Home Blog Page 2174

Privilege in an under privileged country part 2

24

Screen Shot 2015-03-27 at 9.47.02 am

My column for Waatea news this week was called ‘Privilege in an under privileged country‘ where I explored the anger generated by the St Bede’s rowing incident.

I wrote…

Such elitist privilege for an event that is firmly rooted in English class bigotry has sounded like nails on an egalitarian blackboard for those New Zealanders who aren’t benefiting from the Rock Star Economy.

Having the wealth to just buy the outcome one wants is an electric shock to working people and witnessing it gives vent to the chasm between the haves and the have nots in this country.

Today’s story about an Auckland property developer’s Lamborghini which was towed for illegally parking in a disabled space has provided a quote so privileged that it simply can not pass without comment.

When challenged for parking his car in a disabled parking space he said…

“I have a disabled brother,” he said. “Many cars get towed from that area so it is unfair that you are purposely victimising myself because of the calibre of my vehicle.”

…breathtaking isn’t it?

The yawning chasm between the self justifying privileged and the hungry embittered and bruised masses  has never sounded so ugly.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

All behind you Winston

41

Screen Shot 2015-03-27 at 9.20.58 am

Well, the unthinkable has happened.

New Zealand First has surged ahead in not one, not two, but ALL the polls!

While we here in NZF don’t usually take much notice of polling (and why would we – they customarily *underrate* our support), there’s something truly heartening about each of the Reid Research, Colmar Brunton, and National’s own internal polling predicting a Win for Winston on Saturday.

Earlier this week, I said that this campaign marked the Turning of the Tide in the fight against National.

With this evening’s news showing clips of John Key being booed on the previously blue-ribboned streets of Dargaville; while anecdotal reports circulate that Northland Nats are absolutely furious with John & Joyce’s handling of the campaign … it truly does seem that there’s something magic in the air.

People from across the political spectrum – and New Zealanders from all walks of life – have come together up in Northland, and across the country. Whether #Nationalist or Labourite, Greenie or grandmother, and disaffected Nat or disillusioned blogger … they have all united behind one man.

And while by this late point in the race, there’s a certain teleological compulsion to view this coagulation as something of an inevitability … as someone who’s spent much of the last few weeks (if not the last few years) running about madly trying to persuade a diverse milieu of disparate perspectives to back my Leader, I can personally attest it’s far harder to pull off than it looks.

As the late, great Terry Pratchett once said “Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny … Free men pull in all kinds of directions.”

Ordinarily, that might be true. But in these exceptional circumstances, free men of all persuasions are choosing to push back in one direction and one direction only. Against National.

Against being taken for granted by a government which seems to regard democracy as a once-every-three-years checkbox formality rather than a genuine necessity for consultation. Against the arrogance implicit in National’s selection of not one – but two dud candidates, on the assumption Northlanders would just blithely vote for them anyway.

And against the sort of party which sees infrastructure improvements as a pork-barrel bribe to be handed out in an electoral lolly-scramble the moment they fear they might be losing.

When Winston wins on Saturday night, it won’t just be his finest hour. Nor, regrettably, will it singlehandedly sound the death-knell for this gangrenous government.

But it will be the start of something glorious. And a moment of sheer, unadulterated terror for the National Party.

To quote The Other Winston … “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

In the mean-time, and for the next 48 hours … we truly are ALL BEHIND YOU, WINSTON!

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

GUEST BLOG: Mike Lee – Responding to Auckland Council’s criticism of blog

6

Bledisloe-Wharf-Extension-Comparison

Challenging the arguments of council officers in Council meetings can often lead to angry points of order from certain councillors and rebuke from the mayor, and his deputy in particular, for ‘criticising the officers’. Heavens! However getting into public debates with Council officers in the media or on blog sites is something I would never normally do. The mayor and councillors who support the political back-down on harbour reclamation should front up rather than officers.

However a Council statement officially ‘attributed to Dr Roger Blakeley Chief Planning Officer’ released by Council communications people last night challenging the veracity and fairness of my Daily Blog guest post does require a response.

Carefully skirting around the serious matters I raised in the article, Dr Blakeley, chooses to muddy the waters by challenging my use of the phrase ‘legally undefendable’ as the reason given by officers for their refusal to defend the council’s Unitary Plan policy of making harbour reclamation ‘non-complying’, and urging a back-down from this policy by the Council at a meeting on 12 February.

