to do a so-called class test that you have found in a site based in England? or are you a recent immigrant from the UK.?
      Class was one of the reasons for my forbears emigrating to New Zealand in the mid 19th century.
      You do realise also don’t you that England is where the Union Jack comes from , it is their Flag. Yep that’s right the very same as the miniature version of it that sits in the top left corner of our New Zealand Ensign/Flag.
      I hope John, your leader. doesn’t read this , he could be a bit upset that his favourite stirrer favours the Union Jack the very symbol on a flag that he is trying to get rid of.
      Funny old world innit?
17. sabine 17

    31 January 2016 at 8:24 pm

    sad is to insignificant a word to describe this ‘natural’ desaster

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-30/fire-ravages-world-heritage-area-tasmania-central-plateau/7127300

    Wilderness photographer and bushwalker Dan Broun has just returned from the Central Plateau.

    Vision he filmed shows how the fires have raced through the area, which is home to unique alpine flora including pencil pines, king billy pines and cushion plants, some more than 1,000 years old.

    Mr Broun walked four hours into the bushfire affected areas on Saturday.

    “The scene is complete and utter devastation. There is kilometres of burnt ground, everything is dead,” he said.

    He said small pockets of areas protected by rock escaped the fire.

    “I also witnessed devastated wildlife; burnt wallabies, dead wombats and the like,” said Mr Broun.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS