thedailyblog--2020-02-23--Everybody We Don’t Like Is Literally A Russian Hacker – On The Latest Anti Sanders Smea

So yesterday , I saw headlines shrilly proclaiming that Bernie Sanders had just been briefed by the authorities that Russia was reportedly attempting to “ help ” his Presidential campaign .
Now , personally , I ’ m more than a bit cynical when I see “ candidate who isn ’ t ‘ supposed ’ to be doing well or even winning , is now associated with RUSSIAN HACKING ” turn up in the news media ; as it generally means that a ) various somebodies in various establishment-style institutions aren ’ t able to mentally handle the prospect that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anointed , and/or allegedly ‘ mainstream palatable ’ one ( s ) is doing well , therefore requiring some sort of Deus Ex Russia ‘ explanation ’ to justify why it ’ s not they who were out of touch ; and b ) that on the offchance it actually *is* genuine democratic enthusiasm ( in a democracy and/or Democratic Party , no less ! )
that ’ s fueling said candidate ’ s rise … that you can probably knock them down a peg or three by claiming they ’ re some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or , phrased another way , you could almost imagine the contents of Sanders getting a briefing from American authorities of this nature as being something like “ you ’ re winning too much – But matters became somewhat more complex when I opened my newspaper over dark lunch this morning [ ‘ dark lunch ’ being the meal sometime after midnight , enjoyed by those of us who are nocturnal in both our rest and our repast-ery rhythms ] , to find that it was proclaiming U.S. intelligence officers were telling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
Which would therefore suggest that the Official Narrative as from now is going to be that the Russians are ‘ meddling ’ on behalf of *both* Trump *and* Sanders .
Now to be fair and sure , in theory and in principle that ’ s not as conceptually ridiculous as it might otherwise sound .
If I were trying to destabilize and weaken America – get internal divisions exacerbated to the point that it was so busy internally it couldn ’ t be bothered acting anywhere else – eagerly supporting its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do this *anyway* , would certainly be one way to do it .
But that ’ s not usually how this seems to go when reported on in the media , or utilized in political mudslinging ( but , then , I repeat myself ) .
Instead , it ’ s utilized to suggest that “ The Russians ” have a ‘ preferred candidate ’ , whom they ’ re going to puppeteer and/or lead about by the nose [ rather than a previous generation ’ s hysteria around Kennedy – who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ en mass ; which differs from some of the more lurid recent hysteria around Karl Rove *also* using chanted latin as a form of binding and control ] .
In which case , we find ourselves in the current odd situation of – again , taking things at face value – those gosh-darn Russians apparently deeply and abidingly wanting every American to have access to healthcare .
Yet as we continue to slouch toward the Democrats ’ Convention , I doubt the accusations of Russian interference are going to be restricted to just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge had already been leveled at fellow Democratic candidate , Tulsi Gabbard – who ’ s presently suing Hillary Clinton for defamation in response [ Clinton , interestingly , keeps using improper means to dodge the Defamation papers being served , including by making use of her Secret Service detail ] .
Instead , what I strongly suspect we are going to see is an escalating tide of “ EVERY CANDIDATE OTHER THAN A PARTICULAR NARROW RANGE OF NEOLIBERAL ( and/or NEOCON ) ESTABLISHMENT APPROVED ONES , IS A RUSSIAN CANDIDATE ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and have precious little , if anything , to do with Russia .
Although do , in a sense , have quite something to do with the concept of intervening or meddling in a democratic process .

So yesterday, I saw headlines shrilly proclaiming that Bernie Sanders had just been briefed by the authorities that Russia was reportedly attempting to “help” his Presidential campaign.
Now, personally, I’m more than a bit cynical when I see “candidate who isn’t ‘supposed’ to be doing well or even winning, is now associated with RUSSIAN HACKING” turn up in the news media; as it generally means that a) various somebodies in various establishment-style institutions aren’t able to mentally handle the prospect that a candidate other than their preferred, anointed, and/or allegedly ‘mainstream palatable’ one(s) is doing well, therefore requiring some sort of Deus Ex Russia ‘explanation’ to justify why it’s not they who were out of touch; and b) that on the offchance it actually *is* genuine democratic enthusiasm (in a democracy and/or Democratic Party, no less!) that’s fueling said candidate’s rise … that you can probably knock them down a peg or three by claiming they’re some form of Russian and/or Manchurian Candidate.
Or, phrased another way, you could almost imagine the contents of Sanders getting a briefing from American authorities of this nature as being something like “you’re winning too much –
we think you’re cheating.”
But matters became somewhat more complex when I opened my newspaper over dark lunch this morning [‘dark lunch’ being the meal sometime after midnight, enjoyed by those of us who are nocturnal in both our rest and our repast-ery rhythms], to find that it was proclaiming U.S. intelligence officers were telling the American government that Russia was intervening for Trump.
Which would therefore suggest that the Official Narrative as from now is going to be that the Russians are ‘meddling’ on behalf of *both* Trump *and* Sanders.
Now to be fair and sure, in theory and in principle that’s not as conceptually ridiculous as it might otherwise sound. If I were trying to destabilize and weaken America – get internal divisions exacerbated to the point that it was so busy internally it couldn’t be bothered acting anywhere else – eagerly supporting its own already-running interior processes that seem to do this *anyway* , would certainly be one way to do it.
But that’s not usually how this seems to go when reported on in the media, or utilized in political mudslinging (but, then, I repeat myself). Instead, it’s utilized to suggest that “The Russians” have a ‘preferred candidate’, whom they’re going to puppeteer and/or lead about by the nose [rather than a previous generation’s hysteria around Kennedy – who was presumably to be controlled from offshore .. en mass; which differs from some of the more lurid recent hysteria around Karl Rove *also* using chanted latin as a form of binding and control].
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
In which case, we find ourselves in the current odd situation of – again, taking things at face value – those gosh-darn Russians apparently deeply and abidingly wanting every American to have access to healthcare.
Yet as we continue to slouch toward the Democrats’ Convention, I doubt the accusations of Russian interference are going to be restricted to just Sanders and Trump. Indeed, the charge had already been leveled at fellow Democratic candidate, Tulsi Gabbard – who’s presently suing Hillary Clinton for defamation in response [Clinton, interestingly, keeps using improper means to dodge the Defamation papers being served, including by making use of her Secret Service detail] .
Instead, what I strongly suspect we are going to see is an escalating tide of “EVERY CANDIDATE OTHER THAN A PARTICULAR NARROW RANGE OF NEOLIBERAL (and/or NEOCON) ESTABLISHMENT APPROVED ONES , IS A RUSSIAN CANDIDATE”. For reasons which should be eminently obvious, and have precious little, if anything, to do with Russia.
Although do, in a sense, have quite something to do with the concept of intervening or meddling in a democratic process.


thedailyblog--2020-02-24--PSNA challenges Wellington City anti-Palestinian resolution disguised as an anti-semitism resolution