Dr Blakeley accuses me of ‘putting words in officers’ mouths’, which he protests is ‘inaccurate and unfair’. Frankly this is a straw man. The words used were not in quotation marks, not attributed to a named person and were actually taken from a report in the NZ Herald, but they are a pretty fair descriptive précis of the legalistic arguments made by the officers at the time, and indeed by Dr Blakeley himself, as the reason why these officers (and of course Dr Blakeley as their boss), refused to defend the democratically decided Council policy on harbour reclamation before the Unitary Plan commission. Has Dr Blakeley got a better way to explain this?

Why he tries to muddle this up with the statement by Port company lawyer Mai Chen in 2013, who claimed at the time the policy was ‘illegal’, is hard to fathom. Unless to further muddy the waters, to distract attention from the very serious matter of Council officers keeping the existence of vital information from the councillors, namely the existence of legal advice that conflicted with their own legalistic arguments.

The legal advice by the RMA coastal specialists Cowper Campbell sought by a former council General Counsel in response to Ms Chen’s claims, stated inter alia that ‘there is no basis for the claims that Resolution 6 is illegal in that it breaches s 32 or breaches the Coastal Policy statement,’ as Ms Chen argued then and as Dr Blakeley and his officers argue now. The legal advice went on to say ‘Rather I prefer the option that all reclamation is a non-complying activity.’

This legal advice was only given to councillors after someone in the know tipped off the NZ Herald and its existence was revealed the day after the 12 February meeting.

We have a problem when vital information is withheld from councillors and the public on a matter of serious environmental concern to thousands of Aucklanders, and when legalistic arguments are raised by council officers which conflict with the legal advice they do have.

Perhaps Dr Blakeley, rather than trying to take on an elected representative in the Daily Blog should explain what looks like an abuse of process within his department, on his watch. While he is at, he could also explain why the two wharf extensions, the precursors of a major reclamation were consented without public notification and without notice to the councillors.

I will concede I did make an error in the article and that is that Ports of Auckland did not announce the planned wharf extensions as I assumed, rather we only learned about them via a tip-off to the Herald apparently from a whistle-blower within the waterfront industry. Conceivably work could have started on the first stage of this major reclamation in a couple of weeks-time without anyone knowing about it – apart from the Ports of Auckland, Dr Blakeley and his staff.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The Budget must get this one right: More income to fix child poverty

13

Quotation-Herman-Melville-criticism-poverty-humanity-Meetville-Quotes-122090

Children’s income support policies are a mess. For years CPAG has argued that Working for Families is based on faulty thinking that belongs if anywhere in the past century. A more convoluted, discriminatory and illogical combination of confusing tax credits would be hard to imagine. Those who are doubly burdened with issues of poverty and child disability must fight for any extra meagre entitlements. Only some newborns are given the extra tax–funded support of Paid Parental Leave, while the very poorest babies who need extra help the most are given nothing.

Adding to that is the archaic and creaking benefit system that fails to offer families adequate support when they need it most and punishes them with sanctions in the name of welfare reform. The use of relationship status to punish women and their children has no place in any fair and just welfare system. Child Support changes have been a long time coming but don’t appear to offer any improvement. Not only are they very expensive to administer, they are having perverse effects in making some single mothers much worse off than before. We have got policies very wrong and it is no wonder that there are 205,000 children in families under the very, very low 50% poverty line.

These are not just academic matters for the policy wonks to tut-tut over from time to time. The impact of bad policy creates a systemic bias that reinforces entrapment in poverty. Policies fail our children and their young lives are blighted with long-term consequences both for them and for society. It does not have to be that way. We do choose to treat older citizens well, and have low rates of poverty as a result, but we choose to marginalise, judge and damage the lives of the weakest of our young with ill-judged policies.

Unfortunately, the most concerned and articulate in the children’s’ movement have never agreed about the messages that government should hear on child poverty. Consequently, government finds it easy to side-line them, even to the point when the term child poverty itself has dropped out of recent government statements.

For example, it does not appear in the Government briefing for the coming budget. Instead we read of more emphasis on jobs and growth to cure the problems of not child poverty but ‘families in need’

The Government’s economic programme continues to build a faster-growing economy with more jobs and rising incomes, and to support New Zealand families in need.

