A response to Whaleoil’s exclusive on me and the Internet Party



Good old Cameron. Thank you for the publicity.

Couple of things.

1: I stood down from my role as a consultant with the MANA Party last year.

2: What Cameron is showing is an early draft of a proposal tabled at a meeting with a whole bunch of other ideas late last year.

3: The idea of me as a candidate was more to kick around ideas.

I am a Political consultant, this is what I do, this was a proposal I was asked to submit. The moment I start working for the Internet Party if I am offered a role I will be shouting it from the rooftops as I think the ideas of an Internet Party focused on civil rights in the online 21st Century and the economic prosperity that could generate for NZ is the future and anything that moves us away from a dairy dependent, drill and mine economy is a good thing.

But all it was, was a proposal. If that changes, I will let you all know.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com


    • Fully support the idea of a internet Party

      anyone that has views in freedom of the internet and for the user as well as my vote.

      And I wish I was on Dotcoms payrole

      where are the free teashirts 🙂

  1. Kia ora Martyn,
    Does the Internet Party have policies about tangata whenua, Maori consiltaion, and the rights of Maori in regards to digital media? Genuine questiom, not tryong yo be snarky or anything.
    Cheers, Nessa.

    • How can anyone have “Rights to digital media”.Maori have no more right to it than European NZers. It is no different to the light from the sun or the air that we breath or do you want that next. Stop expecting things to be just handed to you for doing nothing as its becoming old hat. Get off your backside and get part of it like others have to, honestly.

          • If the party wants to get more than a handful of votes next election it will laugh off such a question about Maori rights.

            It can never win a significant number of votes off a real Maori party so its a waste of political capital.

        • Blah, Blah, Blah Why don’t you go and have a look at the real founding document, the littlewood treaty and read it a few times until you understand.
          How can you honestly say that maori have a claim on digital rights when its something that doesn’t physically exist, wasn’t around in the early part of this country’s history. It’s like the cell phone network claims. What a crock of #$$%, something else that wasn’t around. It is just a select few who are getting all the cream when Hone Citizen gets nothing. Most of the Treaty payouts are only feathering a fews nests in the tribe not the ones who really need it or deserve it. Many live in so called poverty while the Tribe on paper is wealthy. Shouldn’t it be shared out to help all not just the select few.

      • Brian, if you can stop jerking your knee all over the place, take a moment to read the Treaty – especially Article 2;

        “Principle of self-management (the rangatiratanga principle)
        Article 2 guarantees to Māori hapū (tribes) the control and enjoyment of those resources and taonga that it is their wish to retain. The preservation of a resource base, restoration of tribal self-management, and the active protection of taonga, both material and cultural, are necessary elements of the Crown’s policy of recognising rangatiratanga.
        The Government also recognised the Court of Appeal’s description of active protection, but identified the key concept of this principle as a right for iwi to organise as iwi and, under the law, to control the resources they own.”

        Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

        So no one is expecting anyone to be “handed to you for doing nothing “.

        We expect only that the Treaty be honoured. Not much to ask for, eh?

          • This question is nonsence.
            The treaty both recognises existing rights as well as setting a framework into the future. The treaty did not cease as soon as it was signed. Are Maori expected to behave as Amish?

            • That is absolute crap. “Article 2 guarantees to Māori hapū (tribes) the control and enjoyment of those resources and taonga that it is their wish to retain.” RETAIN. You cannot retain something you never had in the first place. Digital media didn’t exist in 1840, so it can’t have been a resource then that was even contemplated.

            • No Frank. But ‘pakeha’ are not making any claims to such a resource as an ethnic grouping. Only Maori.

          • And the Maori had a resource called ‘digital media’ in 1840, Frank?

            Not only is your comment deliberately belittling and insulting, it is ignorant.

            Intrinsicvalue, if you knew anything of New Zealand history you would know that Maori were very quick to take up the latest information technology, and just as quickly, were racist colonial efforts made to suppress it.

            The first newspaper ever printed and circulated in this country was Te Hokioi named after a mythical bird that spread news, preceding the New Zealand Herald by two years This Maori language newspaper was so influential that orders were given to the colonial troops who invaded the Waikato to capture and destroy it. During the war, to prevent capture the press was hidden and though colonial troops never managed to capture the printing press. Te Hokioi was effectively prevented from being published. Leaving the New Zealand Herald as the country’s sole voice for recording the war.

            Intrinsicvalue in opposing an authentic Maori media presence, you are building on this past history of bloody and violent suppression on behalf of a one sided racist Pakeha viewpoint.

            • Who is opposing an authentic Maori media presence? As long as it is commercially viable, then all power to it. My point is simply that claiming that digital media was anticipated by the ToW is absolutely crap.

        • But thats the perception that it is something that didn’t exist and now someone wants free money or rights from it when they don’t deserve it. This country will never ” Be One ” while this happens, oh my god then there is the mystical taniwha that only seems to move from blocking a road when it’s paw is crossed with silver.

          • “…then there is the mystical taniwha that only seems to move from blocking a road when it’s paw is crossed with silver.
            Brian of Mt Wellington

            That this bigoted racist drivel is presented as fact, reinforces the need for an independent Maori media.

            • Jenny do you not know about the Waikato taniwha? This is nothing more than money grabbing, wrapped up in superstitious cultural drivel.

  2. While I believe you that you’re not on any payroll, it would have been sensible to disclose the fact that you’re considering involvement with Dotcom’s party when writing about them here on the Daily Blog. A simple:

    Disclaimer: I have been involved in some early discussions to join Dotcom’s political venture as a candidate or paid consultant. This situation is not in place as of yet.

    Since you haven’t, it does now colour a lot of your blogging activity on the subject of Kim Dotcom. Rightly or wrongly.

  3. Martyn says: “I think the ideas of an Internet Party focused on civil rights in the online 21st Century and the economic prosperity that could generate for NZ is the future and anything that moves us away from a dairy dependent, drill and mine economy is a good thing.”

    Amen to that. It’s also a good thing to wait and see what comes from the Internet Party once the party is over. (surprise me)

  4. There will always be a right in NZ politics, but the one we have at present is particularly odious, mean-spirited, and unintelligent. Having sacrificed many important values on the altar of growth it can’t even achieve growth.

    KimDotCom doesn’t seem to have those particular vices, so that his addition to the NZ political scene might turn out quite well.

    I would say the same of Colin Craig, who seems much more sensible in person than the hysterical press reactions would indicate.

    While KDC has work for Martyn, he’s not getting chummy with the dark side. If he’d hired Slater I’d be more concerned.

  5. Question Bomber isn,t Dotcom a right winger ok it was a draft proposal
    so that arsehole Slater was wrong again not that he would care he is all about destabilising the opposition he would be proud of little Jordan and his girl Collins for their one/two on the CTU in the 2 days the mongrels

  6. Regarding KDC’s party – I’ll withhold comment until I know more about their policies.

    But if it’s a libertarian-style Party that draws votes from the Nats – more power to their elbow.

    Anything (legal) that results in the destruction of this government and the demise of Key’s career in Parliament is one that I will welcome.

    KDC may well end up being to Key what Bob Jones’ “New Zealand Party” was to Muldoon and his government.

    • There is a possibility they could draw votes away from Labour, greens, mana etc as their voters tend towards a younger demographic. Plus it is not possible to say with certaintly they would not ally with national, they may have more in common politically than we think, time will tell.
      If the price to pay for a major attack on unions and expansion on mining is a relaxing of copyright law enforcement, national would probably take it.

      Hope i’m wrong.

    • Come on Frank you don’t need to know his policies, he is a wealthy man and wealthy people are not left wingers we all know that.

  7. Will the Internet Party consider changing the way in which Sky TV is taking over All the Free to Air broadcasting and bring back Free to Air Public Broadcasting which has been butchered over the last few years?

    • Yes I agree Kiwipom.. the monopoly of sky T.V is an outrage ..makes my blood boil when I think of New Zealand continuing to sell out to them!!!
      Ha Ha when Sky T.V’s lacky promoters come calling ( always at tea time) they get an ear full when they query as to WHY I don’t add Sky to my list of monthly bills.

    • I hate to use the stupid argument of ‘well just don’t watch it’…but I’m going to.
      I’d suggest disconnecting from TV – freeview and all. Then spend your money on a cable internet connection and hook up your computer to your TV. You can avoid advertising and watch pretty much anything. Also the news is great as we only really want to watch about 5-8 mins of the 6pm news anyway.
      I did this a while ago and now TV channels make me go crazy. I realised I was just passively taking in the information they wanted me to.

  8. NZ needs more minor parties, to get above the artificially high 5% threshold, to stop the stupidity of a (mainly) two party system.
    The greens are doing a good job of trying to stop the two party system, but it’s (sadly) doubtful that they’ll get much above 10% at elections, in the foreseeable future).

    So good on KDC. Let’s see what you stand for and we can comment accordingly. Maybe he may even stick to what he says he’s for, UNLIKE this present Government, the Maori party etc etc.
    And I don’t mind if he has no views-policies on Maoris issues and lots of others. He-the party can always abstain or just back the Government on issues they have no particular view on.

  9. While I am a bit mystified about Martyn’s involvement with the Internet Party, I doubt that he is making “buckets” of money doing consultancy or whatever, same as he did for Mana.

    I am for some of the presumed goals of that party, but for me personally, it is too narrow a political agenda to get my vote. Any other established party will only need to adopt the bulk of what Kim Dotcom’s party will stand for, and thus make his party a bit obsolete.

    We are having a rush of new party announcements, of also other already established new parties trying to get more media attention (The Conservatives come to mind), and it is very early days to make serious presumptions or projections even, who may gain how much of the vote.

    Even the Conservatives may become obsolete, should NZ First dare to take over some of their policies. But then again, Colin seems to have some nutty ideas, and I do not think Winston will want too much nutty stuff that he and his party would be associated with.

    Brendan Horan can celebrate today, but while some may like him and support him, I cannot see him gaining much in the way of votes.