On Saturday the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa wrote to the Wellington City mayor and councillors urging them to withdraw a proposed resolution on anti-semitism which is scheduled to be discussed and voted on at this Wednesday ’ s council meeting .
This resolution is based on the hugely controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti-semitism .
This definition is being used in many US states , US university campuses and some European countries to attack Palestinian human rights groups and condemn their actions as anti-semitic .
Even the main drafter of the original definition , Kenneth Stern , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the world .
He says it was intended as a guideline for researchers and its use in resolutions or legislation – such as the proposed Wellington City resolution – would “ …restrict academic freedom and punish political speech ” .
It ’ s clear the mayor and councillors had no idea the history or controversy around this issue .
They should have been alerted by council staff but weren ’ t .
The promotors of this resolution were no doubt hoping it would slip through under the radar but we found out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its passage .
We want the resolution withdrawn and replaced by a comprehensive resolution which condemns anti-semitism as well as Islamophobia and white supremacism .
It would be far better for Wellington City to pass a comprehensive anti-racism resolution rather than have a divided vote on the proposed “ anti-semitism ” resolution .
We would welcome the opportunity to work with the New Zealand Jewish Council , Islamic associations and other minority groups to draft such a comprehensive resolution .
The letter we sent to the mayor and councillors is reproduced below .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa which advocates for Palestinian human rights and which is also strongly opposed to racism in all its forms – including anti-semitism .
Our members have protested against racist spray-painting attacks on Jewish graves and synagogues just as we have marched in support of the Islamic community after the horrific events of March 15 last year .
However , there are serious problems with the proposed resolution and we are asking that it be withdrawn from the council agenda and replaced by a resolution which condemns all racism such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as anti-semitism .
The problem with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-semitism , which is the focus of the proposed resolution , is its use in many US states and some European countries to claim Palestinian human rights activists are anti-semitic when they call for action against Israel until it complies with international law and United Nations resolutions .
It is being used as a weapon to deny free speech and freedom of political action to those standing up for the victims of Israel ’ s brutal military occupation of Palestine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The IHRA definition was always intended as a guideline for researchers , not as a prescription for a resolution or legislation .
The main drafter of the resolution , Kenneth Stern , has cautioned against its use in resolutions or legislation and is quite emphatic that it must not be misused as is proposed in the Wellington City Council resolution .
Here is what he has to say on the IHRA Wikipedia page : “ The main drafter of the working definition and its examples , Kenneth S. Stern , cautioned against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legal tool .
[ 26 ] He has opposed efforts to enshrine it in legislation [ 98 ] and wrote a letter to members of the US Congress warning that giving the definition legal status would be “ unconstitutional and unwise ” in December 2016 .
[ 99 ] In 2011 , he co-authored an article about how the ‘ Working Definition ’ was being abused in Title VI cases , because it was being employed in an attempt to “ restrict academic freedom and punish political speech.
” In November 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Representatives that the definition has been abused on various US university campuses .
He warned that it could “ restrict academic freedom and punish political speech ” and questioned whether definitions created by minority groups should be legislatively enshrined , giving as one of several examples .
[ 26 ] “ Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians .
If “ Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination , and denying Israel the right to exist ” is antisemitism , then shouldn ’ t “ Denying the Palestinian people their right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exist ” be anti-Palestinianism ?
Would they then ask administrators to police and possibly punish campus events by pro-Israel groups who oppose the two state solution , or claim the Palestinian people are a myth ?
” [ 26 ] He states that the definition was created “ as a tool for data collectors in European countries to identify what to include and exclude from their reports about antisemitism , and to have a common frame of reference so that data might be compared across borders.
” [ 98 ] He “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first Special Envoy for Antisemitism to promote the definition as an important tool.
” He used it effectively as the framework for a report on global antisemitism .
He added : “ approaches to antisemitism that endorse and promote academic freedom are more likely to work , in part because they underscore the academy ’ s goal of increasing knowledge and promoting critical thinking… .
approaches that explain academic freedom away or harm it will not only fail , they make the problem worse.
” [ 26 ] We do not want the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and pass a resolution which will be used to attack and demonise those who stand up for international law and United Nations resolutions and work hard for Palestinian human rights .
For example the City Council in Munich , Germany , has used the IHRA definition of anti-semitism to condemn Palestinian activists calling for BDS ( Boycott , Divestment and Sanctions ) against Israel and have denied the use of city council facilities to Palestinian human rights organisations .
Palestinian activists here in Wellington have already faced attempts by pro-Israeli groups to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and events and last year a local school faced a determined attempt to stop me speaking after I had been invited to do so with students at a lunchtime meeting using baseless claims that I was anti-semitic .
These pressures will increase dramatically if this resolution is passed as it is .
Meanwhile Jewish groups in New Zealand and around the world have spoken out strongly against the misuse of the IHRA definition and in 2018 over 40 Jewish groups expressed their support for BDS and attacked attempts to equate calls for boycotts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter from these Jewish groups said in part : “ As social justice organizations from around the world , we write this letter with growing alarm regarding the targeting of organizations that support Palestinian rights in general and the nonviolent Boycott , Divestment and Sanctions ( BDS ) movement , in particular .
These attacks too often take the form of cynical and false accusations of antisemitism that dangerously conflate anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel ’ s policies and system of occupation and apartheid ” Similar sentiments have come from Nobel Peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tutu who says the world should call out Israeli policies towards Palestinians as “ apartheid ” and implement a boycott of Israel .
New Zealand has a proud history of standing up in support of the struggle against South African apartheid and we must do the same against Israeli apartheid .
It is surprising that none of this deep concern and controversy about the misuse of the IHRA definition of anti-semitism was included in the council ’ s background paper on this resolution .
It should have been .
It would be tragic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horrific events of March 15 last year , a resolution was passed by Wellington City Council which will be used to deny freedom of speech to members of the Islamic community in Wellington and New Zealand , some of whom are Palestinians , when they speak out against Israeli apartheid .
It would be a dark day for democracy , free speech and human rights if the resolution is passed as it currently stands .
It would put the council on the wrong side of history .
We therefore respectfully request that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very happy to work with the Jewish Council , the Islamic community and other minority groups on a resolution which condemns the poison of racism in all its forms and calls for community solidarity as the best way to protect all of us .

On Saturday the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa wrote to the Wellington City mayor and councillors urging them to withdraw a proposed resolution on anti-semitism which is scheduled to be discussed and voted on at this Wednesday’s council meeting.
This resolution is based on the hugely controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti-semitism.
This definition is being used in many US states, US university campuses and some European countries to attack Palestinian human rights groups and condemn their actions as anti-semitic.
Even the main drafter of the original definition, Kenneth Stern, has said the definition is being misused around the world. He says it was intended as a guideline for researchers and its use in resolutions or legislation – such as the proposed Wellington City resolution – would “…restrict academic freedom and punish political speech”.
It’s clear the mayor and councillors had no idea the history or controversy around this issue. They should have been alerted by council staff but weren’t.
The promotors of this resolution were no doubt hoping it would slip through under the radar but we found out about it hopefully in time to stop its passage.
We want the resolution withdrawn and replaced by a comprehensive resolution which condemns anti-semitism as well as Islamophobia and white supremacism.
It would be far better for Wellington City to pass a comprehensive anti-racism resolution rather than have a divided vote on the proposed “anti-semitism” resolution.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
We would welcome the opportunity to work with the New Zealand Jewish Council, Islamic associations and other minority groups to draft such a comprehensive resolution.
The letter we sent to the mayor and councillors is reproduced below.
Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa
22 February 2019
Andy Foster
Mayor
Wellington City Council
Wellington
cc Wellington City Councillors
Kia ora Mr Foster,
Re: Proposed resolution on antisemitism
I’m writing on behalf of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa which advocates for Palestinian human rights and which is also strongly opposed to racism in all its forms – including anti-semitism.
Our members have protested against racist spray-painting attacks on Jewish graves and synagogues just as we have marched in support of the Islamic community after the horrific events of March 15 last year.
However, there are serious problems with the proposed resolution and we are asking that it be withdrawn from the council agenda and replaced by a resolution which condemns all racism such as islamophobia and white supremacism as well as anti-semitism.
The problem with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-semitism, which is the focus of the proposed resolution, is its use in many US states and some European countries to claim Palestinian human rights activists are anti-semitic when they call for action against Israel until it complies with international law and United Nations resolutions. It is being used as a weapon to deny free speech and freedom of political action to those standing up for the victims of Israel’s brutal military occupation of Palestine and ongoing theft of Palestinian land.
The IHRA definition was always intended as a guideline for researchers, not as a prescription for a resolution or legislation. The main drafter of the resolution, Kenneth Stern, has cautioned against its use in resolutions or legislation and is quite emphatic that it must not be misused as is proposed in the Wellington City Council resolution.
Here is what he has to say on the IHRA Wikipedia page:
“The main drafter of the working definition and its examples, Kenneth S. Stern, cautioned against the free speech implications of its use as a legal tool.[26] He has opposed efforts to enshrine it in legislation[98] and wrote a letter to members of the US Congress warning that giving the definition legal status would be “unconstitutional and unwise” in December 2016.[99] In 2011, he co-authored an article about how the ‘Working Definition’ was being abused in Title VI cases, because it was being employed in an attempt to “restrict academic freedom and punish political speech.” In November 2017, Stern explained to the US House of Representatives that the definition has been abused on various US university campuses. He warned that it could “restrict academic freedom and punish political speech” and questioned whether definitions created by minority groups should be legislatively enshrined, giving as one of several examples.[26]
“Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist” is antisemitism, then shouldn’t “Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination, and denying Palestine the right to exist” be anti-Palestinianism? Would they then ask administrators to police and possibly punish campus events by pro-Israel groups who oppose the two state solution, or claim the Palestinian people are a myth?”[26]
He states that the definition was created “as a tool for data collectors in European countries to identify what to include and exclude from their reports about antisemitism, and to have a common frame of reference so that data might be compared across borders.”[98] He “encouraged the Department of State’s first Special Envoy for Antisemitism to promote the definition as an important tool.” He used it effectively as the framework for a report on global antisemitism. He added: “approaches to antisemitism that endorse and promote academic freedom are more likely to work, in part because they underscore the academy’s goal of increasing knowledge and promoting critical thinking…. approaches that explain academic freedom away or harm it will not only fail, they make the problem worse.”[26]
We do not want the council to “make the problem worse” and pass a resolution which will be used to attack and demonise those who stand up for international law and United Nations resolutions and work hard for Palestinian human rights.
For example the City Council in Munich, Germany, has used the IHRA definition of anti-semitism to condemn Palestinian activists calling for BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against Israel and have denied the use of city council facilities to Palestinian human rights organisations.
Palestinian activists here in Wellington have already faced attempts by pro-Israeli groups to deny them access to facilities for meetings and events and last year a local school faced a determined attempt to stop me speaking after I had been invited to do so with students at a lunchtime meeting using baseless claims that I was anti-semitic.
These pressures will increase dramatically if this resolution is passed as it is.
Meanwhile Jewish groups in New Zealand and around the world have spoken out strongly against the misuse of the IHRA definition and in 2018 over 40 Jewish groups expressed their support for BDS and attacked attempts to equate calls for boycotts of Israel with anti-semitism.
An open letter from these Jewish groups said in part:
“As social justice organizations from around the world, we write this letter with growing alarm regarding the targeting of organizations that support Palestinian rights in general and the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in particular. These attacks too often take the form of cynical and false accusations of antisemitism that dangerously conflate anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel’s policies and system of occupation and apartheid”
Similar sentiments have come from Nobel Peace Prize winner and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu who says the world should call out Israeli policies towards Palestinians as “apartheid” and implement a boycott of Israel. New Zealand has a proud history of standing up in support of the struggle against South African apartheid and we must do the same against Israeli apartheid.
It is surprising that none of this deep concern and controversy about the misuse of the IHRA definition of anti-semitism was included in the council’s background paper on this resolution. It should have been.
It would be tragic if, on the back of the horrific events of March 15 last year, a resolution was passed by Wellington City Council which will be used to deny freedom of speech to members of the Islamic community in Wellington and New Zealand, some of whom are Palestinians, when they speak out against Israeli apartheid.
It would be a dark day for democracy, free speech and human rights if the resolution is passed as it currently stands. It would put the council on the wrong side of history.
We therefore respectfully request that the resolution be withdrawn.
We would be very happy to work with the Jewish Council, the Islamic community and other minority groups on a resolution which condemns the poison of racism in all its forms and calls for community solidarity as the best way to protect all of us.
In solidarity against racism.
Nga mihi mahana,
John Minto
National Chair
PSNA


thedailyblog--2020-02-24--MUST READ: Wake Up Call

MUST READ: Wake Up Call

IT WAS SUCH a comforting dream .
The idea that Jacinda Ardern had somehow inspired a new and vigorously hybrid political faith contained so much hope .
That NZ First , a wholesome manifestation of New Zealand ’ s best conservative traditions , could reliably anchor a Labour-Green government determined to reanimate the reformist traditions of “ King Dick ” Seddon and Mickey Savage .
As if , by some special historical dispensation , Jacinda and the rest of us – the “ democratic public ” of New Zealand – could enjoy the best of both worlds .
And then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as presented to the electorate by its redoubtable leader , Winston Peters , is , indeed , the embodiment of the best of this country ’ s conservative traditions .
We are encouraged to believe that it will always be fiercely protective of New Zealand ’ s British inheritance : Representative Democracy and the Rule of Law .
Equally , however , NZ First declares its unwavering allegiance to the achievements of New Zealanders themselves : the creation of a robust capitalist economy and , out of the wreckage of the Great Depression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Behind Peters ’ masterfully patriotic sales-pitch , it would seem that there has always existed a hidden but unbreakable connection to a very different New Zealand .
This New Zealand , the one in which NZ First conducts its practical political business , is the New Zealand of the quid pro quo .
A nation of mutual back-scratchers .
A country whose heraldic device depicts a golden coin encompassed by two open palms .
A deeply corrupt New Zealand , which endures only because New Zealanders have trained themselves not to recognise corruption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them in the face .
( Which is , of course , why we ’ re known as the least corrupt nation on earth – because , so great is our discipline , that we report less corruption than any other nation on earth ! )
That he has been able to operate so successfully and for so long in this other New Zealand strongly suggests that Peters is a politician without illusions .
Over a parliamentary career spanning more than 40 years , he has come to see more clearly than most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works .
He understands that New Zealand capitalism has never been strong enough to function effectively without massive state support .
That this dependence inevitably gave rise to a political culture of unabashed favour-seeking , cronyism and special pleading .
That rampant corruption flourished in New Zealand because the country ’ s trade unions were willing to look the other way in return for state protection , and because its news media understood , without having to be told , what could be reported , and what could not .
( Peters ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally been triggered by the latter ’ s refusal to stick to the agreed script in relation to himself and his party . )
Peters ’ defection from National and his subsequent creation of NZ First was prompted by the massive disruption of “ old ” New Zealand ’ s deeply ingrained ( if unacknowledged ) culture of corruption by the neoliberal economic and social reforms of the 1980s and 90s .
Peters was enraged by what he correctly perceived to be the cynical denunciation and deliberate destruction of the protected national economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free-market capitalism .
He hated the way these “ Quislings ” sold their country off to the highest foreign bidder .
His exposure of Neoliberalism ’ s new rules of engagement via the “ Winebox Scandal ” was motivated primarily by his determination to demonstrate the deeply compromised character of the new regime and its defenders – and they have never forgiven him for it .
The fatal flaw in Peters ’ thinking – and therefore in the political conduct of NZ First – is that he has always sought to rescue his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status quo ante .
This meant re-creating a state-supported economy made up of importunate capitalist clients ready to offer Cabinet Ministers ( and/or their parties ) whatever it took to secure – and keep – their indispensable political patronage .
Peters and his colleagues perfected the art of appearing to be the foes of neoliberal capitalism while keeping hidden from the electorate their determination to restore the crony capitalism of the pre-Rogernomics era .
His intention was always to attract the support of sufficient National Party and Labour Party politicians to secure his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , re-entry to the places where the deals – and the prices of the deals – were struck .
He was convinced that New Zealand ’ s neoliberal revolution , like all revolutions , would ultimately prove unable to resist the tendency of fundamental economic and political realities to reassert themselves .
The fundamental fact remains : New Zealand capitalism can not prosper without the active support of New Zealand ’ s politicians .
Peters and NZ First have always been determined to prosper from that fact .
But , if NZ First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crony capitalism , Labour and the Greens could hardly do so – not without fatally compromising their “ transformative ” ambitions .
No matter how imminent a three-part rendition of the Hallelujah Song might appear , Jacinda ’ s broad new political faith has always been more apparent than real .
The longer the present coalition government endures , the more opportunities for clientelism to become entrenched will present themselves .
NZ First has never made a conspicuous display of resisting the temptation to exact a price for making things happen , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiative and thwarted policy commitment , the Labour leader ’ s broad political faith takes on more and more of the appearance of a tawdry religious huckster ’ s travelling road-show .
Jacinda ’ s white vestments may look impressive on the cover of the international edition of Time magazine , but every day Labour ’ s relationship with Winston Peters and NZ First continues , her ability to go on wearing them back home in New Zealand – without exciting derision – diminishes .
It is time for the Prime Minister to @ @ @

IT WAS SUCH a comforting dream. The idea that Jacinda Ardern had somehow inspired a new and vigorously hybrid political faith contained so much hope. That NZ First, a wholesome manifestation of New Zealand’s best conservative traditions, could reliably anchor a Labour-Green government determined to reanimate the reformist traditions of “King Dick” Seddon and Mickey Savage. As if, by some special historical dispensation, Jacinda and the rest of us – the “democratic public” of New Zealand – could enjoy the best of both worlds.
And then I woke up.
NZ First, as presented to the electorate by its redoubtable leader, Winston Peters, is, indeed, the embodiment of the best of this country’s conservative traditions. We are encouraged to believe that it will always be fiercely protective of New Zealand’s British inheritance: Representative Democracy and the Rule of Law. Equally, however, NZ First declares its unwavering allegiance to the achievements of New Zealanders themselves: the creation of a robust capitalist economy and, out of the wreckage of the Great Depression, a just and caring society.
If only.
Behind Peters’ masterfully patriotic sales-pitch, it would seem that there has always existed a hidden but unbreakable connection to a very different New Zealand. This New Zealand, the one in which NZ First conducts its practical political business, is the New Zealand of the quid pro quo. A nation of mutual back-scratchers. A country whose heraldic device depicts a golden coin encompassed by two open palms. A deeply corrupt New Zealand, which endures only because New Zealanders have trained themselves not to recognise corruption – even when it’s staring them in the face. (Which is, of course, why we’re known as the least corrupt nation on earth – because, so great is our discipline, that we report less corruption than any other nation on earth!)
That he has been able to operate so successfully and for so long in this other New Zealand strongly suggests that Peters is a politician without illusions. Over a parliamentary career spanning more than 40 years, he has come to see more clearly than most of his colleagues how the country really works. He understands that New Zealand capitalism has never been strong enough to function effectively without massive state support. That this dependence inevitably gave rise to a political culture of unabashed favour-seeking, cronyism and special pleading. That rampant corruption flourished in New Zealand because the country’s trade unions were willing to look the other way in return for state protection, and because its news media understood, without having to be told, what could be reported, and what could not. (Peters’ furious outbursts against the news media have generally been triggered by the latter’s refusal to stick to the agreed script in relation to himself and his party.)
Peters’ defection from National and his subsequent creation of NZ First was prompted by the massive disruption of “old” New Zealand’s deeply ingrained (if unacknowledged) culture of corruption by the neoliberal economic and social reforms of the 1980s and 90s. Peters was enraged by what he correctly perceived to be the cynical denunciation and deliberate destruction of the protected national economy by the local shills for global, free-market capitalism. He hated the way these “Quislings” sold their country off to the highest foreign bidder. His exposure of Neoliberalism’s new rules of engagement via the “Winebox Scandal” was motivated primarily by his determination to demonstrate the deeply compromised character of the new regime and its defenders – and they have never forgiven him for it.
The fatal flaw in Peters’ thinking – and therefore in the political conduct of NZ First – is that he has always sought to rescue his country’s fortunes by restoring the status quo ante. This meant re-creating a state-supported economy made up of importunate capitalist clients ready to offer Cabinet Ministers (and/or their parties) whatever it took to secure – and keep – their indispensable political patronage.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Peters and his colleagues perfected the art of appearing to be the foes of neoliberal capitalism while keeping hidden from the electorate their determination to restore the crony capitalism of the pre-Rogernomics era. His intention was always to attract the support of sufficient National Party and Labour Party politicians to secure his own, and his party’s, re-entry to the places where the deals – and the prices of the deals – were struck. He was convinced that New Zealand’s neoliberal revolution, like all revolutions, would ultimately prove unable to resist the tendency of fundamental economic and political realities to reassert themselves.
The fundamental fact remains: New Zealand capitalism cannot prosper without the active support of New Zealand’s politicians. Peters and NZ First have always been determined to prosper from that fact.
But, if NZ First sought to prosper from the re-establishment of crony capitalism, Labour and the Greens could hardly do so – not without fatally compromising their “transformative” ambitions. No matter how imminent a three-part rendition of the Hallelujah Song might appear, Jacinda’s broad new political faith has always been more apparent than real. The longer the present coalition government endures, the more opportunities for clientelism to become entrenched will present themselves. NZ First has never made a conspicuous display of resisting the temptation to exact a price for making things happen, or not happen. And with every stalled initiative and thwarted policy commitment, the Labour leader’s broad political faith takes on more and more of the appearance of a tawdry religious huckster’s travelling road-show.
Jacinda’s white vestments may look impressive on the cover of the international edition of Time magazine, but every day Labour’s relationship with Winston Peters and NZ First continues, her ability to go on wearing them back home in New Zealand – without exciting derision – diminishes.
It is time for the Prime Minister to wake up.


thedailyblog--2020-02-24--Dr Liz Gordon: Vaping, addiction and innovation

I am not opposed to vaping .
Someone very close to me had much difficulty in giving up smoking , and a move to vaping has made a big difference to her .
She vapes on small devices , easily concealed within the hand , and with very little steam emerging .
There is no smell .
She purchases her vape stuff ( the liquid , does it have a name ? )
from reputable dealers .
She is the quiet and unobtrusive side of vaping , if you like .
The other side is the macho side , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ puff out huge amounts of steam to make their presence known .
They remind me of the pipes that my parents ’ generation used to smoke .
In addition to these two extremes , there is a large range of vapers ( is that their name ? )
ranging from pretty silvery , pinky things designed to attract young girls to a range of gorgeous , smart things that look like expensive fountain pens .
This wide range and the shops that sell them is intended to sell the message that vaping is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the glamour of smoking has long gone , with cigarette packets now covered in garish pictures of rotten teeth and clogged arteries , there is no such restrictions on vaping .
The equivalent would be everyone having to buy a bog standard machine in yellowish beige , perhaps with a health warning up the side .
We are far from such restrictions .
The free market has got its blooded claws very much into vaping , in order to provide a new mechanism to assuage the human affinity for addictive substances that make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the focus is on vaping as a delivery mechanism for nicotine .
This is of concern in itself .
Unlike cigarettes , whose nicotine content is standardised simply by the nature of the tobacco , vaping liquid can deliver nicotine at almost any strength , and this area is totally unregulated .
There is the possibility that a new generation of super-addicts can be bred .
That is not the only concern about the liquids .
We know about the flavoured ones aimed at children and young people , and I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law change for those .
But what about the propensity of vapers to deliver heroin , ecstasy , MDMA , P , even cannabinoids straight into the pockets of users , then into the lungs , with huge difficulties for authorities in tracing , tracking and stamping out such practices .
Vaping is a potential delivery mechanism for a wide range of things , and while the worry is about proliferation of addictive substances , it is also being used for good .
In particular , in some areas of medicine vaping is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because the vapour bypasses the digestive system , it absorbs quickly into the bloodstream .
For all those diabetics out there who currently inject themselves daily , the vaper is a more precise and simple tool ( there is already inhalable insulin ) .
Not available in New Zealand , though .
The future might see even the most complex medical cases treated with a precisely targeted cocktail of drugs self-delivered by a daily vape .
It might also include vitamins and minerals and a little dash of something to make one feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course ) , relieve pain or enhance our brain power !
However , every expansion of vaping will bring enormous profits to the drug companies , significant costs to the system or user and enormous risks as legitimate expansion is mirrored by illegal drugs produced in vaping form .
It is really dangerous territory , which the government ’ s planned law changes barely addresses .
In short , there is a need to address vaping as a smoking alternative ( which the bill largely does ) , as a potential mechanism for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partially covered in a product recall section ) and as a potential future for health management for the whole population ( which is not addressed at all ) .
While a start , the bill introduced today is about risks around smoking .
In the future there will need to be legislation around the risks and possibilities around vaping .
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society .
She usually blogs on justice , @ @ @ @ @ @

I am not opposed to vaping. Someone very close to me had much difficulty in giving up smoking, and a move to vaping has made a big difference to her. She vapes on small devices, easily concealed within the hand, and with very little steam emerging. There is no smell. She purchases her vape stuff (the liquid, does it have a name?) from reputable dealers. She is the quiet and unobtrusive side of vaping, if you like.
The other side is the macho side, with large, usually black, implements that puff out huge amounts of steam to make their presence known. They remind me of the pipes that my parents’ generation used to smoke. In addition to these two extremes, there is a large range of vapers (is that their name?) ranging from pretty silvery, pinky things designed to attract young girls to a range of gorgeous, smart things that look like expensive fountain pens.
This wide range and the shops that sell them is intended to sell the message that vaping is acceptable and glamorous for all. While the glamour of smoking has long gone, with cigarette packets now covered in garish pictures of rotten teeth and clogged arteries, there is no such restrictions on vaping. The equivalent would be everyone having to buy a bog standard machine in yellowish beige, perhaps with a health warning up the side.
We are far from such restrictions. The free market has got its blooded claws very much into vaping, in order to provide a new mechanism to assuage the human affinity for addictive substances that make one feel good. At the moment, the focus is on vaping as a delivery mechanism for nicotine. This is of concern in itself. Unlike cigarettes, whose nicotine content is standardised simply by the nature of the tobacco, vaping liquid can deliver nicotine at almost any strength, and this area is totally unregulated. There is the possibility that a new generation of super-addicts can be bred.
That is not the only concern about the liquids. We know about the flavoured ones aimed at children and young people, and I can see that we are heading for a law change for those. But what about the propensity of vapers to deliver heroin, ecstasy, MDMA, P, even cannabinoids straight into the pockets of users, then into the lungs, with huge difficulties for authorities in tracing, tracking and stamping out such practices.
Vaping is a potential delivery mechanism for a wide range of things, and while the worry is about proliferation of addictive substances, it is also being used for good. In particular, in some areas of medicine vaping is beginning to supersede tablets or injections. Because the vapour bypasses the digestive system, it absorbs quickly into the bloodstream. For all those diabetics out there who currently inject themselves daily, the vaper is a more precise and simple tool (there is already inhalable insulin). Not available in New Zealand, though.
The future might see even the most complex medical cases treated with a precisely targeted cocktail of drugs self-delivered by a daily vape. It might also include vitamins and minerals and a little dash of something to make one feel good (I mean caffeine, of course), relieve pain or enhance our brain power!
However, every expansion of vaping will bring enormous profits to the drug companies, significant costs to the system or user and enormous risks as legitimate expansion is mirrored by illegal drugs produced in vaping form. It is really dangerous territory, which the government’s planned law changes barely addresses.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
In short, there is a need to address vaping as a smoking alternative (which the bill largely does), as a potential mechanism for delivery of addictive substances (which is partially covered in a product recall section) and as a potential future for health management for the whole population (which is not addressed at all).
While a start, the bill introduced today is about risks around smoking. In the future there will need to be legislation around the risks and possibilities around vaping.
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.


thedailyblog--2020-02-24--The one constant in national and local body politics…

The one constant in national and local body politics is the length to which politicians go to hide the identity of their big donors .
They don ’ t want us to know where their swags of money come from or the nod-nod , wink-wink policy promises that ensure the wealthy get what they want from the political parties they have bought .
National Party figures are currently embroiled in a court case where it is alleged two donations of $ 100 , 000 were deliberately split into amounts that would come under the $ 15,000 limit above which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
New Zealand First is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office in a similar situation where large undeclared donations were channelled into a “ New Zealand First Foundation ” and then used to pay election expenses .
Catrionna Maclennan makes a strong case for government funding of political parties but in the meantime other changes are urgently needed .
I ’ ve been part of a submission to parliament ’ s Justice Select Committee , which is calling for feedback on possible electoral law changes as a result of the 2019 local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on 29 February ) Our submission is based on experiences here in Christchurch and our recommendations aimed to strengthen our democratic processes .
Overseas-based persons have made substantial donations to local mayoral candidates in Christchurch .
Recommendation : We believe only New Zealand citizens or permanent residents should be able to contribute to local election campaigns .
It is often unclear who the people are behind a donation if it comes through in the name of a business .
Recommendation : We believe only individuals should be permitted to contribute to election campaigns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required under Electoral law : The penalties for non-disclosure of donations are not a deterrent to candidates skirting the law .
Recommendation : We believe these penalties need significant strengthening , so candidates take them seriously .
Currently any investigations are left to the local electoral officer .
In the case of Christchurch the local electoral officer is a council employee who works closely with the mayor and councillors in the day to day business of the council .
It is not appropriate to require this person to act on complaints of alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mayor or local councillors .
Complaints of breaches in electoral law put this local electoral officer in an invidious position .
How can this council employee be expected to hold the mayor to account for example ?
It also means judgement calls made by the electoral officer will often have the automatic taint of bias – as has happened in Christchurch .
Recommendation : We believe all complaints should be referred direct to the Electoral Commission where independence is more clearly seen by all parties and the public .
• Level of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We believe the current donation limit which requires notification should be lowered to $ 100 .
Currently candidates are required to file an election expenses return no more than 55 days after the election .
However we believe it is important for voters to know who the campaign funders are BEFORE they vote .
This was important in Wellington for example where a single major donor had a dramatic impact on the mayoral campaign .
In the Wellington case the public found out about the donation before the election but in Christchurch the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their donors before the election when approached by the media .
Recommendation : We propose that all notifiable donations be required to be publicly notified at least one week before the election date with donations unable to be received after this point .
In some cases donors not living in Christchurch have used local addresses to give the impression they are locals when they are not .
Recommendation : We believe all candidates should be required to ensure actual addresses are provided rather than local “ addresses of convenience .
”

The one constant in national and local body politics is the length to which politicians go to hide the identity of their big donors. They don’t want us to know where their swags of money come from or the nod-nod, wink-wink policy promises that ensure the wealthy get what they want from the political parties they have bought.
National Party figures are currently embroiled in a court case where it is alleged two donations of $100, 000 were deliberately split into amounts that would come under the $15,000 limit above which the donors to political parties must be identified. New Zealand First is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office in a similar situation where large undeclared donations were channelled into a “New Zealand First Foundation” and then used to pay election expenses.
Catrionna Maclennan makes a strong case for government funding of political parties but in the meantime other changes are urgently needed.
I’ve been part of a submission to parliament’s Justice Select Committee, which is calling for feedback on possible electoral law changes as a result of the 2019 local body election campaign. (Submissions close on 29 February)
Our submission is based on experiences here in Christchurch and our recommendations aimed to strengthen our democratic processes.
Foreign donations:
Overseas-based persons have made substantial donations to local mayoral candidates in Christchurch.
Recommendation: We believe only New Zealand citizens or permanent residents should be able to contribute to local election campaigns.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Donations from businesses:
It is often unclear who the people are behind a donation if it comes through in the name of a business.
Recommendation: We believe only individuals should be permitted to contribute to election campaigns.
Penalties for non-disclosure of donations required under Electoral law:
The penalties for non-disclosure of donations are not a deterrent to candidates skirting the law.
Recommendation: We believe these penalties need significant strengthening, so candidates take them seriously.
Registering and investigating complaints of electoral law breaches:
Currently any investigations are left to the local electoral officer. In the case of Christchurch the local electoral officer is a council employee who works closely with the mayor and councillors in the day to day business of the council. It is not appropriate to require this person to act on complaints of alleged breaches of electoral law which may involve the mayor or local councillors. Complaints of breaches in electoral law put this local electoral officer in an invidious position. How can this council employee be expected to hold the mayor to account for example? It also means judgement calls made by the electoral officer will often have the automatic taint of bias – as has happened in Christchurch.
Recommendation: We believe all complaints should be referred direct to the Electoral Commission where independence is more clearly seen by all parties and the public.
Level of donations to be declared:
Recommendation: We believe the current donation limit which requires notification should be lowered to $100.
Public announcement of donors to campaigns:
Currently candidates are required to file an election expenses return no more than 55 days after the election. However we believe it is important for voters to know who the campaign funders are BEFORE they vote. This was important in Wellington for example where a single major donor had a dramatic impact on the mayoral campaign. In the Wellington case the public found out about the donation before the election but in Christchurch the two leading mayoral candidates refused to name their donors before the election when approached by the media.
Recommendation: We propose that all notifiable donations be required to be publicly notified at least one week before the election date with donations unable to be received after this point.
Addresses of donors:
In some cases donors not living in Christchurch have used local addresses to give the impression they are locals when they are not.
Recommendation: We believe all candidates should be required to ensure actual addresses are provided rather than local “addresses of convenience.”


thedailyblog--2020-02-27--Changing The Climate – One RNZ Broadcast At A Time.

THE LISTENER LONG AGO ceased to be a cultural talisman for progressive New Zealanders .
Ever since the apparently indestructible Pamela Stirling took charge and transformed the magazine she ’ d once denounced as “ the house journal of the Alliance ” into the house journal of the National Party .
Recently , however , a couple of sentences from “ The sound and the fury ” , the Listener editorial team ’ s assessment of the RNZ Concert debacle ( 22 February 2020 ) struck me as unusually perceptive .
“ To retain its taxpayer-guaranteed revenue , RNZ must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public respect and support .
That can be imperilled by poorly thought out judgements , including assuming that it should set the political climate.
” That climate-setting quip should have prompted a double-take from RNZ ’ s bosses .
Its clear intention was to alert them ( gently ) to the fact that some of its key producers ’ and editors ’ more recent judgements have raised a few important eyebrows – and not in a good way .
There is a growing feeling among those whose education was vouchsafed to them in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses , that RNZ has taken up an ideological position some distance beyond either its listeners ’ , or the general public ’ s , comfort zones .
A telling example of RNZ ’ s determination to set the political climate was broadcast on the network ’ s Checkpoint programme of Wednesday , 26 February 2020 , in which RNZ reporter , Nita Blake-Persen , secured prime placement for her story “ NZ Super costs up as NZ retirees on $ 100k passes 30,000 ” .
It is difficult to assign any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a desire to fan the flames of intergenerational warfare .
Singling out high income-earners over 65 ( whose annual contribution to the IRD , based on a minimum salary of $ 100,000 is a bracing $ 23,920 ! )
was certainly inflammatory .
Ms Blake-Persen ’ s analysis also hints strongly that the abandonment of the universalist principles underpinning NZ Superannuation may have to be accepted as unavoidable collateral damage in the aforesaid war between the generations .
More disconcerting , is what appears to be a lack of sensible editorial oversight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Having read her copy , did Checkpoint ’ s editors , Pip Keane and Catherine Walbridge , not warn Ms Blake-Persen to calculate the total tax contribution of the 31,048 New Zealand superannuitants earning more than $ 100,000 , and then compare that figure to the $ 608 million paid out to them by way of NZ Superannuation ?
A pretty sensible precaution , I would have thought , given that if the 31,048 older Kiwis so provocatively singled-out by Ms Blake-Persen proved to be net contributors to the state ’ s coffers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on its face .
Which is exactly what we discover when we subtract NZ Super payments totalling $ 608,000,000 from Income Tax payments of $ 717,600,000 ( 31,048 x $ 23,920 ) .
Far from being greedy Boomer leeches bleeding their hapless GenX offspring dry , these workers are contributing a net $ 134,668,160 annually to the public purse !
All of which raises some disconcerting questions about RNZ ’ s overall ideological agenda , and on whose behalf it is being run ?
Did Ms Blake-Persen ’ s highly tendentious story make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nobody thought to check it ?
Or , is it evidence of a broader RNZ agenda to shame and blame the older generation for having the temerity to be born a couple of decades before its younger reporters and presenters ?
It would be tempting to dismiss this suggestion as Boomer paranoia had the RNZ Board and its CEO not demonstrated so unequivocally their readiness to sacrifice older listeners for a “ younger demographic ” in relation to RNZ Concert .
One of the economists quoted in Ms Blake-Persen ’ s story is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the management consultancy firm Sense.Partners : “ The reality is that we don ’ t want to penalise people for working into old age and neither do we want to penalise people for accumulating wealth , but we have to be consistent in our understanding that actually when we look out to the next 20 to 30 years , our system of taxation and our systems of supporting old age and superannuitants probably isn ’ t sustainable.
” Oh , what a multitude of sins can be concealed beneath a little qualifier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blake-Persen felt obliged ( maybe there was a smidgen of editorial input after all ? )
to mention the apple-cart-upsetting finding of the Interim Retirement Commissioner , Peter Cordtz , that “ the current cost [ of NZ Superannuation ] was sustainable for the next 30 years ” .
You pays your money and you makes your choice , apparently : the management consultant who has a problem with our current tax and pension systems ; or , the guy who told us the former is more than equal to supporting the latter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to see whether the newly appointed Retirement Commissioner , Jane Wrightson , upholds Cordtz ’ s finding on the sustainability of NZ Superannuation .
It is to be hoped that his pronouncements weren ’ t inspired by the , sadly , not unreasonable fear , that the new boss would soon be touting the same “ we can ’ t afford it ” nonsense as the old boss .
In the meantime , we can only sit back and admire Ms Blake-Persen ’ s propaganda skills .
Imagine the outrage among that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a body of overpaid Boomers , equal in number to the entire city of Blenheim , is living high on the hog while they sweat away in the salt mines of Neoliberalism !
Imagine their fear and loathing when presented with such doom-laden factoids as : “ Last year , NZ Super cost $ 14.5 billion and that cost is increasing by more than $ 1b each year .
By 2024 it ’ s predicted to cost the country nearly $ 20b a year.
” ( A figure , BTW , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current pension costs of many European states when measured as a percentage of GDP . )
Or that – Quelle horreur !
– “ Inland Revenue figures showed 2,500 people were getting Super payments while on incomes of more than $ 300,000 ” .
Once again , however , there is no mention of the Income Tax paid annually on that sum to the IRD : a trifling $ 89,920 !
Which is more than four times the $ 21,380 paid annually to an individual New Zealander aged 65+ and living alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t round out her story by seeking comment from an old-fashioned democratic-socialist who has campaigned for years to see those earning $ 300K p.a .
socked with a much more progressive rate of income tax .
He or she could have explained how steepening the progressivity of New Zealand ’ s Income Tax would once again make possible all the things the members of Ms Blake-Persen ’ s generation missed out on .
Then we could all have agreed that it ’ s not the year you were born in that counts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to so organise society that young and old , alike , are able to receive their fair share of its bounty .
That would be a political climate worth setting – and definitely preferable to the ideological climate RNZ ’ s bosses seem hell-bent on heating-up .