Worse still, the only other reference contains an ominous indication that all government intends to do is to shift money from one set of poor children to another:

As signalled previously, the Government is looking at ways to help families and children in material hardship and the Budget will contain some measures to address this issue. As a first step, the Government will look hard at the billions of dollars already spent on vulnerable families and children to determine whether this can be better spent.

There is no clear, unambiguous message to government that the poorest children continue to miss out and that they must be included in all tax-funded support for children. For example, when well-meaning children’s advocates call simplistically for an increase to the Family Tax Credit or worse hark back 50 years and demand a ‘universal child benefit’, the government can rightly sneer, as John Key did when he referred to such urgings as ‘barmy’.

The problem is that those who care passionately about child poverty disagree among themselves. Some find the intent of Working for Families to encourage paid work compelling regardless of whether or not it is well designed to achieve this end. Some think it is OK to rely on private charity to mop up the remaining problems when paid work does not deliver the expected outcomes.

Colleen Brown, a tireless advocate for disabled children and their families said last week at the launch of the CPAG disability report – It should not be this hardchildren poverty and disability

[A]a social movement for change must be underpinned by a clearly articulated and agreed upon analysis and strategy for change if it is to succeed. Most importantly, the analysis will give a sense of right and justice to the cause, elements so necessary in sustaining the self-belief, fearsomeness, tenacity and sheer hard work throughout the campaign.

So let’s have a go at what we might be able to agree on and therefore our vision for where we want to be in the future and then insist with one voice that policies adapt incrementally in an agreed direction.
Here is a suggested set of principles that surely are uncontroversial.

  1. Principle of equal treatment for equal child need
  2. Principle of adequacy of weekly child payments and parental welfare benefits
  3. Principle of recognition of the unpaid work of mothering especially when child is young
  4. Principle of encouraging paid work where appropriate with needs/wellbeing of the child/children prioritised.
  5. Principle of relationship neutrality.
  6. Principle of simplicity
  7. Principle of transparency and openness

Based on Principle 1 backed up by being signatories to the UNCROC we should have no difficulty in supporting the right of all children to benefit from social security, especially those tax-funded measures that reduce poverty. The first step then is to join the iniquitous In Work Tax Credit to the FTC for the first child payment. This makes the first child maximum payment $152 weekly paid for all low income first children. This avoids any judgemental discrimination about who is worthy or not based on outmoded criteria of fixed weekly hours of work or benefit status and will reduce child poverty significantly. It also greatly improves outcomes judged on principles 1,2,3,6 and 7.

If some find that it offends Principle 4, then they need to answer the question: were hours of work increased because of the In Work Tax Credit? Perhaps a look at the latest Treasury ( 2014) evaluation of Working for Families may help answer that:

This paper examines the labour supply responses to the Working for Families (WfF) package of welfare reforms, which was fully implemented in 2008. The policy changes were implemented with the aim to encourage benefit recipients to participate in the labour market and to address income adequacy issues for families with children. …It is estimated that the introduction of the new policy increases labour supply of sole parents by an average of 0.62 hours per week, but decreases labour supply of married men and women by 0.10 and 0.50 hours per week, respectively.

Treasury don’t do the obvious which is to look at the net effect on hours worked. Many married women work less because they can afford to work less. They get the IWTC on the backs of their partner’s hours of work regardless of how many hours they personally work.  Thus given the numbers of married and unmarried women, it is likely that overall work hours actually declined because of the IWTC ! So much for a work incentive or maybe ‘married’ women just aren’t expected to work ?

Notice that Treasury does not even begin to evaluate whether the objective of income adequacy was achieved. Perhaps that is because such an analysis would end up agreeing with the Ministry of Social Development’s damming indictment:

Working for Families had little if any impact on the poverty rates for children in workless households. (MSD 2010)

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

It is outrageous that Northland will vote before knowing Sabin’s personal reasons

20

Unknown

It is outrageous in the extreme that Northland voters are being asked to elect a new representative without being allowed to know why their last elected representative stood down for ‘personal reasons’.

It matters because they are now being asked to re-elect the Party this MP stood down from. Their candidate was the Treasurer of the former MP, yet he can’t remember hearing anything about his MPs personal life just like he can’t remember the 10 bridges he’s tried bribing Northland with.