    Mana still needs to make clear, whether it is just an alternative “Maori Party” that Hone wants to promote and win votes with, or whether it will actually be more inclusive, as it was intended to be, standing for all those that are disadvantaged in this society.

    Who knows what other parties, or reshaped parties will gain attention in the coming months, some more will come.

    As for Martyn, I hope he will make the right decisions for himself and those that support him. If he goes with Dotcom, I wonder where their “social” side will be found, as public broadcasting is certainly very important, but social and just policies must go further than that.

    Cam Slater seems to have done some unintended promotion for Dotcom and his party now, and he does not seem to be such a bright guy after all. He was on Radio Live this afternoon, and tried to charm Duncan Garner, who did talk like with him like with a “good old mate”. They were going on about people claiming to be “journalists”, writing “good things” about Dotcom and in secret being associated with him. That was apparently a nasty thing to do, Slater suggested, and Garner agreed.

    Hearing those two made me sick, and very aware, how hypocritical the shit MSM are. They are all biased, Garner and the rest, and they are so, because they get paid by commercial stations and media, who live off advertising revenue. So they do not want any change, they do not want more public broadcasting competing with them, they do not want to bite the hand that feeds them. They have no true interests in social and political change, nor in economic change from the status quo.

    And then going on about Edgeler, Bomber and Thompson getting “paid” by political players, what a joke for that to come from Slater? Tell us, Cameron Slater, who has been paying for your income and perks for all those years? Where are you earning your dosh from? Who is paying you, and who do you work and network with, who belong to what party or parties?

    Cam Slater is a sick joke, and today he proved what an utter hypocrite and idiot he is. Sad to see though, that the MSM give such a man credit. It shows how “trustworthy” the MSM are, and how little credit they deserve!

    • “nor in economic change from the status quo.”

      Low inflation, low mortgage interest rates, one of the highest GDP Growth rates in the OECD, rapidly declining Current Account deficit and household debt, falling unemployment….who wants any change?

      • @ Intrinsicvalue, your list of “achievements” are questionable;

        Low inflation

        Low inflation was a result of the Global Financial Crisis; recession; and low interest rates set by Reserve Banks around the world.

        In what way could the National Party be credited with that? Or are you suggesting that the GFC/frecession was caused by the Nats???

        Wow! That’s a step even the most ardent Leftists never took!

        low mortgage interest rates,

        Ditto. See above; interest rates are set by the RBNZ, not governments.

        By the way, when interest rates start to climb this year (expected to reach 7.5 to 8%!) – will you also “credit” that to the National Party?

        Or will you change your pseudonym and reject any cause/effect by the Nats?

        one of the highest GDP Growth rates in the OECD

        Or… the GDP growth rate could be a natural consequence of coming out of a recession; strong consumer demand; and Australian and Chinese economies continuing to buy our raw materials?

        Strange that you credit the Nats with this. The same was never creditted to the Labour government in the mid-2000s, when our growth was also high and unemployment was at 3.4% – contrasted to 7.2% currently.

        rapidly declining Current Account deficit


        Dunno where you get that bullshit from, but Stats NZ reported that ” New Zealand’s seasonally adjusted current account deficit was $2.6 billion in the September 2013 quarter, Statistics New Zealand said today. This is a $0.3 billion larger deficit than in the June 2013 quarter, and the largest current account deficit since the December 2008 quarter.”.


        household debt,

        More rubbish.

        House hold debt is rising, not falling; http://nzier.org.nz/publications/nz-is-no-greece-or-italy-but-needs-to-face-up-to-long-term-issues-nzier-insight-41-marc

        falling unemployment

        At 7.2% (2013 Census), our unemployment rate is nothing to crow about. And considering that under-employment is a factor, where working ONE HOUR a week constitutes “employment”, it appears that this is a jobless recovery.

        All in all, your parroting of National propaganda (in time for the 2014 election) is derisable.

        • Frank you are dreaming.

          Here are the facts:

          1. Inflation – 2008 Q3 Annual 5.1%, 2013 Q3 Annual 1.4%.
          2. Mortgage Interest Rates – 10/08 9.6%, 10/13 5.8%
          3. GDP Growth – 2008 Q4 (0.8%), 2013 Q2 2.7%
          4. Current Account as % of GDP – 2008 (8.8%), 2013 (4.3%)
          5. Household Debt as % of disposable income – 2008 151.9%, 2013 147.6%
          6. Unemployment – 2008 4.5% (and rising), 2013 6.2% (and falling).

          The Lab’s had NZ in a recession before the GFC at a time of record terms of trade, an astonishing achievement probably second only to the economic management of soviet russia.

          Keep up Frank, keep up.

          • Oh and one other thing. When making economic comparisons, you need to use moving baselines, not static ones. For example, household debt has to be related to household incomes, current account deficit to GDP etc. Economics 101 my boy.

            • Feel free to post sources for your claims, Intrinsicvalue .

              And as I pointed out about (and which you studiously ignored), inflation and interest rates are the domain of the Reserve Bank – not the government of the day.

              Surely you knows that already?

              As for GDP growth – comparing the last quarter of 2008 when the GFC/recession was upon us, with the second quarter of 2013 – coming out of recession – (source please?) is comparing apples with oranges.

              If that’s the technique you’re adopting, then compare unemployment at 3.4% (2006/07) under Labour with National at 7.2%.

              By the way, your quoted figure of 6.2% unemployment (using HLFS stats) is inferior to the 2013 Census figure of 7.2%. The latter has a larger data base – ie, the entire country.

              So basically what you and your fellow National sychophants are doing is (a) mis-using data figures and (b) claiming credit where none exists.

              Is that the best your shonkey Party can do?

              And will you and your fellow Tories claim responsibility when interest rates hike to 7.5% to 8% this year?

              Like hell. Tories don’t do “responsibility” do they?

              • 1. Inflation and interest rates are heavily influenced by Govt economic policy. For example a barking mad party could print money to fund it’s lavish expenditure promises. That is inflationary. A barking mad party could change the RB act and widen the inflation target. Surely you know this Frank?
                2. Comparing GDP figures is a direct and valid comparison of economic performance. Why were we going into recession before the rest of the world Frank? And why are coming out of it stronger than most?
                3. Unemployment – the data is here http://www.stats.govt.nz/. Statistics NZ was the source for most of my data.
                4. The data is factual, and independent. Which is why a whole raft of international commentators are singing NZ’s praises. It’s inconvenient for the left, but true nonetheless.

          • By the way, if we’re going to discuss your Party’s track record, let’s get on to,

            * the increasing wealth/wage gap,

            * increasing child poverty,

            * lost jobs in the manufacturing/export sector,

            * the high NZ dollar,

            * lack of affordable housing,

            * increased State surveillance powers,

            * corporate welfare and subsidies,

            * etc, etc.

            Want to go there, by any chance?

            • Yes, yes, yes!

              1. the increasing wealth/wage gap
              A myth. http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/income-inequality.aspx

              2. increasing child poverty,
              Cite please. If you go near the study that included the absence of sky tv as a measure of poverty I will be coming back with both barrells.

              3. lost jobs in the manufacturing/export sector,
              Were you not around when Labour and the Greens were humiliated with this recently Frank?
              Manufacturing is growing in NZ, the regions are growing, unemployment is declining.

              “In the September 2013 quarter compared with the June 2013 quarter:
              The number of filled jobs rose 0.2 percent.
              Average ordinary-time weekly earnings (for full-time equivalent jobs) rose 1.3 percent, to reach $1,049.16.
              Unadjusted, average ordinary-time hourly earnings rose 1.6 percent, to reach $27.98.
              In the September 2013 quarter compared with the September 2012 quarter:
              The number of filled jobs rose 1.9 percent.
              Average ordinary-time weekly earnings (by FTE) rose 2.9 percent.
              Unadjusted, average ordinary-time hourly earnings rose 2.6 percent.”

              4. the high NZ dollar,
              Yes, well that happens when other countries express confidence in our economic performance Frank.

              5. lack of affordable housing,
              Absolute myth. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11138176.

              6. increased State surveillance powers,
              Oh you won’t get an argument from me on that one.

              7. corporate welfare and subsidies,
              Huh? Resorting to David Parkerisms doesn’t compensate for a lack of real data.

              Come on Frank, we’ve never been in better shape!

                  • 1.

                    For example a barking mad party could print money to fund it’s lavish expenditure promises. That is inflationary. A barking mad party could change the RB act and widen the inflation target.

                    A barking mad party could turn NZ into a Soviet Socialist Republic or a haven for UFO Cultists. But it’s not likely to happen is it? Because no one would elect such a party into power. Therefore you’re using hyperbole/straw-man to try to prove your point. Pathetic really.

                    As for “widen[ing] the inflation target” – that’s been done. Once. From 0-2% to 0-3%. Not exactly “barking mad” or very radical, really.

                    Surely you know this Frank?

                    Indeed. That’s why I’m reminding you.

                    You’re welcome.


                    Comparing GDP figures is a direct and valid comparison of economic performance. Why were we going into recession before the rest of the world Frank?

                    Reference please?

                    Because according to the RBNZ, you’re talking bollicks: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/real_gdp/

                    And why are coming out of it stronger than most?

                    Because we’re fortunate enough to have Australia and China as our two main markets for exporting raw and processed materials. And considering that Australia and China were the only two nations to mostly escape the effects of the GFC and resultant recession – that’s a fairly clear indication, eh?

                    Jeezus H, this is fairly f*****g basic stuff, Intrinsicvalue. Surely you must know all this already?!


                    Unemployment – the data is here http://www.stats.govt.nz/. Statistics NZ was the source for most of my data.

                    Try this: http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-about-national-highlights/work.aspx

                    The Census 2013 information is more accurate because the data-base consists of approx 4.4 million people. The HLFS, by contrast, survey’s 16,000 households: http://www.stats.govt.nz/survey-participants/a-z-of-our-surveys/household-labour-force-survey.aspx

                    Your call.


                    The data is factual, and independent. Which is why a whole raft of international commentators are singing NZ’s praises. It’s inconvenient for the left, but true nonetheless.

                    So you say. Source please. Otherwise it’s more bollicks.


                    Oh and incidentally, interest rates are not ‘the domain’ of the RB. You might want to read this http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary_policy/policy_targets_agreement/4944840.html that shows you are talking through your hat. The role of the RB is price stability. The RB uses interest rates (the OCR specifically) as one of it’s tools to achieve that, but market interest rates are set by many factors. Economics 101.

                    WTF are you burbling about?! “The RB uses interest rates” – which is what I originally pointed out to you. The link you presented supported my comment about the RBNZ setting interest rates. Don’t be such an arse.

                    Thank you anyway for backing up my statement with that link – but I had it bookmarked already.


                    “On Manufacturing…have a look at this graph, showing the trend in manufacturing activity. Look at the uptick from the end of the Labour Govt to today…http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/manufacturing_and_production/EconomicSurveyofManufacturing_HOTPSep13qtr.aspx”

                    You’re not f*****g paying attention, are you? I wrote in my 3.50pm post,

                    “lost jobs in the manufacturing/export sector”

                    To wit,

                    “Manufacturing showed the largest decline, with 29,472 fewer people employed in this industry in 2013 than in 2006. This was a 13.5 percent decrease. “


                    If you’re going to address a point someone has raised – at least read it properly so you know what you’re replying to!!


                    lack of affordable housing,
                    Absolute myth.

                    You must be the only person in New Zealand daft enough to spout such rubbish.

                    Keep believing it, IV, and in your delusional world of Planet Key, it might come true one day!

                    Meanwhile, Reality has passed you by…


                    the increasing wealth/wage gap
                    A myth. http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/income-inequality.aspx

                    A “myth” you say? You must be self-delusional.

                    Even Key has acknowledged a growth in inequality,

                    “Prime Minister John Key has acknowledged that the “growing underclass” he promised to tackle in 2008 has probably grown further – rather than decreased – during his first term in government.

                    Mr Key made the concession yesterday when asked about progress with the underclass, saying it depended what measures were used but recessions tended to disproportionately affect low income earners and young people.

                    He said he had visited a number of budgeting services and food banks “and I think it’s fair to say they’ve seen an increase in people accessing their services. So that situation is there.”


                    And this report,

                    “The gap between rich and poor in New Zealand is at its highest level ever, according to a new report from the Ministry of Social Development.

                    The Household Incomes in New Zealand report shows the gap widened substantially in 2011, as average incomes fell for the first time since the 1990s.


                    The report also showed that 21% of New Zealand children were living in poverty, up from 15% in 2007.”


                    And from the MSD,

                    “This greater income inequality has seen New Zealand move into 18th place out of 25 in the OECD in terms of income inequality from 1982 to 2004 (Ministry of Social Development 2007). Over the preceding two decades New Zealand experienced the largest growth in inequalities in the OECD (2000 figures), moving from 2 Gini coefficient points below the OECD average to 3 Gini points above (Ministry of Social Development 2007:45-46). One indication of the impact of these inequalities has been that relative poverty rates, including child poverty rates, have increased. “


                    I could go on and demolish the rest of your bullshit – but I simply can’t be arsed.

                    Your selective use/mis-use of information brands you as delusional; someone living in National’s La-La Land.

                    • 1. Pure speculation on your part. Both Labour and the Greens have talked about easing the RB target, and they are not that far from Govt are they? But it was an illustration in economics for you, which showed it was possible.

                      2. If things are as you say with regards to China and Australia, why did we go into a recession at all, and why are we now ‘coming out of one’? Your argument just doesn’t stack up Frank. On the recession….http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10534347

                      3. You’re cherry picking, and in a way that is redundant. Read my post on the data…it is trends I was referring to. Economics 101.

                      4. I’ve given you cites Frank. Do some homework.

                      5. YOu really are ignorant Frank. The RB does not ‘set interest rates’, and no-where in the link does it say they do. And you are slippery. ““The RB uses interest rates” – which is what I originally pointed out to you.” No you didn’t Frank. Here’s the quote “interest rates are the domain of the Reserve Bank”. You were wrong Frank. The RB set’s the OCR. The market sets the rates.

                      6. No, you need to read your own post, and then my reply. You said the manufacturing/export sector. It is not only manufacturers that export Frank. And again you are cherry picking. Manufacturing confidence is high at the moment, the only perceived threat being an election of a Labour/Greens govt!

                      7. I gave you a cite Frank. It’s a myth, just like the LB/Greens manufacturing crises (that coincided with some of the best Manufacturing data in years), the power crisis, and every other crisis the left wants to dream up.

                      We’re in great shape Frank.

              • INTRINSICVALUE:

                Your link from point #1 is old data – from 2011-2012. Also, the difference in income after housing costs is only one part of inequality. This all gets compounded through the increased cost of living, in particular the cost of food and transport at the moment. You have linked to incomplete and old information. Beware of MSD graphs, they are designed for the simpletons.

                As for your point #5 claiming that housing affordability across NZ is improving – this is classic granny Herald nonsense. Although to be fair they did simply repeat Massey’s findings. But the problem here is that the research came from the School of Economics and Finance which suggests a neanderthalic methodology where they think they can explain complex issues with a calculator. They have simplified housing affordability by using ‘average weekly earnings’.
                If me and the CEO of Telecom were buying a house, do you know how affordable housing would be ‘on our average income’?

                And the cost of buying a house is only one part of our housing problems. Renting is another issue on top of that.
                Try to think a bit more laterally and don’t try to reduce every social issue to a number. These are complex social issues that economists cannot grasp. Quantifying qualitative problems will only give you a partial snapshot at best, and it might be something to explore further, but we need to think more and not jump to conclusions.

                • 1. 2011/12 data is not ‘old’. The issue is housing affordability. What relevance does the cost food and transport have on housing affordability? Perhaps if we dscuss the affordability of private schooling we should include those items too. What nonsense. BUT…if you want to introduce CPI items, then be my guest. Given the substantial decline in the CPI over the past 5 years, that can only make comparisons look even better.

                  “Beware of MSD graphs, they are designed for the simpletons.”…best you tell Frank.

                  2. Your logic is flawed on housing costs. If you move away from average weekly earnings, you have to move away from average house prices. So, let’s measure housing affordability by getting the Telecom CEO to buy a house in Invercargill.

                  Your last paragraph is nothing more than a socialist excuse for not having an argument. If you can’t demonstrate with logic and data that there is a problem, then don;t ask me to pay more tax to fix it!

                    • IV: You’ll find that home affordability “improved” only because of post-2008, with the GFC and recession. (Check out the Home Prices graph on your own link. Do you actually LOOK at the websites you’re linking to?!)

                      So what you’re really saying is that you’re taking “credit” for “improved” home affordability that was caused by recessionary dampening on house prices?!

                      So we need an ongoing recession to make homes more affordable?

                      It’s a shame too many will be unemployed to “enjoy” that.

                      Really, IV, you are continually using negative stats out-of-context, to prove positive outcomes.


                      But no doubt this is how Key and his cronies will be presenting their election propaganda this year.

                      Ta for the heads-up.

                • Fatty if you think 2012 figures are out of date, check this post our from Frank to justify income inequality…

                  “This greater income inequality has seen New Zealand move into 18th place out of 25 in the OECD in terms of income inequality from 1982 to 2004 (Ministry of Social Development 2007).

                  2004 for goodness sake!

                    • Figures that are almost 10 years old can’t be in any context worth considering when discussing today’s issues Frank.

                  • INTRINSICVALUE:

                    I was just pointing out that the data set you are using is old and has been massaged by the MSD. As for Frank’s 2004 stats, I don’t know who compiled them but its comparative data with OECD nations, and the OECD are not well known for their yearly reports on housing costs as far as I know.
                    When I look at the link you provided I see that neoliberalism has failed kiwis and increased inequality. There was a subtle decrease of inequality under Clark’s thirdway, but its now getting worse again.

                    “Your logic is flawed on housing costs. If you move away from average weekly earnings, you have to move away from average house prices”

                    Yes, that’s my point. Using average weekly earnings, and/or average house prices tells us very little. Also, your latest link about median wages/house prices offers us very little information on people who are looking for a house.

                    I don’t really understand your socialist reference, most socialists I know base their arguments around statistics.
                    And changing tax rates a few degrees won’t solve the problem

                    “If you can’t demonstrate with logic and data…”

                    Firstly, the data you have provided is illogical (why are people who already own houses included in data about housing affordability?). Secondly, data is ideological. I’m sure you got taught in an economics class that objectivity exists in numbers but it doesn’t. I can twist numbers as good as anyone, but what’s the point? To satisfy people who will stick with a failed economic system regardless? Meh.
                    About 7000 people in Chch are homeless (defined as inadequate and insecure housing). I’ve seen nothing that can make me believe this is not true. Feel free to give me some of your trusty numerical evidence.

                    • “An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses a lamp post – for support rather than for illumination.”

                      Andrew Lang.

                    • “When I look at the link you provided I see that neoliberalism has failed kiwis and increased inequality.”

                      We haven’t had neoliberalism in NZ, ever. NZ is an orthodox mixed market economy, and has been run along those lines since 1985. The problem is most left wingers don;t recognise orthodoxy, or what makes economies actually function.

                      “Using average weekly earnings, and/or average house prices tells us very little.”

                      No, you misunderstood my point. The only way to measure this consistently is to use averages. Other wise how do you account for the beneficiary who wants to live in Orakei, or the millionaire who wants to live in Invercargill.

                      “I don’t really understand your socialist reference”

                      Oh it’s simple. Most socialists want to increase the Government share of the economy by increases in Government spending. That was Helen Clarks ethos, and it failed horribly. I will happily pay more tax to support those genuinely in need, but not so that academics can satisfy themselves that to be out of poverty means to have Sky TV.

                      “why are people who already own houses included in data about housing affordability?”