THE LISTENER LONG AGO ceased to be a cultural talisman for progressive New Zealanders. Ever since the apparently indestructible Pamela Stirling took charge and transformed the magazine she’d once denounced as “the house journal of the Alliance” into the house journal of the National Party. Recently, however, a couple of sentences from “The sound and the fury”, the Listener editorial team’s assessment of the RNZ Concert debacle (22 February 2020) struck me as unusually perceptive.
“To retain its taxpayer-guaranteed revenue, RNZ must also retain its most precious commodity: public respect and support. That can be imperilled by poorly thought out judgements, including assuming that it should set the political climate.”
That climate-setting quip should have prompted a double-take from RNZ’s bosses. Its clear intention was to alert them (gently) to the fact that some of its key producers’ and editors’ more recent judgements have raised a few important eyebrows – and not in a good way. There is a growing feeling among those whose education was vouchsafed to them in the years before our universities became customer-driven businesses, that RNZ has taken up an ideological position some distance beyond either its listeners’, or the general public’s, comfort zones.
A telling example of RNZ’s determination to set the political climate was broadcast on the network’s Checkpoint programme of Wednesday, 26 February 2020, in which RNZ reporter, Nita Blake-Persen, secured prime placement for her story “NZ Super costs up as NZ retirees on $100k passes 30,000”.
It is difficult to assign any other motive for producing this sort of story than a desire to fan the flames of intergenerational warfare. Singling out high income-earners over 65 (whose annual contribution to the IRD, based on a minimum salary of $100,000 is a bracing $23,920!) was certainly inflammatory. Ms Blake-Persen’s analysis also hints strongly that the abandonment of the universalist principles underpinning NZ Superannuation may have to be accepted as unavoidable collateral damage in the aforesaid war between the generations.
More disconcerting, is what appears to be a lack of sensible editorial oversight of Ms Blake-Persen’s story. Having read her copy, did Checkpoint’s editors, Pip Keane and Catherine Walbridge, not warn Ms Blake-Persen to calculate the total tax contribution of the 31,048 New Zealand superannuitants earning more than $100,000, and then compare that figure to the $608 million paid out to them by way of NZ Superannuation? A pretty sensible precaution, I would have thought, given that if the 31,048 older Kiwis so provocatively singled-out by Ms Blake-Persen proved to be net contributors to the state’s coffers, then her whole story falls flat on its face.
Which is exactly what we discover when we subtract NZ Super payments totalling $608,000,000 from Income Tax payments of $717,600,000 (31,048 x $23,920). Far from being greedy Boomer leeches bleeding their hapless GenX offspring dry, these workers are contributing a net $134,668,160 annually to the public purse!
All of which raises some disconcerting questions about RNZ’s overall ideological agenda, and on whose behalf it is being run? Did Ms Blake-Persen’s highly tendentious story make it on to the airwaves simply because nobody thought to check it? Or, is it evidence of a broader RNZ agenda to shame and blame the older generation for having the temerity to be born a couple of decades before its younger reporters and presenters? It would be tempting to dismiss this suggestion as Boomer paranoia had the RNZ Board and its CEO not demonstrated so unequivocally their readiness to sacrifice older listeners for a “younger demographic” in relation to RNZ Concert.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
One of the economists quoted in Ms Blake-Persen’s story is Shamubeel Eaqub. According to this participant in the management consultancy firm Sense.Partners:
“The reality is that we don’t want to penalise people for working into old age and neither do we want to penalise people for accumulating wealth, but we have to be consistent in our understanding that actually when we look out to the next 20 to 30 years, our system of taxation and our systems of supporting old age and superannuitants probably isn’t sustainable.”
Oh, what a multitude of sins can be concealed beneath a little qualifier like “probably”! Even Ms Blake-Persen felt obliged (maybe there was a smidgen of editorial input after all?) to mention the apple-cart-upsetting finding of the Interim Retirement Commissioner, Peter Cordtz, that “the current cost [of NZ Superannuation] was sustainable for the next 30 years”. You pays your money and you makes your choice, apparently: the management consultant who has a problem with our current tax and pension systems; or, the guy who told us the former is more than equal to supporting the latter.
It will be interesting, BTW, to see whether the newly appointed Retirement Commissioner, Jane Wrightson, upholds Cordtz’s finding on the sustainability of NZ Superannuation. It is to be hoped that his pronouncements weren’t inspired by the, sadly, not unreasonable fear, that the new boss would soon be touting the same “we can’t afford it” nonsense as the old boss.
In the meantime, we can only sit back and admire Ms Blake-Persen’s propaganda skills. Imagine the outrage among that “younger demographic” when they discover that a body of overpaid Boomers, equal in number to the entire city of Blenheim, is living high on the hog while they sweat away in the salt mines of Neoliberalism! Imagine their fear and loathing when presented with such doom-laden factoids as: “Last year, NZ Super cost $14.5 billion and that cost is increasing by more than $1b each year. By 2024 it’s predicted to cost the country nearly $20b a year.” (A figure, BTW, that places New Zealand’s well below the current pension costs of many European states when measured as a percentage of GDP.) Or that – Quelle horreur! – “Inland Revenue figures showed 2,500 people were getting Super payments while on incomes of more than $300,000”.
Just imagine it! $300K a year!
Once again, however, there is no mention of the Income Tax paid annually on that sum to the IRD: a trifling $89,920! Which is more than four times the $21,380 paid annually to an individual New Zealander aged 65+ and living alone.
What a pity Ms Blake-Persen didn’t round out her story by seeking comment from an old-fashioned democratic-socialist who has campaigned for years to see those earning $300K p.a. socked with a much more progressive rate of income tax. He or she could have explained how steepening the progressivity of New Zealand’s Income Tax would once again make possible all the things the members of Ms Blake-Persen’s generation missed out on.
Then we could all have agreed that it’s not the year you were born in that counts, but the responsibility of every generation to so organise society that young and old, alike, are able to receive their fair share of its bounty. That would be a political climate worth setting – and definitely preferable to the ideological climate RNZ’s bosses seem hell-bent on heating-up.


thedailyblog--2020-02-26--Nothing Xenophobic Or Racist About The Chinese Travel Ban

AT FIRST , I couldn ’ t believe my ears .
Morning Report co-host , Suzie Fergusson , was interviewing Isabella Lenihan-Ikin , President of the New Zealand Union of Students Associations ( NZUSA ) .
The latter was objecting to the Government ’ s COVID-19-inspired ban on students travelling to New Zealand from China .
Objecting !
?
Why would a spokesperson for the tens-of-thousands of tertiary students at risk of contracting the COVID-19 virus be objecting to the single most effective means of preventing its spread ?
The answer , it turned out , was to protect Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) from racism and xenophobia .
According to NZUSA ’ s Open Letter to the Prime Minister , the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education : The ban has fuelled hysteria that coronavirus is a “ Chinese ” disease , and is responsible for spreading xenophobic and anti-Chinese sentiments within the Asian community .
It has uncovered deeply rooted racism , including in the form of questions such as “ Where are you from ?
Oh , not China ?
No coronavirus then.
” There is so much wrong with this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where to start .
First and foremost COVID-19 a Chinese disease .
The first cases of the viral infection were detected in the city of Wuhan , in the People ’ s Republic of China ’ s Hubei province .
The expert consensus on the origins of the virus identifies Wuhan ’ s live animal market , where the disease is thought to have made a “ species jump ” from an as yet unidentified mammal to human-beings .
Over 90 percent of the COVID-19 virus ’ s more than 2,500 fatalities have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly responsible for spreading the virus to other countries have , likewise , been Chinese .
To recite these facts is not to excite hysteria , it is simply to state the truth .
Clearly , NZUSA is not much interested in the truth .
If it was , then it would understand why New Zealand , along with a host of other countries , is unwilling to allow Chinese nationals to cross their borders .
There is nothing xenophobic or racist about identifying the source of a new and potentially devasting virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There being as yet no vaccine , nor any effective pharmaceutical remedy , the imposition of a travel ban makes perfect sense .
It is a simple precautionary measure , intended to impede the spread of the COVID-19 virus across the planet .
The simple conversational formulation : “ Where are you from ?
Oh , not China ?
No coronavirus then ” , is not evidence of “ deeply rooted racism ” , merely proof of New Zealanders ’ conversational directness ( and also , possibly , their tactlessness ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ those infected with the virus being Chinese , identifying yourself as someone coming from somewhere other than China does , indeed , dramatically increase your chances of NOT being one of COVID-19 ’ s victims .
Saying so doesn ’ t make you a racist , it merely suggests you possess a measure of mathematical and statistical literacy !
I shall pass over the clearly nonsensical statement that describes spreading xenophobia and anti-Chinese feeling in the “ Asian ” community .
Obviously , the authors of the Open Letter meant to say the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or , given the ideological extremism permeating the document , the “ Pakeha ” community .
( If the use of the word “ Asian ” is not an error , however , then the Open Letter is guilty of opening up a very large and malodorous can of ethnically prejudicial worms ! )
Is it too much to expect the representatives of university students to possess enough historical awareness to realise that anti-Chinese feeling in New Zealand runs very deep ?
Long before COVID-19 made its species-jump , nineteenth and early-twentieth century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ingenious ways to keep Chinese nationals out of “ God ’ s Own Country ” – not to mention dreaming up new ways to make the lives of the ethnic Chinese already here even more miserable .
Is Ms Lenihan-Ikin simply too young to remember Prime Minister Helen Clark ’ s 2002 official apology to Chinese New Zealanders for the appalling treatment meted out to them by their European compatriots ?
Chances are she is .
Which is a pity .
Because some appreciation of how very close to the surface New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prejudices lie would have been of immense help to NZUSA as it formulated its response to COVID-19 .
It would , for example , have equipped them with the political imagination to foresee how vast numbers of New Zealanders might react to the news that Chinese students , heedless of the possible consequences for the New Zealand population , had prevailed upon the New Zealand government to allow individuals from the territory most seriously affected by the COVID-19 virus to enter the country without being placed under strict quarantine .
A modicum of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in assessing the likelihood of xenophobia and anti-Chinese feeling exploding if one of those students was identified as the person responsible for carrying the COVID-19 virus into New Zealand .
Still , it behoves us all to go a wee bit easy on Ms Lenihan-Ikin .
After all , the NZUSA President is merely following the lead of her tertiary education sector bosses .
They , too , it would appear , have given little thought to the way the rest of the country might be reacting to their special pleading .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prospect of losing all those full-fee-paying customers , that the possibility their unfettered entry might end up killing several hundred of the rest of us doesn ’ t appear to have entered their heads .
A great pity , really , since there was a time when our universities were highly valued as repositories of scientific knowledge and cultural wisdom .
Turning them into irresponsible corporate money-grubbers may yet prove to have been a very unhealthy idea .
If Ms Lenihan-Ikin is looking for something else to write an open letter to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urgent need to rescue New Zealand ’ s tertiary education institutions from the twin evils of misdirected political empathy and plain , old-fashioned , greed ?