When the response by the Party becomes the defining focus of Mike Sabin’s personal issues, voters deserve to know what Sabin’s personal issues are and when the National Party Leadership knew about them, then voters could cast their vote with a clear conscience.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

This weeks Waatea news column – Privilege in an under privileged country

0

Screen Shot 2014-11-03 at 9.27.31 am

 

This weeks Waatea news column – Privilege in an under privileged country

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

RMTU: Government closes door on local businesses

5

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 9.43.25 am

New Zealanders will not get a say on the government’s decision to ratify an international agreement which removes the right to protect local jobs, says Rail and Maritime Transport Union General Secretary Wayne Butson.

“The government is preparing to assent to the Government Procurement Agreement, a World Trade Organisation Treaty which opens up New Zealand Government contracts to foreign companies and closes the door on local businesses and their workers. However the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee is refusing to take public submissions on the decision” says Mr Butson.

“The government knows New Zealanders are opposed to international treaties which remove our right to protect local jobs. That is why the select committee is refusing to take public submissions”.

“Steven Joyce and Tim Groser are claiming the agreement is a win for exporters because overseas governments cannot favour their local companies over New Zealand companies. But the catch is that our government cannot favour local companies for its contracts” says Mr Butson.

“The real winners are overseas companies like Serco who will continue to muscle their way into more New Zealand government contracts. The losers are local businesses who supply government companies like KiwiRail. If our government favours local companies and local workers then overseas companies can take action in the World Trade Organisation”.

“The chances of resurrecting Hillside Engineering in Dunedin are minimal. The chances of other local engineering companies getting a look in for future government contracts are just as grim. Multinationals and major conglomerates will be rubbing their hands together knowing the government will soon remove its own right to protect local jobs” says Mr Butson.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Sgt Shultz – a bridge too far

30

19

As the Sally Army takes an understandable pass on a buy in to run down state housing stock, the people of Northland can no doubt breathe a sigh of relief.

Indeed rather than having a “sing for your supper” church running housing, Northland is now enjoying an influx of concerned Nats who’ve flooded the North with bonhomie for the poorest part of the country.

But the love being lashed about in the form of new bridges on our neglected roads was quickly identified as conditional on people not complaining about the miserable lot that some suffer up this way. A woman threatened by Whangarei MP with further neglect of the roads if she didn’t pipe down had his threatening conversation recorded and replayed to the nation.

And, seeming to legitimise the view, more senior members of his government have made it clear that if we don’t forgive them their neglect to date, then they’re really going to leave us alone. The belly laughs at this, echoing around the region remind me of the day an angry prisoner stepped out of custody and into the dock for a date to be set for his trial. His stammering lawyer was told to shut up because he’d been sacked moments before in the cells below.

The judge wanted to hear from the lawyer, but the prisoner insisted he could not speak for him. After a brief bit of toing and froing the judge told him to shut up “or….” The prisoner cut him off. “Or what? You’ll remand me in custody?” He laughed, the court full of lawyers laughed, except for me, who’d seen it coming and had the presence of mind to jam my hand in my mouth, biting it hard to suppress my laughter. The judge looked around, mentally taking names, acknowledging my respectful silence. After all, there might have run out of sanctions for the man in the dock, but he had a long memory and there was plenty he could do for the disrespectful lawyers over the following weeks.

In that moment, the judge had forgotten that basic tenet of warfare: beware the enemy with nothing to lose. These fools rushing to Northland and selling their National snake oil have also forgotten this. Up here National has done nothing of consequence. And while some might point to the good works of Mike Sabin with his strong stand on law and order, Northland has shown that it knows it was sold a crock.

This time Northland will ensure the modern day rendering of Sgt Schultz will soon lose his platform and will go back to not only knowing nothing, but doing nothing and being nothing.

Voters have wised-up to National’s lack of transparency and double-dealing in this region. The moment of death came when Schultz, enthusiastically assured the press that it was indeed his idea to fix the bridges, the names of which he couldn’t recall. His explanation of this memory lapse was that these bridges all have different names. He couldn’t have looked more of a fool if he’d said he’d end the confusion by renaming them “Sgt Shultz’s Bridge Too Far.”