                      What? Because they are part of the data set. Just because they own a home doesn’t mean they aren’t looking for one or don’t want another one or aren’t income earners!

                      “To satisfy people who will stick with a failed economic system regardless?”

                      And therein lies your problem…delusion. The economic system we enjoy is not flawed. People are flawed, but the system works fine thank you.

                  • Ok, something more up-to-date: http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/income_inequality.php

                    The report shows “income inequality, as measured by the P80/P20 ratio, was higher after adjusting for housing costs, as housing costs generally make up a greater proportion of household income for lower income than for higher income households”.

                    That’s from 1982 to 2012.

                    You’ll note that inequality rose sharply from the mid/late 1980s when neo-liberal policies (referred to as Rogernomics) was introduced.

                    So your comment that rising inequality is a “myth” is shown for what it is; Tory garbage.

                    • It’s seems to me that whenever the left can’t win an argument on the facts, they reinvent their own facts.

                      Income equality is a measure of the disparity across a population of wealth or income. Housing costs have nothing to do with income equality, and their inclusion is a desperate attempt to find any measure, any measure to make your point.

                      Think on this Frank…if housing is a part of income equality, then a family with a net income of $100,000 living in Auckland is unequal to a family earning exactly the same amount who chose to live in Invercargill. It’s a nonsense, which makes it perfect left wing thinking.

                    • Have you actually read that article Frank?

                      Look at the graph titled Figure 1.

                      On both lines, income inequality is, in 2012, at it’s lowest point since 1992, and has been steadily declining since 2004!

                      Figure 2 shows much the same trend.

                      Did you mean to make my point for me Frank??

                    • Intrinsicvalue:

                      “No, you misunderstood my point. The only way to measure this consistently is to use averages. Other wise how do you account for the beneficiary who wants to live in Orakei, or the millionaire who wants to live in Invercargill.”

                      No, I completely understand the point you are trying to make, without a hint of confusion. My point is you can’t use averages because it doesn’t tell us much about the experience of people who need to buy a house. Not that many kiwis get the average wage, and of those how many are looking to buy a house which is the average price? My guess is maybe a handful of people in NZ. So your precious statistics are good for explaining the reality of about 5 people in NZ. Social analysis through broad economic equations is a fool’s game. A waste of everyone’s time. Good for a snapshot, but don’t make it out to be the gospel.


                      I agree with your LOL. Econ 1st year students are fun aren’t they. Them and their textbook ‘objectivity’. They pass one macro-economic course and they think their can deconstruct society. Listen to the young buck parroting the failed economic philosophers.
                      You’re so cute Intrinsicvalue *playfully ruffles her/his hair*.
                      Please, tell us again that story about NZ never having neoliberalism, and then finish it off with tales of that mad socialist Helen Clark. LOL again.
                      If I knew you were one of those Intrinsicvalue, I would never have begun conversing with you

  10. Martyn I am really disappointed that you have written this. I didn’t think this blogsite was about your spats with whaleoil a tit for tat business. It was I understood set up as a left wing blog which is why I read it and comment. KDC’s party could never be anything but right wing, this is a very wealthy man who has made money by nefarious means (that doesn’t mean I support his extradition, I don’t) who likes showing off his opulent wealth and being in the media spotlight. About the only decent things he may do is get something done or support getting something done about the GCSB and get the internet working for all. The rest, well it will be less taxes, more for me, I’ve made money and I deserve it all (another John Key) and yes as someone questions what will his position be on tangata whenua. As for hiring the jerk from Scoop that is a joke, how many people did he ask to work for him before he came up with Alistair.

    • “As for hiring the jerk from Scoop that is a joke, how many people did he ask to work for him before he came up with Alistair”

      What’s wrong with Alistair Thompson?

      • He is an idiot who wouldn’t know how to manage a news website if he tried and that is why he has sold it mostly. I doubt his journalistic ability as well.

    • I share some of your reservations. What I find amusing is that last election The Pirate Party of New Zealand contended the election dedicated to matters regarding internet issues/rights gaining a small portion of votes, after a quick look at their website they appear to have intentions to contend this election. Since I imagine The Internet Party will have similar policies, it appears they may have more weight because they have a celebrity figure head with a following.

      It appears to me in this country that politically much of the population has become incredibly shallow to the point where elections and politics have descended to something akin to a schoolyard popularity contest. Consider John Key and National where it’s easy to find examples of people voting in support because they were swept away with the celebrity image portrayed even though most policies were to their detriment.

      Then there’s news of David Tua courting the Maori, Mana, Conservatives and New Zealand First parties as a candidate – flip flopping around the political spectrum. Or John Palino, a smooth talking American restaurateur and media personality who contended the Auckland mayoralty.

      While many may fret at the issue of non-voters or idiotes during an election, I would say the literal idiots who vote are more to worry about – those who are swayed by celebrity rather than actual policy.

      • “It appears to me in this country that politically much of the population has become incredibly shallow to the point where elections and politics have descended to something akin to a schoolyard popularity contest.”

        Yes, you are spot on with that assessment!!!