AT FIRST, I couldn’t believe my ears. Morning Report co-host, Suzie Fergusson, was interviewing Isabella Lenihan-Ikin, President of the New Zealand Union of Students Associations (NZUSA). The latter was objecting to the Government’s COVID-19-inspired ban on students travelling to New Zealand from China. Objecting!? Why would a spokesperson for the tens-of-thousands of tertiary students at risk of contracting the COVID-19 virus be objecting to the single most effective means of preventing its spread?
The answer, it turned out, was to protect Chinese students (currently out of the country) from racism and xenophobia. According to NZUSA’s Open Letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education:
The ban has fuelled hysteria that coronavirus is a “Chinese” disease, and is responsible for spreading xenophobic and anti-Chinese sentiments within the Asian community. It has uncovered deeply rooted racism, including in the form of questions such as “Where are you from? Oh, not China? No coronavirus then.”
There is so much wrong with this statement, it is difficult to know where to start.
First and foremost COVID-19 is a Chinese disease. The first cases of the viral infection were detected in the city of Wuhan, in the People’s Republic of China’s Hubei province. The expert consensus on the origins of the virus identifies Wuhan’s live animal market, where the disease is thought to have made a “species jump” from an as yet unidentified mammal to human-beings. Over 90 percent of the COVID-19 virus’s more than 2,500 fatalities have been Chinese citizens. The international travellers mostly responsible for spreading the virus to other countries have, likewise, been Chinese.
To recite these facts is not to excite hysteria, it is simply to state the truth.
Clearly, NZUSA is not much interested in the truth. If it was, then it would understand why New Zealand, along with a host of other countries, is unwilling to allow Chinese nationals to cross their borders. There is nothing xenophobic or racist about identifying the source of a new and potentially devasting virus against which the world is currently defenceless. There being as yet no vaccine, nor any effective pharmaceutical remedy, the imposition of a travel ban makes perfect sense. It is a simple precautionary measure, intended to impede the spread of the COVID-19 virus across the planet.
The simple conversational formulation: “Where are you from? Oh, not China? No coronavirus then”, is not evidence of “deeply rooted racism”, merely proof of New Zealanders’ conversational directness (and also, possibly, their tactlessness). That said, with 90 percent of those infected with the virus being Chinese, identifying yourself as someone coming from somewhere other than China does, indeed, dramatically increase your chances of NOT being one of COVID-19’s victims. Saying so doesn’t make you a racist, it merely suggests you possess a measure of mathematical and statistical literacy!
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
I shall pass over the clearly nonsensical statement that describes spreading xenophobia and anti-Chinese feeling in the “Asian” community. Obviously, the authors of the Open Letter meant to say the “wider New Zealand community”, or, given the ideological extremism permeating the document, the “Pakeha” community. (If the use of the word “Asian” is not an error, however, then the Open Letter is guilty of opening up a very large and malodorous can of ethnically prejudicial worms!)
Is it too much to expect the representatives of university students to possess enough historical awareness to realise that anti-Chinese feeling in New Zealand runs very deep? Long before COVID-19 made its species-jump, nineteenth and early-twentieth century New Zealand governments were developing ever more ingenious ways to keep Chinese nationals out of “God’s Own Country” – not to mention dreaming up new ways to make the lives of the ethnic Chinese already here even more miserable. Is Ms Lenihan-Ikin simply too young to remember Prime Minister Helen Clark’s 2002 official apology to Chinese New Zealanders for the appalling treatment meted out to them by their European compatriots? Chances are she is.
Which is a pity. Because some appreciation of how very close to the surface New Zealand’s “Yellow Peril” racial prejudices lie would have been of immense help to NZUSA as it formulated its response to COVID-19. It would, for example, have equipped them with the political imagination to foresee how vast numbers of New Zealanders might react to the news that Chinese students, heedless of the possible consequences for the New Zealand population, had prevailed upon the New Zealand government to allow individuals from the territory most seriously affected by the COVID-19 virus to enter the country without being placed under strict quarantine. A modicum of political imagination might also have been helpful in assessing the likelihood of xenophobia and anti-Chinese feeling exploding if one of those students was identified as the person responsible for carrying the COVID-19 virus into New Zealand.
Still, it behoves us all to go a wee bit easy on Ms Lenihan-Ikin. After all, the NZUSA President is merely following the lead of her tertiary education sector bosses. They, too, it would appear, have given little thought to the way the rest of the country might be reacting to their special pleading. So utterly dismayed do they appear at the prospect of losing all those full-fee-paying customers, that the possibility their unfettered entry might end up killing several hundred of the rest of us doesn’t appear to have entered their heads. A great pity, really, since there was a time when our universities were highly valued as repositories of scientific knowledge and cultural wisdom. Turning them into irresponsible corporate money-grubbers may yet prove to have been a very unhealthy idea.
If Ms Lenihan-Ikin is looking for something else to write an open letter to the government about, might I suggest the urgent need to rescue New Zealand’s tertiary education institutions from the twin evils of misdirected political empathy and plain, old-fashioned, greed?


thedailyblog--2020-02-25--Government spin can’t hide lack of progress against poverty

Jacinda Adern released a press release today that trumped the success of the government in lifting 18,400 children out of poverty .
To be honest , I would have been embarrassed by such a number .
It is within the margin of error for the hundreds of thousands of kids in some form of poverty .
In the year ended June 2019 , about one in seven New Zealand children ( 168,500 ) lived in households with less than 50 percent of the median equivalised disposable household income before housing costs are deducted .
After housing costs have been deducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Zealand in relative poverty rises to one in five children ( 235,400 ) .
This measure , accounting for both inflation and the impact of housing costs , shows about 20.8 percent of children live in households with an income below half the 2017/18 median equivalised disposable household income .
As well as looking at incomes before and after housing costs have been deducted , Stats NZ reports on material hardship , which indicates the number of households missing out on more than six of the 17 basic things most people would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardship include the respondent reporting not eating fresh fruit or vegetables , putting off a visit to the doctor , or not being able to pay the gas or electricity bills on time , ” Mr Broughton said .
Looking at that material hardship measure , in the year ended June 2019 , about one in eight children ( 13.4 percent ) lived in households reporting material hardship .
There was no significant change from 2017/18 to 2018/19 in material hardship rates .
The Child Poverty Action Group noted that “ the hardship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six years , while those in severe hardship may be worse.
” “ Overall , CPAG says child poverty requires urgent and immediate action .
Meaningful adjustments to the benefit system and working for families must not wait until after the election for implementation .
We know any delay impacts severely on children and can have lifelong effects .
The obvious first step is to extend the In-Work Tax Credit to all low-income children .
This would cost $ 0.5b and would reach those children living in the worst of poverty.
” At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surpluses in the billions , there is no need for continuing tight-fistedness when those reliant on a benefit are concerned .
Similarly it a welcome step that the main benefits are now to start increasing from April 1 according to movements in the average wage rather than the Consumer Price Index .
The real value of basic benefits remains half their value in relation to average wages after 20 years of increases tied to the CPI rather than average wages .
The last two decades have also seen escalating rental costs and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60 % of their income on rent compared to only 30 percent in the late 1980s .
Overcoming entrenched poverty and inequality requires a Prime Minister and a government willing to do much more than spin pathetic numbers .

Jacinda Adern released a press release today that trumped the success of the government in lifting 18,400 children out of poverty.
To be honest, I would have been embarrassed by such a number. It is within the margin of error for the hundreds of thousands of kids in some form of poverty.
In the year ended June 2019, about one in seven New Zealand children (168,500) lived in households with less than 50 percent of the median equivalised disposable household income before housing costs are deducted. After housing costs have been deducted, the number of children living in New Zealand in relative poverty rises to one in five children (235,400). This measure, accounting for both inflation and the impact of housing costs, shows about 20.8 percent of children live in households with an income below half the 2017/18 median equivalised disposable household income. As well as looking at incomes before and after housing costs have been deducted, Stats NZ reports on material hardship, which indicates the number of households missing out on more than six of the 17 basic things most people would regard as essentials. Examples of material hardship include the respondent reporting not eating fresh fruit or vegetables, putting off a visit to the doctor, or not being able to pay the gas or electricity bills on time,” Mr Broughton said. Looking at that material hardship measure, in the year ended June 2019, about one in eight children (13.4 percent) lived in households reporting material hardship. There was no significant change from 2017/18 to 2018/19 in material hardship rates.


thedailyblog--2020-02-25--CAFCA SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: THE MONEY BEHIND THE MESSAGE