It was indeed a bridge too far when it came to maintain his credibility. Attacked by Peters for bragging about doing the heavy lifting in the region, he posted a video of himself in the gym, sweating and trembling under the load while minions stood by, filming and, of course, making sure he didn’t hurt himself. And while he might have escaped the filming of the feat unscathed, he effectively put another nail in his coffin. Here in the North we don’t want to see sweaty men surrounded by minions in a gym. The heavy lifting we want to see up here isn’t happening in members-only gyms.

So unpopular is he that he could only rustle up 14 people at a meeting in Kaikohe. Clearly even his supporters have deserted him. The tide of support from the South has receded as they realise their lame duck candidate is not only a cringeworthy embarrassment on the hustings, but also has no show.

His nemesis, Winston Peters has taken advantage of the talent vacuum offered by National. On a roll, Peters identification of financial issues within the Te Ahu Art Centre was perhaps overkill. Osbourne’s management of the centre might or might not be incompetent, but one things for sure, his ability to explain the losses as depreciation was lost amongst the laughter. National had already become a laughing stock following the departure of the crime-fighting Sabin. It’s only prospect of recovering its shattered fortunes was to show that it took the North seriously.

Having foisted the now silent Sabin on us, the party should have known it needed to go the extra mile with people up here. It needed to show some faith by putting up a candidate who could rebuild the damaged credibility. By doing that, it would have had a candidate who was up to the task of dealing with not only the likes of Paddy Gower, but a skilled orator and politician like Peters.

That National could have entrusted the North to Sabin showed the arrogance of a complacent government. Putting up a blundering Osbourne as his replacement showed just how out of touch National is. With the castle left guarded by a fool, it should have known that a wily warhorse like Peters would overrun their previous stronghold.

For the next two years, the North is going to have a champion. Reducing name suppression protection for paedophiles has struck a chord in a region where children suffer in silence as men shaft them in the shadows.

Talk of expanding Northport has also struck a chord up here. With a deepest harbour in the country and land to spare, it would seem like a no-brainer. Who in their right mind would park cars and containers on the expensive Auckland waterfront when a good harbour and cheap land is going begging just a couple of hours North?

Peters hasn’t mentioned that the Port of Tauranga’s financial interest in keeping Northport out in the cold hasn’t been addressed, nor has the need for legislation to break its stranglehold. But an adoring electorate will not be troubled by this lack of detail. Peters is making the right noises up here and while he might not know everything, at least he doesn’t know nothing.

 

 

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

‘What does his Denny’s order say about him’?

2

CA9pq2gWUAAXWhf

‘What does his Denny’s order say about him’? Ummm, he’s about to have a heart attack?

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

GUEST BLOG: Graham Bidois Cameron – Burning down the house: how social housing could break NZ communities

8

John-Key-Swimming-Pool-Metro-2006

Merivale in Tauranga, New Zealand has 22 streets. There are just under 900 houses in those streets. We have comparatively low levels of home ownership and high levels of absentee landlords. Over 200 of the houses are owned by Housing New Zealand, the government’s state housing organisation. Originally the Housing NZ houses were all built on quarter acre sections, though since the 1990s the majority have been in-built, which is to say there are now at least two houses there. The most intensive instance was in Surrey Grove, which went from under 20 houses to over 30 houses in a ten year period. Most of the original houses are weatherboard, framed with native timbers, particularly rimu. After that, many of them were built from brick. And latterly they are a combination of kind of wood and plastic cladding products. There has been a slow project to retrofit houses with insulation and heating; I am not sure if that is complete yet.

Under 3,000 people live in our neighbourhood. People transit in and out of Merivale pretty frequently. About one fifth to one quarter of our population live here for less than a year. Housing New Zealand houses obviously are part of that picture. I don’t know of research into why people have moved out of Merivale, but anecdotally I know of people who have moved to: avoid oversight by government agencies like Child, Youth and Family and Work and Income; escape intimidation and violence; and avoid paying their debts. These people have often ended up homeless, living with other whānau in garages, on the lounge floor, in cars and at caravan parks (Te Puke Caravan Park is a pretty common choice). There are also whānau who have lived many years in the same Housing New Zealand house and consider it their home.

Unwelcome changes in Housing New Zealand policy are just part of the lives of people who live in Housing New Zealand homes. In my time at the Merivale Community Centre, the unwelcome policies included:

  • greater use of market rents for those whose income rose;
  • putting in heat pumps and wood pellet burners for heating, options that whānau who have lived in those houses can’t afford to use;
  • greater enforcement of the no pets policy;
  • greater enforcement of the over-crowding policies, which are nonsensical in a community of large Māori and Pacific Peoples whānau as they require a house to have a room for each person of school age minus one (so if you and your partner have six kids, four over five, you are probably overcrowded unless you have a five or six room house);
  • only repairing internal damage to houses if the hole is bigger than a fist hole, and then it is only plastered, not painted;
  • the multiple changes in the criteria for whom can get a house (when you a priority one year and not the next, it can get you down a little);
  • moving management of tenants to Work and Income whilst Housing New Zealand deals only with the property as an asset.

I say unwelcome because, whilst some of these policies are sensible and have a good evidential basis, Housing New Zealand tenants were never consulted about what they thought or what would work for them. At this point let me acknowledge that Housing New Zealand tenants can be really hard work; people who have lived with desperation and poverty tend to have picked up some dysfunctional and anti-social habits. But this is the point of the Housing New Zealand stock: to provide housing for the most needy, and you can’t encourage integration and transformation if your policies encourage people to view themselves as oppressed and second class.

These are the houses that the Government is trying to sell to social housing providers in one of the largest asset sales since the 1980s. These are the houses that the Salvation Army said it will not purchase this week because they couldn’t find a model that would work. As Major Campbell Roberts stated, “I don’t think there has been enough thinking gone into it.” The Salvation Army also gave the run down and poorly maintained state of the Housing New Zealand as an impediment to taking on these capital assets. Don’t let the Government fool you: this is a huge blow to their plans.

So now they have quickly segued to talking about consortiums of social housing providers and investors buying state housing together. This is exactly what John Key had refuted; that private companies and property developers will be the beneficiaries. Instead this will indeed be a movement of significant public assets into private hands. One group, Accessible Properties that manages the IHC’s properties, has already put up their hands for 1,000 houses (just roughly if the average NZ house price in $425,000, that’s a book value of between $200 million to $425 million of property that goes from public to private hands in only ONE instance).

The Government argues this will bring “better outcomes for tenants”. The Opposition and the Government are throwing reports and research at each other to argue that very point. If I look at my neighbourhood, a significant number of our residents are already tenants of private, absentee landlords (people who own houses in Merivale but have never lived here as distinguished from residents of our community who rent out their houses for a period when they go away to Australia or some such); so what have been their outcomes?

Whānau cannot present as they are to get a house from a private absentee landlord; they pretend, often sending a young woman by herself with one tidy child to apply for the house, and misleading the landlord about how many other people will move in. The relationship with private absentee landlords is rarely founded on trust in Merivale. I cannot think of one whānau of an absentee landlord who has had work done on their house whilst they were living there; no retrofitting to make them dryer and warmer; nothing gets repaired; the chattels aren’t maintained (work and repairs all happen when they leave). They are unsupported as whānau with needs in relation to gang intimidation, anti-social youth behaviour, drug abuse and selling, and domestic violence; the landlords’ only interest is their property, not the lives of their tenants. Landlords rarely work with them when they start getting behind on rent, preferring to take a legal avenue to exit people from those houses.

These will be the “better outcomes” of moving Housing New Zealand tenancies into private hands, which is what is about to happen. If the Salvation Army can’t handle the size of the task, no other not-for-profit in the country can do it without dancing with the devil of private finance and private management. Work and Income, Housing New Zealand and Child, Youth and Family are flawed institutions, but at least they have a duty of care to their clients. Private consortiums, property developers and landlords have no such obligation. People in Merivale who are tenanted in this bold new world of social housing will be left to rot in their poverty and violence and they will inadvertently take our community with them. The only agency we are going to see more of here under this proposed social housing disaster is the New Zealand Police.

 

Graham Bidois Cameron is of Ngāti Ranginui, Te Arawa and Ngāti Hinerangi descent. He has worked and volunteered in community development for 15 years, and lives in Tauranga Moana. He is completing his Masters of Theology with Otago University.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

GUEST BLOG: Auckland Council attack Mike Lee’s defence of Auckland Harbour

6

Bledisloe-Wharf-Extension-Comparison
Councillor Lee’s statement is wrong for two reasons – firstly he accuses council officers of making a statement they never made ie that “non-complying” status for harbour reclamation was “legally undefendable”, and secondly having put words in officers’ mouths he then criticises them for ignoring legal advice contrary to those words. His statement is neither accurate nor fair. The facts are:

First, he claims that officers told councillors that “non-complying” status for harbour reclamation was “legally undefendable”. Officers did not say that. They said that it would not be consistent with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement which allows for reclamation in port areas, subject to certain criteria.

Second, he claims that officers had legal advice contrary to a claim that “non-complying activity” status for harbour reclamation was “legally undefendable”. His comments appear to relate to a statement by Mai Chen on 3 September 2013, acting for the Ports of Auckland Ltd. She claimed that “non-complying activity” status for reclamation was illegal under the Resource Management Act. Council’s independent legal adviser Cowper Campbell disagreed with her view. They said that reclamation could be a “non-complying activity” within the port precinct, but did not say that it should be “non-complying”.

Cr Lee has misconstrued the issues by wrongly attributing a statement made by Mai Chen in September 2013 to officers.

 

Dr Roger Blakely chief planning officer

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Malcolm Evans – betting on World Cup

1

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 7.09.02 am

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

National’s nightmare in Northland – Winston’s Coming

38

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at 6.51.53 am

We can not underestimate what a titanic win and shock to the political establishment a Winston upset in Northland would herald.

The poll last night that had Winston ahead by 20 points is phenomenal. If If If Winston can pull this off, and it is just such a huge If he can, there are ramifications for every Party:

  • National will be in disarray and Steven Joyce will be in trouble.
  • Labour will be shown up for having no clue what was going on and those online Labour activists who were crowing that Labour voters would never vote for Winston look embarrassed.
  • Maori Party & United Future become more powerful while ACT lose power.
  • A resurgent NZ First risks snookering the Greens again which impacts on who they will select as leader.

Saturday’s result has impact across the political spectrum.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The Bitchelor Episode 4 Tainted Love: One Woman’s Reflux

13

Screen Shot 2015-03-25 at 9.25.51 pm
#DoucheDate #TheBachelorNZ #TheBitchelor

OMG! OMG! OMG! How exciting was that? It seems just like last night I was glued to my screen and unable to look away. What a suburb example of the very best of mankind. The physique, the skill, the professionalism and yes, I‘ll admit it….the body! I can see why women would be vying for his attention. What a sperm donor he would make! Grant Elliot makes me want to retract every racist thought I’ve ever had about white South African immigrants. It was super annoying having to flick channels back to the horror on channel 3 that I am watching so you don’t have to. The best thing about The Bachelor screening twice a week is that it will be over twice as fast as he’s ditching two a week. I’m so excited I might just check the expiry dates of the cans in the pantry.

Last night lacked any real action at all so there’s no need for a recap.

Tonight’s one on one date is with Amanda. What and where will it be tonight? So far there has been the scenic plane flight, the bridge climb and bungy jump….lucky Amanda she gets to …golf! Ripped off! She must be gutted. It wasn’t even at Michael Hill’s golf course. Apparently he Michael Hill is happy to sponsor the show but doesn’t actually want them hanging around the house. Fair enough. The golf course and sand dunes were a great way to showcase the car though. The car tonight was a Suzuki bigger than a Swift. The product placement in this show is not slick. It sticks out like dogs bollocks but who isn’t curious about the ring. The show will end with a proposal. Not of marriage but a promise and a promise ring? Promise to what? Stop dating groups of women?

After the golf it’s off to another pop up gazebo and a picnic on Muriwai Beach. On the dunes, heading north. You know, the place where they normally ditch stolen cars. They talked about how much they both want to find love and have families. Awesome. They have that in common with his previous two dates. Still no snogging. Ladies don’t like to be cast as slutty.

Then it’s back to the house that still isn’t even slightly mansion-ish and the announcement of the group date time. This week must have been balance the budget week because the date is at the zoo where the ladies get to compete at cleaning up after the captive animals. The bloody zoo. Oh hooray. Can this show get any worse? Let’s look at the captive animals exploited daily for your pleasure. Yes dear reader, the irony is apparent. Maybe next week they can go to a circus and make the animals do tricks? The ladies had to muck out. It gave Arty a great chance to asses and judge their cleaning skills. Maybe next week after the circus they can have an ironing comp.

Poppy won the cleaning completion and her prize was getting to pat rodents. Which raises the question, should I ditch the expired beetroot? How old is too old?

Wahoo! This signals the end is near. It could be my imagination but the ladies look like they are swigging more seriously. Surely it is only a matter of time till someone starts suggesting tequila shots? I feel like a drink myself. The high point of the cocktail party is Poppy. When Arty tried to give her rose in the rodent enclosure she had misgivings and decided to sleep on it (the rose that is, not the rodent). Poppy is not sure she can cope because the connection is too strong. She’s too in love with him already. Oh no! I really want Poppy to stay. In my considered view the only way to move on from the fart is to burp the alphabet.

Poppy is staying to fight another day.

Someone else got sent packing. Another women discarded like an unwanted tin of beetroot with no discernible damage. In all probability perfectly fine but when the pantry is full you can afford to be fussy.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Secret Police investigations of NZers using spineless corporations

28

CA5QNNPWkAE90en

On top of all the mass surveillance spying revelations, we now see the horror of a NZ Police Force out of control in terms of spying on NZers.

The extent of how the Police threaten businesses with handing over your personal information minus any warrant is the kind of totalitarian behaviour you see in a functioning Police State, not a Democracy!

I don’t know that many NZers who bled to death on foreign shores to fight for the Police to be able to secretly threaten businesses into giving them information on you without any judicial oversight whatsoever.

If you are not outraged by this, you don’t deserve to vote…

Police given personal information without search warrants

Broad swathes of people’s personal data are being sought regularly by police from airlines, banks, electricity companies, internet providers and phone companies without search warrants by officers citing clauses in the Privacy Act.

Senior lawyers and the Privacy Commissioner have told the Herald of concerns over the practice which sees the companies voluntarily give the information to police.

Instead of seeking a legal order, police have asked companies to hand over the information to assist with the “maintenance of the law”, threatened them with prosecution if they tell the person about whom they are interested and accept data with no record keeping to show how often requests are made.

The request from police carries no legal force at all yet is regularly complied with.

Production orders and search warrants, by contrast, carry a legal compulsion after being approved by a judge or senior court official.

The practice has emerged in recent cases cited by a number of lawyers and has seen a district court judge question the legal right of police to access a defendant’s electricity records without a legal order because of the “increasingly intrusive nature of the information gathered by power companies”.

Privacy Commissioner John Edwards said he was undertaking research to see if his office should become a central register recording the number of such requests. He said he intended to lead discussion with holders of information over how they could publicly declare the number of requests received.

“I have been concerned for some time there is not full transparency and accounting over the various means (those holding information) agencies are engaging with law enforcement agencies.”

He said a range of law enforcement bodies were citing clauses in the Privacy Act to get people’s personal details. Clauses in Principle 11 of the act allowed personal information to be provided if it was for “the maintenance of the law”, “protection of the public revenue”, to “prevent or lessen a serious threat” to inviduals and similar clauses.

But the broad intent of Principle 11 was to protect information, he said. “It is not a power to obtain information for the police.”

…but it gets so much worse than this. Because while the spineless, gutless businesses secretly hand over our personal information to the cops without any warrant is despicable, the banks in NZ then use that information as a negative credit blot against you!

That’s right, if the Police secretly ask the Bank to give them your personal information, the Banks then use that secret request as a negative mark on your credit rating.

You have no way of knowing that this has happened, what has been done with your personal information, why it was done nor do you even have the chance to clear whatever bad mark is put against your name. What if the Police just don’t like you? They can make a request, gain all your information and then secretly damage your credit rating. How many ex-partners of Police suspect that’s happened?

This flies in the face of every notion of natural justice we have!

If the Police believe they have the evidence to gain your information, they go to a Judge and present their evidence and the Judge gives them a warrant, so what is happening here is vast secret trawling and the negative unchallenged consequences that then come with that vast secret trawling.

I get that middle NZ worship’s authority and they have a romantic infatuation with the Police, but for the love of God, this is beyond dangerous. You all get how far away from Democracy this is right?

It’s a pity the Police spend so much time secretly taking our information and smearing our reputations but so little time being able to catch self confessing rapists who boast about their crimes online.

What is this Police Force for? Solving crimes and protecting the public or spying on the people?

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

STAY CONNECTED

11,996FansLike
4,057FollowersFollow

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service