        Years of commercialisation of the MSM, commercialisation of almost everything in society, commoditisation of people as mere workers and consumer “idiots”, that is exactly what the end result is of all this!

        Even the “public broadcasting” in NZ is a total joke, and it is simply following the trend towards endless dumbing down, where nothing much of substance is presented, or even discussed, let alone analysed by investigative journalists.

        A truly sick and extremely worrying state of affairs indeed!

  11. Dear Bomber,
    Might pay to read Gordon Campbell’s article on KDC & the Internet Party. Here is someone from your side of the political fence more or less saying the party is over before it has begun-literally.
    Cheers, John Chapman.
    (PS, We met about a decade ago at a function you attended with Michael Orchiston.)

  12. I repeat…we have never had neo-liberalism in NZ. We have a general move towards a more market led economy since 1984, and we are the better for it, but if we had true neo-liberalism we would not have WFF, a progressive tax system, BNZ bailout, NZ Rail bailout, Finance company bail outs, and one of the most generous SW systems in the world.

    So there you have it, your lesson in economics.

  13. The National party is run by greedy sycophantic planet wreckers who are interested in more money for themselves and their backers ( groups like the liquor or mining industry’s)

    They are lead by a serial liar in John Key

    Any ‘economic gains’ under National go to the greedy rich.

    Everyone else ends up worse off.

    The environment is worse off under national.

    I know people say the GFC was not Nationals doing ……………

    But surely for John Key that was just a matter of timing ????

    He’d skimmed his money off and quit the scene before the shit hit the fan.

    After siphoning his 50 million out of the rigged and corrupt casino that the financial markets are …..

    He became ” the wolf of the Beehive ” .

    Labor are untrustworthy and although better than nationals ‘plain evil’ way of doing things they are still unworthy….

    So all power to Kim Dotcom.

    With all the lies and backroom deals done against him by this corrupt national govt its no surprise he wants to shake up the rats nest that is our parliament.

    • Sarcasm alert…

      The Labour party is run by chardonnay socialists who bemoan the lot of the poor while driving their gas guzzling 4 wheel drives to their mansions in Grey Lynn. All Labour wants to do is tax the middle class more to give the money to bludging no hopers who are too lazy to get a job.

      There we go, we can all make gross generalisations.

    • How can lower mortgage interest rates only benefit the ‘greedy rich’ (whatever that means)? Or lower inflation? Or higher economic growth? Or a more flexible labour market?

      It is hilarious how the left is prepared to blame Key for everything, simply because most NZ’ers find him the most competent and likeable PM for decades.

      John Key worked as a foreign exchange dealer. He made his money from deals between the supposedly ‘greedy rich’, something you should enjoy. He had nothing to do with the GFC, which was caused by sub-prime lending and the property bubble, most noticeably in the US. The fact is you hate Key because he is the epitome of everything the left despises, a poor boy who eschewed the self wallowing of most on the left and became rich by simple hard work.

  14. Dear Mr Bradbury,

    I disagree on some of your analysis on who the internet party will appeal to. As it will appeal mainly to the young, it may draw a greater proportion of votes from the left than the right.

    I think to try and balance this, you need to get KDC to help campaign in whichever electorate you intend to stand in, if you stand, which will presumably be Upper Harbour, or where ever Colin Craig decides to stand. The reason is that KDC can push the business side of things rather than the politics, which will have more appeal to the right.

    To these ends KDC could start doing a bit of high profile charity work and other appearances in your electorate, and even consider announcing moving his mega company HQ or call centre into the middle of the electorate.

    During your campaign’s public meetings and speeches, if you can get KDC to make an appearance, and speak about his dreams, and business plans, the future of the internet as he sees it, wanting NZ privacy laws covering the internet toughened up, and his views on adding further undersea cables to give an across the board speed and reliability increase to internet users – would really boost your campaign. You need to tap into his charisma.

    At the moment, if you try to use webmail/search engine/social networking/cloud storage, basically most of the companies doing this are based in the US, because the US is the centre of internet commerce. But the US is also the centre of internet surveillance controversies, which don’t look like abating. This has caused a lot of concerns for business that uses cloud storage, as some of those surveillance revelations, show that data has been intercepted for commercial interests as well as security interests.

    KDC is a guy who sounds like he knows what he is doing, and he has the resources to do it. His emphasis on internet privacy and security, and his companies operations of providing secured fileshare and proposed secured email, which could conceivably expand in the future to include secured search engine and secured social networking etc.

    This could draw substantial business in these areas away from the US. If Mega grows to the size of facebook, or bigger, for example, it could be the biggest company on the NZ stock exchange, if they decide to list. Maybe a small partial listing this year for the people who want to get in early, and who see a great future for this companies business model.

    This could really put NZ on the internet world map, which is hugely important for the future, because of the fact that NZ is isolated at the bottom of the world, is meaningless on the internet.
    In the longer term this could be major boost to NZ, which could become the Switzerland of the internet, attracting exponentially more internet business here. The govt should get on board with this, and do what is in the best interests of NZ, and not what is in the best interests of the US.

Comments are closed.