This article by John Minto will be published in the April issue of Foreign Control Watchdog .
We are releasing it now because it is newsworthy now .
Because donations to political campaigns and political parties are very much in the news now .
Dalziel ’ s campaign funding – the subject of this article – has been referred to the Police .
The Serious Fraud Office has laid criminal charges against four people in connection with donations to the National Party .
And the Serious Fraud Office is investigating donations to the New Zealand First Foundation that should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zealand First Party .
The other reason we are releasing this article now is because it contains material not previously made public , specifically : John Minto ’ s submission to the Justice Select Committee review of electoral law .
And the final section , which deals with the quite extraordinary reaction from former Christchurch Mayor , Garry Moore , to this criticism of Dalziel ’ s campaign fundraising .
As for the 2019 Minto For Mayor campaign – there is no secret or deception about where the money came from .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa ( CAFCA ) , which was proud to do so and proud to have it known .
The one constant in national and local body politics is the length to which politicians go to hide the identity of their big donors .
They don ’ t want us to know where their big money comes from .
National Party figures are currently embroiled in a court case where it is alleged two donations of $ 100 , 000 were deliberately split into amounts that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the donors to political parties must be identified .
New Zealand First is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office in a similar situation where large donations were channelled into a “ New Zealand First Foundation ” and then used to pay election expenses .
Christchurch local body politics has its own example from the 2019 local body election campaign .
December 13 , 2019 , was the final day for local body candidates to send in their election expenses return for the 2019 local body elections .
All candidates are required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ names , addresses and amounts of any donors who contributed more than $ 1,500 to their campaign .
Christchurch ’ s successful Mayoral candidate , Lianne Dalziel , left it till the last day to provide her return which duly appeared on the City Council Website .
It made a mockery of her claim , made just a month before , that she has “ high expectations of openness and transparency at Christchurch City Council ” .
Her claim hid the identity of her major donors .
The relevant section of her return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Point I stood as a Keep Our Assets Canterbury ( KOA ) candidate in both the 2016 and 2019 elections* and I was uneasy about her 2016 return but didn ’ t raise it as an issue .
I should have .
I put out a media release challenging her 2019 expenses return saying : “ It stretches credibility beyond breaking point to suggest none of the items was purchased for more than $ 1,500 when the total raised was $ 39,100 ” .
It was duly reported in the newspaper and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Initially she said she had been assured no-one paid more than $ 1,500 above the market value of any auctioned item so the return was accurate .
However , when journalists began questioning people who were at the fundraising dinner the Mayor then said she would check with her husband .
Dalziel claimed her husband , lawyer Robert Davidson , donated $ 1,000 worth of items which were auctioned and brought in $ 39,100 in income for her campaign .
It was the same strategy she used in the previous Mayoral race in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 25,000 which was all attributed as a donation from her husband .
Successful bidders who paid more than $ 1,500 above the market value of any auctioned items should have been identified as per Electoral Act requirements .
Several days later she provided an “ updated ” return which identified six donors who paid more than $ 1,500 above the market value of what they bid for .
In summary her big donors were : There is no suggestion that any of the donors acted improperly or illegally but the Mayor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expenses return naturally leads to suspicions .
The donors include people with big property interests ( Council subsidies to property developers building in the central city have been a sore point with many city residents ) , water bottling interests ( this has been a hugely controversial issue in Christchurch in recent years ) and one is associated with the Christchurch Adventure Park which was controversially bailed out by the Council in 2019 .
It ’ s not possible for voters to hold public officials to account or to ensure “ conflicts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with if we don ’ t have the knowledge of the big money donors behind a campaign .
In this case the public has to be doubly alert because Dalziel ’ s husband ’ s law firm , Davidson Legal , was caught out offering to arrange “ lobbying access to local body politicians ” for Cloud Ocean , a hugely controversial water bottling plant in Belfast , north of Christchurch .
If all this smells unhealthy it should do .
It ’ s a scenario ripe for corruption .
At the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jo Daly , has handed this issue of the Mayor ’ s false expenses return to the Police to investigate and that process is continuing .
What this process has identified are serious weaknesses in electoral law .
I have helped prepare a submission to the Justice Select Committee calling for changes to electoral law as a result of this issue arising in Christchurch .
A summary of these issues follows : • None A Council employee , the local Electoral Officer , should not be expected to hold the Mayor to account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be dealt with by the Electoral Commission .
• None Only New Zealand citizens or permanent residents should be able to contribute to local election campaigns ( foreign donations are effectively banned for national elections after legislation was passed late in 2019 but not for local body elections ) .
• None It is often unclear who the people are behind a donation if it comes through in the name of a business .
Only individuals should be permitted to contribute to election campaigns .
• None The penalties for non-disclosure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skirting the law .
They need significant strengthening , so candidates take them seriously .
• None The current donation limit of $ 1,500 after which donors should be identified should be lowered to $ 50 .
• None Donors to campaigns should be identified publicly at least a week BEFORE the election rather than after .
Big donations would not be allowed to be received in the last week of a campaign .
This was important in Wellington for example where a single major donor , Peter Jackson , had a dramatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the Wellington case the public found out about the donation before the election but in Christchurch the two leading Mayoral candidates ( Lianne Dalziel and Darryll Park ) refused to name their donors before the election when approached by the media .
• None All candidates should be required to ensure actual addresses are provided rather than local “ addresses of convenience ” ( in at least one case a candidate living overseas provided a local Christchurch address for the expenses return ) .
One of the surprising reactions to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor Garry Moore ( 1998 – 2007 ) who was angry and upset that KOA should challenge the current Mayor .
When we first questioned the Mayor ’ s expenses ’ return , he sent this email to KOA Convenor Murray Horton ( 16/12/19 ) : Hi Murray , The campaign ’ s over .
Let ’ s make the City great again .
What ’ s more important , playing political games , or getting on with things ?
Like keeping our assets… I thought you guys didn ’ t believe in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was wrong .
Cheers , Garry Moore .
KOA members made principled responses to his email but then after more publicity , he emailed Murray again ( 28/1/20 ) .
Keep going Murray .
Keep up the hate .
John ’ s doing really well .
Another non-story .
Nothing positive .
Nothing adding value to our City .
No new ideas .
Nothing creative .
Just hate .
Does this make you feel better ?
You are a decent man .
Think about the damage you guys are doing to the City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Rightwing Mayor you can sit back and feel satisfied you have succeeded .
Will you only be happy when you have got rid of the Mayor you have labelled as “ not left enough ” ?
Oh , how the Left has so much to learn about loyalty from the Right .
Cheers , Garry .
This time I replied to him : Kia ora Garry .
Your emails attacking me and KOA for questioning the Mayor ’ s election expenses return are unprincipled , illogical and cowardly .
The Mayor put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which looked dodgy .
I decided not to question it then which was my mistake .
I did question her 2019 return when she used the same approach with the result she has been caught out in breach of the Electoral Act .
Blaming her husband is pathetic and simply not credible .
Do you not think electoral law is important ?
Do you think the Serious Fraud Office should not have charged four people for breaches of the Act in relation to a donation to the National Party ?
You surely don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only apply to the National Party ?
Your claim of a “ hate ” campaign is cowardly .
If there is any damage to Dalziel ’ s reputation or to the city as you claim then the responsibility rests entirely with her – no-one else .
She was the one who thumbed her nose at the law .
I have no idea who could have labelled Lianne Dalziel as “ not Left enough ” .
Certainly not me .
Dalziel has spent her entire political career as a supporter of Rogernomics .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
She arranged for renowned privatisers Cameron and Partners to assess the city ’ s books when she was first elected and then led the charge to try and sell City Care after saying she wanted to raise up to $ 600 million from city assets .
I can ’ t think of a single policy she has supported which would not have been supported by a “ business ” candidate .
Even on social housing Darryll Park was much more forthright and honest than the Mayor about the poor state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be a top priority for whoever won the election .
And it has taken her six years to commit to replace the Council rental housing destroyed in the earthquakes .
She has always been a corporate-first candidate .
For the record the new and creative ideas for Christchurch in the election campaign came entirely from KOA .
Nothing from the current Mayor .
You have allowed your friendship with Dalziel to cloud your personal and political judgement .
In doing so you have let yourself down badly .
Na , John Minto @ @ @ @ @ @

This article by John Minto will be published in the April issue of Foreign Control Watchdog.
We are releasing it now because it is newsworthy now.
Because donations to political campaigns and political parties are very much in the news now.
Dalziel’s campaign funding – the subject of this article – has been referred to the Police.
The Serious Fraud Office has laid criminal charges against four people in connection with donations to the National Party.
And the Serious Fraud Office is investigating donations to the New Zealand First Foundation that should have been treated as donations to the New Zealand First Party.
The other reason we are releasing this article now is because it contains material not previously made public, specifically:
John Minto’s submission to the Justice Select Committee review of electoral law.
And the final section, which deals with the quite extraordinary reaction from former Christchurch Mayor, Garry Moore, to this criticism of Dalziel’s campaign fundraising.
As for the 2019 Minto For Mayor campaign – there is no secret or deception about where the money came from. The single biggest donor ($2,500) was the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA), which was proud to do so and proud to have it known.
The one constant in national and local body politics is the length to which politicians go to hide the identity of their big donors. They don’t want us to know where their big money comes from. National Party figures are currently embroiled in a court case where it is alleged two donations of $100, 000 were deliberately split into amounts that would come under the $15,000 limit above which the donors to political parties must be identified.
New Zealand First is being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office in a similar situation where large donations were channelled into a “New Zealand First Foundation” and then used to pay election expenses. Christchurch local body politics has its own example from the 2019 local body election campaign.
Final Day For Expenses Returns
December 13, 2019, was the final day for local body candidates to send in their election expenses return for the 2019 local body elections. All candidates are required by the Electoral Act to provide the names, addresses and amounts of any donors who contributed more than $1,500 to their campaign. Christchurch’s successful Mayoral candidate, Lianne Dalziel, left it till the last day to provide her return which duly appeared on the City Council Website. It made a mockery of her claim, made just a month before, that she has “high expectations of openness and transparency at Christchurch City Council”. Her claim hid the identity of her major donors. The relevant section of her return is here: