Report of the Health Select Committee’s Inquiry into “How to improve [increase] immunisation [vaccination] completion rates” in New Zealand
JANE BURGERMEISTER REPORT:’Deutsche Bank knowingly deceived clients in subprime fraud, concludes Senate panel’
16 April 2011
Deutsche Bank knowingly deceived clients in subprime fraud, concludes Senate panelJane Burgermeister | April 15, 2011 at 5:33 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/puNtl-1bI
|
US Senate names culprits in financial crisis
Gretchen Morgenson & Louise Story, The New York Times, April 14, 2011
A voluminous report on the financial crisis by the United States Senate — citing internal documents and private communications of bank executives, regulators, credit ratings agencies and investors — describes business practices that were rife with conflicts during the mortgage mania and reckless activities that were ignored inside the banks and among their federal regulators.
“The report pulls back the curtain on shoddy, risky, deceptive practices on the part of a lot of major financial institutions,” Levin said in an interview. “The overwhelming evidence is that those institutions deceived their clients and deceived the public, and they were aided and abetted by deferential regulators and credit ratings agencies who had conflicts of interest.”
Read more at: http://profit.ndtv.com/news/show/us-senate-names-culprits-in-financial-crisis-149439?pfrom=home-Business&cp
US Senate names culprits in financial crisis
Gretchen Morgenson & Louise Story, The New York Times, April 14, 2011
A voluminous report on the financial crisis by the United States Senate — citing internal documents and private communications of bank executives, regulators, credit ratings agencies and investors — describes business practices that were rife with conflicts during the mortgage mania and reckless activities that were ignored inside the banks and among their federal regulators.
The 650-page report, “Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse,” was released on Wednesday by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, whose co-chairmen are Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, and Tom Coburn, a Republican of Oklahoma. The result of two years’ work, the report focuses on an array of institutions with central roles in the mortgage crisis: Washington Mutual, an aggressive mortgage lender that collapsed in 2008; the Office of Thrift Supervision, a regulator; the credit ratings agencies Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service; and the investment banks Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank.
“The report pulls back the curtain on shoddy, risky, deceptive practices on the part of a lot of major financial institutions,” Levin said in an interview. “The overwhelming evidence is that those institutions deceived their clients and deceived the public, and they were aided and abetted by deferential regulators and credit ratings agencies who had conflicts of interest.”
The bipartisan report includes 19 recommendations for changes to regulatory and industry practices. These include creating strong conflict-of-interest policies at the nation’s banks and requiring that banks hold higher reserves against risky mortgages. The report also asks federal regulators to examine its findings for violations of laws.
The report adds significant new evidence to previously disclosed material showing that a wide swath of the financial industry chose profits over propriety during the mortgage lending spree. It also casts a harsh light on what the report calls regulatory failures, which helped deepen the crisis.
Singled out for criticism is the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversaw some of the nation’s most aggressive lenders, including Countrywide Financial, IndyMac and Washington Mutual, whose chief executive was Kerry Killinger. Noting that the agency’s officials viewed the institutions it regulated as “constituents,” the report said that the office relied on bank executives to correct identified problems and was reluctant to interfere with “even unsound lending and securitization practices” at Washington Mutual.
The report describes how two risk managers at the bank were marginalized by its executives. One of them told the committee that executives began providing the regulator with outdated loss estimates as the mortgage crisis widened. After the risk manager told regulators that the estimates it had received were dated, Mr. Killinger fired him.
From 2004 to 2008, for example, the regulatory office identified more than 500 serious deficiencies at Washington Mutual, yet did not force the bank to improve its lending operations, according to the report. And when the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the bank’s backup regulator, moved to downgrade the bank’s safety and soundness rating in September 2008, John M. Reich, the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, wrote an angry e-mail to a colleague. Referring to Sheila Bair, the FDIC chairwoman, he wrote: “I cannot believe the continuing audacity of this woman.” Washington Mutual failed two weeks later.
The office was abolished last year, and its operations were folded into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Reich declined to comment. A lawyer for Killinger did not respond to a request for comment.
The report was produced by the same Senate committee that conducted an 11-hour hearing last April with Goldman executives and employees of its mortgage unit, who testified about their trading and securities underwriting practices.
At the hearing, some lawmakers questioned Goldman’s assertion that it had not bet against the mortgage market as real estate prices collapsed. And on Wednesday, Senator Levin pointed out that his committee had found 3,400 places in Goldman documents where its officials used the phrase “net short,” a reference to negative bets.
“Why would Goldman deny what was so obvious, that they were engaged in a huge short in the year 2007?” Senator Levin asked in a press briefing Wednesday morning. “Because they gained at the expense of their clients and they used abusive practices to do it.”
The report uncovered a new aspect of Goldman’s mortgage activity during 2007. That year, as Goldman tried to build its bet against housing, the report says, it drove down the cost of shorting the mortgage market by squeezing those who had made negative bets. Goldman tried to put on the squeeze, the report noted, so that it could add to its negative bets more cheaply and protect itself against the housing collapse.
Because Goldman was a large dealer in the marketplace, it had the power to drive prices in a certain direction. The report quotes from the self-evaluation of Deeb Salem, a mortgage trader, who wrote: “We began to encourage this squeeze, with plans of getting very short again.” He added, “This strategy seemed do-able and brilliant.”
Michael Swenson, head of trading in the structured product group at Goldman and Salem’s superior, also referred to the short squeeze, according to Senate investigators. In an e-mail, Swenson said that Goldman should “start killing” investors who were betting against mortgages. In testimony before the committee, however, he said he was simply trying to add balance to the market.
Goldman abandoned its plan in June 2007 when two Bear Stearns hedge funds collapsed because of bad mortgage bets.
A Goldman spokesman said in a statement: “While we disagree with many of the conclusions of the report, we take seriously the issues explored by the subcommittee. We recently issued the results of a comprehensive examination of our business standards and practices and committed to making significant changes that will strengthen relationships with clients, improve transparency and disclosure and enhance standards for the review, approval and suitability of complex instruments.”
The report also sheds new light on the bundling and trading of mortgages at Deutsche Bank, which had also made negative bets in that market.
Unlike Goldman, Deutsche Bank has not been accused of wrongdoing by government investigators. But the Senate report focuses on a trader named Greg Lippmann, who has since left the bank to join a hedge fund.
Lippmann was vocally negative about housing as early as 2005 and brought his idea of shorting the market to professional investors on Wall Street. He described risky mortgage securities before the crisis as “pigs,” according to the report. When he was asked to buy one such mortgage security, he responded that he “would take it and try to dupe someone,” according to the report.
Lippmann persuaded Deutsche to let him build a large short position, reaching $5 billion by 2007, the report says. The bank still lost money on other positive mortgage bets, but Lippmann’s trade helped reduce the company’s overall loss.
The report focused on one Deutsche collateralized debt obligation from 2006, called Gemstone VII, and described how Deutsche and other banks made $5 million to $10 million for every deal like Gemstone they created. In 2006 and 2007, banks created about a trillion dollars of CDO deals — the most complex type of mortgage security and the instruments that sent the lending craze to dizzying heights.
In e-mails provided to the committee, Lippmann called the bank’s operation a “CDO machine” and characterized such securities as a “Ponzi scheme.” But when the committee interviewed Lippmann, he backtracked, saying that his colorful descriptions were used to defend his negative view of the market.
In the Senate interview, Mr. Lippmann also said that he thought he was the person who persuaded the American International Group to stop writing insurance on mortgage securities. He told the committee that the head of the Deutsche Bank group that put together CDO’s was upset when Lippmann persuaded AIG to exit the business in 2006. Without AIG there to insure the instruments, it would be harder to keep these lucrative factories humming.
Lippmann declined to comment on Wednesday.
Michele Allison, a spokeswoman for Deutsche Bank, said that the e-mails and other documents cited in the report indicated the divergent views within the bank about the housing market. “Despite the bearish views held by some, Deutsche Bank was long the housing market and endured significant losses,” she said in a statement.
JANE BURGERMEISTER REPORT: ‘Evidence of Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank subprime fraud to be referred to US justice officials’
16 April 2011
Evidence of Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank subprime fraud to be referred to US justice officials
Friday 15 April 2011, The Telegraph
US Senate panel urges Goldman ‘mis-selling’ investigation
A US Senate Subcommittee has called on authorities to examine whether Goldman Sachs mis-sold mortgage related securities and misled Congress, as it released the findings of a two-year investigation into the financial crisis.
Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman, wants the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to see if Goldman broke the law when selling collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) to clients without disclosing that the bank believed they would fall in value.
“In my judgement, Goldman clearly misled their clients and they misled Congress,” Mr Levin said at a press conference in Washington late yesterday.
Read more at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8449822/US-Senate-panel-urges-Goldman-mis-selling-investigation.html
JANE BURGERMEISTER REPORT:US DEBT ORGY: GOVERNMENT SPENT EIGHT TIMES MORE THAN ITS TAX REVENUE IN MARCH
16 April 2011
US DEBT ORGY: GOVERNMENT SPENT EIGHT TIMES MORE THAN ITS TAX REVENUE IN MARCHJane Burgermeister | April 15, 2011 at 5:30 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/puNtl-1bD
|
– US Government Spent More than Eight Times its Monthly Revenue
– US Govermnent paid $1.0528 trillion in monthly bills on only $128.179 in monthly tax revenue
Roni Deutsch blog
According to new data from the Treasury Department, the federal government grossed $194 billion in March, paid out nearly $66 billion in refunds, netting $128 billion in tax revenue. However, the Treasure paid out a total of $1.1187 trillion in federal expenses.
From CNS News.com:
That $1.0528 trillion in spending for March equaled 8.2 times the $128.179 in net federal tax revenue for the month.
The lion’s share of this federal spending went to redeem Treasury securities that had matured during the month—most of which were short-term Treasury bills that have terms of one-year or less. Read more of this post
FAR OUT! This you HAVE to read! ‘The Real Housewives of Wall Street’
16 April 2011
Does New Zealand have ‘two sets of books’ – like the U$A?
At central and local government?
Penny Bright
The Real Housewives of Wall Street
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=24236
By wmw_admin on April 14, 2011
Matt Taibbi – Rolling Stone Magazine April 28, 2011
America has two national budgets, one official, one unofficial. The official budget is public record and hotly debated: Money comes in as taxes and goes out as jet fighters, DEA agents, wheat subsidies and Medicare, plus pensions and bennies for that great untamed socialist menace called a unionized public-sector workforce that Republicans are always complaining about. According to popular legend, we’re broke and in so much debt that 40 years from now our granddaughters will still be hooking on weekends to pay the medical bills of this year’s retirees from the IRS, the SEC and the Department of Energy.
Why Isn’t Wall Street in Jail?
Most Americans know about that budget. What they don’t know is that there is another budget of roughly equal heft, traditionally maintained in complete secrecy. After the financial crash of 2008, it grew to monstrous dimensions, as the government attempted to unfreeze the credit markets by handing out trillions to banks and hedge funds. And thanks to a whole galaxy of obscure, acronym-laden bailout programs, it eventually rivaled the “official” budget in size — a huge roaring river of cash flowing out of the Federal Reserve to destinations neither chosen by the president nor reviewed by Congress, but instead handed out by fiat by unelected Fed officials using a seemingly nonsensical and apparently unknowable methodology.
Now, following an act of Congress that has forced the Fed to open its books from the bailout era, this unofficial budget is for the first time becoming at least partially a matter of public record. Staffers in the Senate and the House, whose queries about Fed spending have been rebuffed for nearly a century, are now poring over 21,000 transactions and discovering a host of outrages and lunacies in the “other” budget. It is as though someone sat down and made a list of every individual on earth who actually did not need emergency financial assistance from the United States government, and then handed them the keys to the public treasure. The Fed sent billions in bailout aid to banks in places like Mexico, Bahrain and Bavaria, billions more to a spate of Japanese car companies, more than $2 trillion in loans each to Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, and billions more to a string of lesser millionaires and billionaires with Cayman Islands addresses. “Our jaws are literally dropping as we’re reading this,” says Warren Gunnels, an aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. “Every one of these transactions is outrageous.”
But if you want to get a true sense of what the “shadow budget” is all about, all you have to do is look closely at the taxpayer money handed over to a single company that goes by a seemingly innocuous name: Waterfall TALF Opportunity. At first glance, Waterfall’s haul doesn’t seem all that huge — just nine loans totaling some $220 million, made through a Fed bailout program. That doesn’t seem like a whole lot, considering that Goldman Sachs alone received roughly $800 billion in loans from the Fed. But upon closer inspection, Waterfall TALF Opportunity boasts a couple of interesting names among its chief investors: Christy Mack and Susan Karches.
Christy is the wife of John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley. Susan is the widow of Peter Karches, a close friend of the Macks who served as president of Morgan Stanley’s investment-banking division. Neither woman appears to have any serious history in business, apart from a few philanthropic experiences. Yet the Federal Reserve handed them both low-interest loans of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars through a complicated bailout program that virtually guaranteed them millions in risk-free income.
The technical name of the program that Mack and Karches took advantage of is TALF, short for Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. But the federal aid they received actually falls under a broader category of bailout initiatives, designed and perfected by Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, called “giving already stinking rich people gobs of money for no fucking reason at all.” If you want to learn how the shadow budget works, follow along. This is what welfare for the rich looks like.
In August 2009, John Mack, at the time still the CEO of Morgan Stanley, made an interesting life decision. Despite the fact that he was earning the comparatively low salary of just $800,000, and had refused to give himself a bonus in the midst of the financial crisis, Mack decided to buy himself a gorgeous piece of property — a 107-year-old limestone carriage house on the Upper East Side of New York, complete with an indoor 12-car garage, that had just been sold by the prestigious Mellon family for $13.5 million. Either Mack had plenty of cash on hand to close the deal, or he got some help from his wife, Christy, who apparently bought the house with him.
The Macks make for an interesting couple. John, a Lebanese-American nicknamed “Mack the Knife” for his legendary passion for firing people, has one of the most recognizable faces on Wall Street, physically resembling a crumpled, half-burned baked potato with a pair of overturned furry horseshoes for eyebrows. Christy is thin, blond and rich — a sort of still-awake Sunny von Bulow with hobbies. Her major philanthropic passion is endowments for alternative medicine, and she has attained the level of master at Reiki, the Japanese practice of “palm healing.” The only other notable fact on her public résumé is that her sister was married to Charlie Rose.
It’s hard to imagine a pair of people you would less want to hand a giant welfare check to — yet that’s exactly what the Fed did. Just two months before the Macks bought their fancy carriage house in Manhattan, Christy and her pal Susan launched their investment initiative called Waterfall TALF. Neither seems to have any experience whatsoever in finance, beyond Susan’s penchant for dabbling in thoroughbred racehorses. But with an upfront investment of $15 million, they quickly received $220 million in cash from the Fed, most of which they used to purchase student loans and commercial mortgages. The loans were set up so that Christy and Susan would keep 100 percent of any gains on the deals, while the Fed and the Treasury (read: the taxpayer) would eat 90 percent of the losses. Given out as part of a bailout program ostensibly designed to help ordinary people by kick-starting consumer lending, the deals were a classic heads-I-win, tails-you-lose investment.
So how did the government come to address a financial crisis caused by the collapse of a residential-mortgage bubble by giving the wives of a couple of Morgan Stanley bigwigs free money to make essentially risk-free investments in student loans and commercial real estate? The answer is: by degrees. The history of the bailout era reads like one of those awful stories about what happens when a long-dormant criminal compulsion goes unchecked. The Peeping Tom next door stares through a few bathroom windows, doesn’t get caught, and decides to break in and steal a pair of panties. Next thing you know, he’s upgraded to homemade dungeons, tri-state serial rampages and throwing cheerleaders into a panel truck.
It was the same with the bailouts. They started out small, with the government throwing a few hundred billion in public money to prop up genuinely insolvent firms like Bear Stearns and AIG. Then came TARP and a few other programs that were designed to stave off bank failures and dispose of the toxic mortgage-backed securities that were a root cause of the financial crisis. But before long, the Fed began buying up every distressed investment on Wall Street, even those that were in no danger of widespread defaults: commercial real estate loans, credit- card loans, auto loans, student loans, even loans backed by the Small Business Administration. What started off as a targeted effort to stop the bleeding in a few specific trouble spots became a gigantic feeding frenzy. It was “free money for shit,” says Barry Ritholtz, author of Bailout Nation. “It turned into ‘Give us your crap that you can’t get rid of otherwise.’ “
The impetus for this sudden manic expansion of the bailouts was a masterful bluff by Wall Street executives. Once the money started flowing from the Federal Reserve, the executives began moaning to their buddies at the Fed, claiming that they were suddenly afraid of investing in anything — student loans, car notes, you name it — unless their profits were guaranteed by the state. “You ever watch soccer, where the guy rolls six times to get a yellow card?” says William Black, a former federal bank regulator who teaches economics and law at the University of Missouri. “That’s what this is. If you have power and connections, they will give you a freebie deal — if you’re good at whining.”
This is where TALF fits into the bailout picture. Created just after Barack Obama’s election in November 2008, the program’s ostensible justification was to spur more consumer lending, which had dried up in the midst of the financial crisis. But instead of lending directly to car buyers and credit-card holders and students — that would have been socialism! — the Fed handed out a trillion dollars to banks and hedge funds, almost interest-free. In other words, the government lent taxpayer money to the same assholes who caused the crisis, so that they could then lend that money back out on the market virtually risk-free, at an enormous profit.
Cue your Billy Mays voice, because wait, there’s more! A key aspect of TALF is that the Fed doles out the money through what are known as non-recourse loans. Essentially, this means that if you don’t pay the Fed back, it’s no big deal. The mechanism works like this: Hedge Fund Goon borrows, say, $100 million from the Fed to buy crappy loans, which are then transferred to the Fed as collateral. If Hedge Fund Goon decides not to repay that $100 million, the Fed simply keeps its pile of crappy securities and calls everything even.
This is the deal of a lifetime. Think about it: You borrow millions, buy a bunch of crap securities and stash them on the Fed’s books. If the securities lose money, you leave them on the Fed’s lap and the public eats the loss. But if they make money, you take them back, cash them in and repay the funds you borrowed from the Fed. “Remember that crazy guy in the commercials who ran around covered in dollar bills shouting, ‘The government is giving out free money!’ ” says Black. “As crazy as he was, this is making it real.”
This whole setup — in which millionaires and billionaires gambled on mountains of dangerous securities, with taxpayers providing the stake and assuming almost all of the risk — is the reason that it’s insanely premature for Wall Street to claim that the bailouts have actually made money for the government. We simply can’t make that determination until the final bill comes in on all the dicey securities we financed during the bailout feeding frenzy.
In the case of Waterfall TALF Opportunity, here’s what we know: The company was founded in June 2009 with $14.87 million of investment capital, money that likely came from Christy Mack and Susan Karches. The two Wall Street wives then used the $220 million they got from the Fed to buy up a bunch of securities, including a large pool of commercial mortgages managed by Credit Suisse, a company John Mack once headed. Those securities were valued at $253.6 million, though the Fed refuses to explain how it arrived at that estimate. And here’s the kicker: Of the $220 million the two wives got from the Fed, roughly $150 million had not been paid back as of last fall — meaning that you and I are still on the hook for most of whatever the Wall Street spouses bought on their government-funded shopping spree.
The public has no way of knowing how much Christy Mack and Susan Karches earned on these transactions, because the Fed has repeatedly declined to provide any information about how it priced the individual securities bought as part of programs like TALF. In the Waterfall deal, for instance, we know the Fed pledged some $14 million against a block of securities called “Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2007-C2″ — but that data is meaningless without knowing how many units were bought. It’s like saying the Fed gave Waterfall $14 million to buy cars. Did Waterfall pay $5,000 per car, or $500,000? We have no idea. “There’s no way of validating or invalidating the Fed’s process in TALF without this pricing information,” says Gary Aguirre, a former SEC official who was fired years ago after he tried to interview John Mack in an insider-trading case.
In early April, in an attempt to learn exactly how much Mack and Karches made on the TALF deals, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa wrote a letter to Waterfall asking 21 detailed questions about the transactions. In addition, Sen. Sanders has personally asked Fed chief Bernanke to provide more complete information on the TALF loans given not only to Christy Mack but to gazillionaires like former Miami Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga and hedge-fund shark John Paulson. But Bernanke bluntly refused to provide the information — and the Fed has similarly stonewalled other oversight agencies, including the General Accounting Office and TARP’s special inspector general.
Christy Mack and Susan Karches did not respond to requests for comments for this story. But even without more information about the loans they got from the Fed, we know that TALF wasn’t the only risk-free money being handed over to Wall Street. During the financial crisis, the Fed routinely made billions of dollars in “emergency” loans to big banks at near-zero interest. Many of the banks then turned around and used the money to buy Treasury bonds at higher interest rates — essentially loaning the money back to the government at an inflated rate. “People talk about how these were loans that were paid back,” says a congressional aide who has studied the transactions. “But when the state is lending money at zero percent and the banks are turning around and lending that money back to the state at three percent, how is that different from just handing rich people money?”
Those kinds of deals were the essence of the bailout — and the vast mountains of near-zero government cash turned companies facing bankruptcy into monstrous profit machines. In 2008 and 2009, while Christy Mack was busy getting her little TALF loans for $220 million, her husband’s bank hauled in $2 trillion in emergency Fed loans. During the same period, Goldman borrowed nearly $800 billion. Shortly afterward, the two banks reported a combined annual profit of $14.5 billion.
As crazy as it is to lend to banks at near zero percent and borrow back from them at three percent, one could at least argue that the policy may have aided American companies by providing banks more cash to lend. But how do you explain the host of other bailout transactions now being examined by Congress? Like the Fed’s massive purchases of securities in foreign automakers, including BMW, Volkswagen, Honda, Mitsubishi and Nissan? Or the nearly $5 billion in cheap credit the Fed extended to Toyota and Mitsubishi? Sure, those companies have factories and dealerships in the U.S. — but does it really make sense to give them free cash at the same time taxpayers were being asked to bail out Chrysler and GM? Seems a little crazy to fund the competition of the very automakers you’re trying to rescue.
And then there are the bailout deals that make no sense at all. Republicans go mad over spending on health care and school for Mexican illegals. So why aren’t they flipping out over the $9.6 billion in loans the Fed made to the Central Bank of Mexico? How do we explain the $2.2 billion in loans that went to the Korea Development Bank, the biggest state bank of South Korea, whose sole purpose is to promote development in South Korea? And at a time when America is borrowing from the Middle East at interest rates of three percent, why did the Fed extend $35 billion in loans to the Arab Banking Corporation of Bahrain at interest rates as low as one quarter of one point?
Even more disturbing, the major stakeholder in the Bahrain bank is none other than the Central Bank of Libya, which owns 59 percent of the operation. In fact, the Bahrain bank just received a special exemption from the U.S. Treasury to prevent its assets from being frozen in accord with economic sanctions. That’s right: Muammar Qaddafi received more than 70 loans from the Federal Reserve, along with the Real Housewives of Wall Street.
Perhaps the most irritating facet of all of these transactions is the fact that hundreds of millions of Fed dollars were given out to hedge funds and other investors with addresses in the Cayman Islands. Many of those addresses belong to companies with American affiliations — including prominent Wall Street names like Pimco, Blackstone and . . . Christy Mack. Yes, even Waterfall TALF Opportunity is an offshore company. It’s one thing for the federal government to look the other way when Wall Street hotshots evade U.S. taxes by registering their investment companies in the Cayman Islands. But subsidizing tax evasion? Giving it a federal bailout? What the fuck?
As America girds itself for another round of lunatic political infighting over which barely-respirating social program or urgently necessary federal agency must have their budgets permanently sacrificed to the cause of billionaires being able to keep their third boats in the water, it’s important to point out just how scarce money isn’t in certain corners of the public-spending universe. In the coming months, when you watch Republican congressional stooges play out the desperate comedy of solving America’s deficit problems by making fewer photocopies of proposed bills, or by taking an ax to budgetary shrubberies like NPR or the SEC, remember Christy Mack and her fancy new carriage house. There is no belt-tightening on the other side of the tracks. Just a free lunch that never ends.
Posted in Behind The “News”, Economics, Feature Posts | Leave a response
‘Being attacked on KIWIBLOG by ‘toothless goldfish’ is like being savaged by a flock of dead lambs’ says ‘Public Watchdog’ Penny Bright
16 April 2011
Think you’ll enjoy this ‘debate’ (I use the term lightly 🙂 I had on Kiwiblog this evening!
(I did 😉
PROVES how effective campaigning against asset sales is – keep going Labour party supporters!
You have EVERY lawful right in NZ to have intersection pickets, holding your signs opposing asset sales!
If it were me – I’d be back tomorrow – same place – same protest.
Hey! Nothing is stopping National Party supporters holding signs saying:
“National supports asset sales!
Vote National!”
Just to see how many of the public toot their support?
Come on National Party!
Get YOUR intersection protests happening – come on – get on with it!
WHAT’S THE HOLDUP?
😉
Penny Bright
Friction in Palmie 
Jonathon Howe at the Manawatu Standard reports:
The first shots have been fired in the battle to win Palmerston North at this year’s general election, with National candidate Leonie Hapeta accusing Labour MP Iain Lees-Galloway of practising “nasty politics”.
Mr Lees-Galloway and about 15 supporters gathered outside Mrs Hapeta’s Hotel Coachman about 5pm on Monday – protesting against the Government’s plans to sell state-owned assets.
Mrs Hapeta said she felt attacked by the protesters, who held signs and waved at vehicles on both sides of Fitzherbert Ave.
“Having not met Iain since I became the candidate, I went out to introduce myself, and ask him why he was attacking my business, rather than holding the protest outside my campaign office,” she said.
A fair question.
But Mr Lees-Galloway, who is Labour’s Defence and Land Information spokesman, said the location was chosen by his Young Labour supporters because of the heavy traffic flow.
“There was no intention to target Leonie’s business and it hadn’t even crossed my mind,” he said.
“Yeah, when I got there I thought: `OK we’re outside the Coachman’ but it was no plan on my part.”
Just a coincidence then.
Tags: Iain Lees-Galloway, Leonie Hapeta, Palmerston North
This entry was posted on Friday, April 15th, 2011 at 1:00 pm and is filed under NZ Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
86 Responses to “Friction in Palmie”
- jims_whare (141) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:07 pm Good thing MR LG’s middle name isn’t Pinocchio as he would have trouble eating his weetbix closer than arms length away - freedom101 (241) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:07 pm It would be impossible for Natiional to hold a similar protest as no one in Labour has a business. - ben (1,673) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:11 pm I’d expect nothing less from the party so desperate to retain power that it tipped democracy itself in its favour and against its opponents, and then, having been voted out, promptly voted against it. I refer of course to the odious EFA and for that Labour should never again be trusted with anything, much less control of government. - m@tt (263) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:14 pm Politics is full of those kind’s of coincidences.
Remember that time people jumped to the wrong conclusion about John’s blind trust being visible.
The fact that two trusts were setup at virtually the same time, that one of the trustess of the not-so blind trust was associated with Key’s blind trust that the names of both trusts were tube stations that were directly connected and that the not so blind trust held shares that John Key had previously owned were all just political coincidences. - Murray (7,314) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:24 pm Whats got 30 legs and no pubic hair?ILG support team. Swear to god their average age was 12.
- Pete George (9,651) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:24 pm It’s possible it was purely a coincidence, Lees-Galloway said he was just going where the Young Labourites took him, and it’s possible he knew nothing about his opponent, including not knowing where her business was.I do wonder though at his priority of issues for Palmerston North – partial asset sales aren’t even an official National policy for the election yet are they? National should publicy float all sorts of ideas so Labourites can waste their time protesting.
The Labour strategy seems to be STOP. Stop drilling, stop asset sales, stop John Key from being popular, stop mining, stop thinking, stop caring about why Labour are doing so poorly.
- davidp (1,778) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:33 pm Protest outside Lees-Galloway’s home, anyone? - Murray (7,314) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:34 pm Its not a coincidence, Lees Gal has started his campaign and hes being directly assisted by MUSA.My compelled union fees in action supporting another politcised union and a corrupt politician.
By the why this one sent out that flyer about the the services people get from Labour the Thursday before the election knowing full well it would be too late for anyone to do anthing about it.
This boys as dirty as they come and he really is suprised when people don’t play nasty like him.
- robcarr (79) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:34 pm If you check out their FB page you can see they have been signwaving regularly in pretty much all of Palmy so would be unusual if they didn’t end up outside the coachman at some point unless they made a deliberate decision not to signwave outside it when it is one of the busiest intersections.@Pete Asset sales were in National’s first speech of the year which is generally used to determine the future direction of the party. Makes them a relatively important part of their policy from what I can see. Labour would also probably campaign against asset sales anyway, they did in 2008 because it forces the government to promise to not do any before the election otherwise everyone assumes they are planning to do some.
- Bevan (3,396) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:45 pm Just a coincidence then.Classic Tui comment if there ever was one.
Protest outside Lees-Galloway’s home, anyone?
Does throwing a dozen eggs at his house constitute a legitimate protest method? If so, count me in.
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:03 pm Mr Lees-Galloway and about 15 supporters gathered outside Mrs Hapeta’s Hotel Coachman about 5pm on Monday – protesting against the Government’s plans to sell state-owned assets.Mrs Hapeta said she felt attacked by the protesters, who held signs and waved at vehicles on both sides of Fitzherbert Ave.”
errrrr…………… how about some FACTS here folks?
What did these signs actually say?
Did a protestor bash Mrs Hapeta with a piece of corflute?
errr…. no?
If Mrs Hapeta is so ignorant of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, which allows peaceful protest and freedom of expression – and ‘feels attacked’ by people merely holding signs ‘protesting against the Government’s plans to sell state-owned assets’ – I for one, would have to question her ‘fitness for public office’.
Good grief people.
This is just PATHETIC.
Just helps to confirm to me how twitchy National Party supporters are about the vote-losing ‘asset sale issue’?
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - davidp (1,778) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:06 pm Bevan>Does throwing a dozen eggs at his house constitute a legitimate protest method?Lees-Galloway is a former student politician and union official. Why not just invite Damian O’Connor around to insult him using his colourful and intolerant West Coast sentences?
- Pete George (9,651) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:09 pm robcarr – so it’s got nothing to do with whether asset sales or part sales may or may not be ok, it’s just more political posturing. So I’ll reword:I do wonder though at his priority of issues for Palmerston North – vague national policy political maouvering is more important than anything in the provinces.
Ok, I forgot, Labour don’t care about what happens in the provinces.
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:09 pm Pete George (9,644) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:24 pmIt’s possible it was purely a coincidence, Lees-Galloway said he was just going where the Young Labourites took him, and it’s possible he knew nothing about his opponent, including not knowing where her business was.
I do wonder though at his priority of issues for Palmerston North – partial asset sales aren’t even an official National policy for the election yet are they? National should publicy float all sorts of ideas so Labourites can waste their time protesting. ”
errr….. sorry Pete – but asset sales are DEFINITELY an election issue.
The evidence of this is the following You Tube clip taken during the 2011 Botany by-election, at a candidates meeting on the specific issue of asset sales.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zht3kVIwaX0
Penny Bright
Botany by-election candidate
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - davidp (1,778) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:13 pm Water Woman>If Mrs Hapeta is so ignorant of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990, which allows peaceful protest and freedom of expression – and ‘feels attacked’ by people merely holding signs ‘protesting against the Government’s plans to sell state-owned assets’ – I for one, would have to question her ‘fitness for public office’.Just because something is allowed by the Bill of Rights Act doesn’t mean it isn’t rude. Standing outside your house (assuming you live in a house instead of under a bridge) blowing a trumpet at 3am is peaceful protest. It’d still be rude.
But I’m wondering why Labour are suddenly making an issue of asset sales. Clark and Goff sold several government trading departments back in the 80s. The last Labour government sold a whole lot of schools – my primary school has been bulldozed and used for private housing. They also tried to sell the Skyhawks and Aermacchis to a private company.
- Murray (7,314) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:17 pm Because “coincidences” are a feature of politics.But notice how the resident paranoid conspiaracy nutter doesn’t see any conspiracy when its not John Key on the grassy noll planting evidence of NASA landing on the moon.
- DrDr (48) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:20 pm I think the young Labour crowd knew exactly what they were doing. It’s no secret that Leonie Hapeta owns the Coachman ILG is possibly dumber than I initially thought or just a dumb liar. - Komata (521) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:21 pm PBGiven your various posts over the last few days, I have to ask Are you a Labour Party supporter or sympathiser?
David p
A reasonable question of course, but you should know the answer by now: its only all right if LABOUR do such things – for everyone else it is of course ‘totally intolerable and an attack on the peeple of New Zilind – especially the sexualy diverse, immigrants from the middle east, mauri, the beneficiaries, those on low incomes – and our Polynesian brothers.
- Murray (7,314) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:21 pm Hes pretty slow DrDr. - Pete George (9,651) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:25 pm errr….. sorry Pete – but asset sales are DEFINITELY an election issue.eerrrr…what exactly is the issue? National have expressed an interest in looking at something but haven’t confirmed specifics, and Labour are campaigning on having absolutely no asset sales of any kind not matter what the pros and cons?
I guess it is an issue if one party has a totally intransigent position, no matter what the facts, on something any prudent government would at least consider from time to time.
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:26 pm # davidp (1,775) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:06 pmBevan>Does throwing a dozen eggs at his house constitute a legitimate protest method?
Lees-Galloway is a former student politician and union official. Why not just invite Damian O’Connor around to insult him using his colourful and intolerant West Coast sentences?”
errr…. WHY exactly would you be protesting outside the house of Lees-Galloway?
Because he, and Labour Party supporters exercised their LAWFUL right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest – which apparently WASN’T directed personally against Mrs Hapeta or her Hotel Coachman, but was an ‘intersection picket’ opposing asset sales?
Think I’d be a little careful, if I were you, as to where some of you are going with this?
Mind you – I have taken defence of my lawful right to freedom of expression, and peaceful protest to the point of arrest on MANY occasions – so I do feel rather strongly about it.
Obviously a number of you don’t?
Some of you don’t want Labour Party supporters to hold up signs at intersections – so you want to attack Lees-Galloway’s house with eggs?
Oh dear me – how SAD is that?
(Think you may find that may be stretching the ‘peaceful’ protest bit?)
hmmmmm… maybe Labour, under Phil Goff’s leadership is campaigning more effectively than some of you are happy with?
Maybe Phil Goff is now not quite as ‘ineffective’ as you thought, campaigning on asset sales?
bugger……….
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - Murray (7,314) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:29 pm And the kiss of death is delivered to Phil Goff. - BeaB (745) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:36 pm The Nats always underestimate just how low and nasty Labour supporters are in pursuit of power. And they have the time to plot and scheme because they are not part of the productive sector. - publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:42 pm Komata (520) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:21 pmPB
Given your various posts over the last few days, I have to ask Are you a Labour Party supporter or sympathiser?”
I am totally opposed to the commercialisation and privatisation of public services and public assets.
I work on an issue by issue basis.
National has a stated policy of supporting ‘partial privatisation’ of (some?) state assets while Labour has a stated policy of opposing asset sales.
On this issue I share common ground with the Labour Party.
All good?
Penny Bright
http;//waterpressure.wordpress.com - jaba (1,106) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:50 pm aha, we can always rely on Penny Not So with the Big Boobies to rile us up (10-20 demerits??) .. these baby commies can protest all they like and the nats office is a good place to do so .. go for it BUT to go to the person’s place of work/business is appalling but typical of the lefts need to act like low life scum with no ethics. (they have caused me to lower myself to get a point across).
PNS with the BB’s, wants our politicaians to have a code of conduct (she once quoted the Pansy Wong case as an example) .. not sure what her definitian of stds is. - Fisiani (399) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:51 pm There are hundreds of busy streets in Palmerston North and the Labour Party accidentally choose to demonstrate at the spot outside the business premises of their main opponent. (Pull the other one!) It just shows how scared they are of losing Palmerston North to National. If they repeat protests at the same spot then it obviously was not a coincidence. Putting the boot into a business for cheap political point scoring puts workers at risk. ILG should apologise for his small gaggle of adolescents. - Pete George (9,651) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:52 pm Penny, do you oppose all types of asset sales or part sales, ever? If so, why?
Do you think the government should keep accumulating assets indefinitely?
Do you think that any asset, once it is owned by the government, is always best retained and managed by the government? - jaba (1,106) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:55 pm I shouldn’t comment to JNS with the BB’s as it gives her a platform . RIP?? - Jmac (3) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:58 pm Penny, perhaps you would gain more than 124 votes in Botany if you didn’t call people ‘toothless goldfish’ and generally ‘play the man.’Just a thought… it’s not particularly winsome.
Oh and.. what exactly do you know about Nationals plan to sell SOE? Which assets will be getting the chop?
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:02 pm # DrDr (48) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:20 pmI think the young Labour crowd knew exactly what they were doing. It’s no secret that Leonie Hapeta owns the Coachman ILG is possibly dumber than I initially thought or just a dumb liar.”
errr… WHAT did they do?
Had an intersection picket opposing asset sales outside her hotel?
BIG DEAL!
Get over it.
How truly desperate are you lot?
(Meant of course, in a caring, if slightly exasperated way
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - Pete George (9,651) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:12 pm A privately owned hotel is not exactly the smartest location to protest public asset sales, surely they could have found an empty government building in town to protest beside. - Boss Hogg (9) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:17 pm Seriously, who cares. People get worked up over the most trivial crap. - Shazzadude (114) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:25 pm The hotel strip in Palmerston North just happens to be a very busy thoroughfare in the city. It could very well be a coincidence. - davidp (1,778) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:30 pm Publicwatchbog>WHY exactly would you be protesting outside the house of Lees-Galloway? Because he, and Labour Party supporters exercised their LAWFUL right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest – which apparently WASN’T directed personally against Mrs Hapeta or her Hotel Coachman, but was an ‘intersection picket’ opposing asset sales?I’d want to exercise my lawful rights by standing outside his house late at night waving a placard opposing the Labour Party’s policy to spend huge amounts of money on services of very little value and leave the consequent debt to our children and grandchildren to deal with. And bang a drum. Bevan wants to throw harmless organic chicken products at his home to show his displeasure, as is his right.
- davidp (1,778) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:32 pm Pete George>Do you think the government should keep accumulating assets indefinitely?We’d need to build warehouses all across the country to hold all the old government furniture, vehicles, and other assets. Or we could leave them out in the open to rust, like Labour did with our air strike assets.
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:34 pm errr…… here is what you must have missed back in late January2011?National Prime Minister John Key STATING National Party policy ‘to sell off parts of state assets’ in his ‘State of the Nation’ speech on 26 January 2011?
Also ‘Pete George’ – you obviously are unaware of ‘intersection’ pickets.
Not a particularly complicated concept?
‘Mohammed goes to the mountain’ sort of thing?
ie: Protestors take their messages on placards to busy intersections where there are lots of cars – therefore lots of people can see them????
Have seen lots of National Party supporters do EXACTLY THE SAME THING in Auckland?
Don’t recall Labour Party members threatening to throw eggs at the houses of the National Party candidates for having the temerity to exercise THEIR lawful rights to freedom of expression and peaceful protest?
Anyway – back to John Key announcing plans to sell parts of state assets……………
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10702066
PM: Nats to sell parts of state assets
By Claire Trevett
2:36 PM Wednesday Jan 26, 2011Prime Minister John Key before his state-of-the-nation speech in Auckland today.
Prime Minister John Key has announced plans to sell off parts of state assets and cut back on the rate of Government spending.
Mr Key delivered his state-of-the nation address at Henderson’s Trust Stadium this morning to a group of about 380 people, mostly from the business community.
Click here for the full text of Mr Key’s speech. ”
All clear on this now are we?
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - Nick R (114) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:35 pm How dare these politicians engage in politics. Outrageous. They will be asking people to vote for them next. - dime (3,071) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:38 pm sure, its a coincidence. now can someone explain why this guy is so piss weak he cant say to a bunch of young labour kids – this isnt right. lets do this elsewhere? - publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:45 pm Jmac (3) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:58 pmPenny, perhaps you would gain more than 124 votes in Botany if you didn’t call people ‘toothless goldfish’ and generally ‘play the man.’
If the cap fits – wear it?
If you consider yourself a ‘toothless goldfish’ – that’s your problem – not mine.
Did I say Jmac – you are a toothless goldfish’?errr…. no.
I am ‘playing the man’?
WHERE?
FAR OUT!
Are you a ‘first time poster’ – or perhaps you haven’t seen the CRAP that some of anonymous gutless ones have at times
dished out to me?Think I am actually remarkably restrained in my responses, to be perfectly honest.
I don’t swear, am not virulently or personally abusive – so I think you might be confusing my holding opinions with which you agree, with attacking the person – which I am not.
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - dime (3,071) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:48 pm reading posts from “public watch dog” makes me miss phil.national dont plan on selling any assets pre-election right? so why protest?
its not like they are going to limit freedom of speech or get rid of the privy council without telling anyone. they are going to seek a mandate from the voting public.
wouldnt this be just like national people organising a protest against labours secret mini-budget, prior to the last election?
as someone else said though, its not like us right wingers can target a lefties business..
- Pete George (9,651) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:53 pm Has anyone ever checked how effective placard waving on the street is? Lake, does it ever make any differecne to what people think?Personally I usually think it’s a bit embarrassing and cringy. A bit like hapless happy clappers.
I wonder why Macdonalds and Briscoes don’t advertise like that.
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:55 pm # dime (3,069) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:38 pmsure, its a coincidence. now can someone explain why this guy is so piss weak he cant say to a bunch of young labour kids – this isnt right. lets do this elsewhere?”
WHAT isn’t right?
If the placards held at this intersection picket are focused on opposing asset sales – what ON EARTH is the problem?
So the National Party candidate doesn’t like it/them?
TOUGH.
So the intersection is close to a hotel owned by the National Party candidate?
TOUGH.
So – this National Party candidate, and a number of her supporters on this blog – don’t believe in New Zealanders’ lawful rights to freedom of expression and peaceful protest?
Put THAT in your National Party manifesto and see how popular THAT is with the voting public!
Probably about as popular as asset sales?
Penny Bright
http://waterpresure.wordpress.com - dime (3,071) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:09 pm youre missing the point penny.the dudes response was :
“There was no intention to target Leonie’s business and it hadn’t even crossed my mind,” he said.
“Yeah, when I got there I thought: `OK we’re outside the Coachman’ but it was no plan on my part.”
so my question is:
why didnt he change venue? his answers reflect that he new it was a shitty thing to do.
im not saying it was illegal. good for him. but at least be honest and say “im a fucking scumbag”.
id respect him more
- David Garrett (165) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:10 pm DPF: Are you monitoring this on your travels? Must we put up with this raving loony woman?? Most of us enjoy the lively and informed debate here… (I dont have that RIP thing….) - Nick R (114) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:12 pm @ David Garrett: Seconded. - publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:20 pm # David Garrett (164) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:10 pmDPF: Are you monitoring this on your travels? Must we put up with this raving loony woman?? Most of us enjoy the lively and informed debate here…”
Pity about your contribution then David.
So – you don’t support the lawful rights of New Zealanders to freedom of expression or peaceful protest either?
Probably just as well for those New Zealanders who do support our basic democratic rights that you are no longer in Parliament?
Last time I looked ACT did actually support freedom of expression – so you may not have ‘fitted in’ very well there either?
(Meant of course, in a caring, constructive albeit – ‘you start it and I will finish it sort of way’
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - nasska (371) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:21 pm Regardless of the desperate attempt by Mr Lees-Galloway & the great unwashed to generate some free publicity I feel that the citizens of Palmerston North will shower them with undying gratitude.It’s been a long time since such an exciting event unfolded in the City of the Drain.
- Rex Widerstrom (4,232) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:22 pm Pete George suggests:if one party has a totally intransigent position, no matter what the facts, on something any prudent government would at least consider from time to time.
Hey, there’s money to be made by turning NZ into a South Pacific money launderer. Or one long brothel, like some Asian countries. Or I hear the Australians are looking for someplace to dump their nuclear power station waste.
Should a “prudent” government consider these exciting money making opportunities too? Or should it have a few principles… you know, those things people used to have before power and money became the paramount considerations.
Selling infrastructure assets, anywhere, has always resulted in higher prices for the end user (e.g. electricity) and a brief bump in revenue for the government of the day (which often ends up having to buy it back … railways ring any bells?).
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:34 pm dime (3,071) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:09 pmyoure missing the point penny.
the dudes response was :
“There was no intention to target Leonie’s business and it hadn’t even crossed my mind,” he said.
“Yeah, when I got there I thought: `OK we’re outside the Coachman’ but it was no plan on my part.”
so my question is:
why didnt he change venue? his answers reflect that he new it was a shitty thing to do.”
err…. with all due respect – I think it is YOU who is missing the point. COMPLETELY and REPEATEDLY missing the point.
WHAT is ‘shitty’ about Labour Party supporters having an intersection picket opposing asset sales – which happens to be close to a hotel owned by the National Party candidate?
I’d have a lot more respect for National candidate Leonie Hapeta if she said something like this: –
‘I am delighted that Labour Party supporters are proving that our NZ democracy is alive and well, by exercising their democratic right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest. If I wasn’t bound by National Party’s policy of supporting asset sales, I’d be down there joining them. Well, given that myself and my National Party supporters have an equal right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest, I will organise a similar intersection picket, with placards saying:
‘Support asset sales!
Vote National!It will be fascinating to see how many of the local voting public honk their horns and visibly show support for our policy of supporting assets sales. I look forward to practically checking ‘the public pulse’ on this very significant election issue’
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - MT_Tinman (1,374) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:43 pm Rex Widerstrom (4,228) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:22 pmSelling infrastructure assets, anywhere, has always resulted in higher prices for the end user (e.g. electricity) and a brief bump in revenue for the government of the day (which often ends up having to buy it back … railways ring any bells?).
Rex, I have two questions about the quoted paragraph.
Please give me details of ALL infrastructure asset sales with the resultant price rises.
Please also explain the compulsion NZ had to buy back the railways.
- Rick Rowling (212) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:51 pm The question no-one ever answers on asset sales:Given the assertion that all asset sales are bad, does this mean that:
(a) The government currently owns exactly the right mix of assets;
(b) The government currently owns the right assets, but should also buy more;
(c) Something else (explain).
/ I note Penny has been silent on whether asset sales are bad, and has only said that the policy of asset sales is a vote-loser.
- krazykiwi (6,756) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:59 pm @RR, whether it’s an absence of words, or a surfeit of foot, silence is not such a bad thing in this instance - publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:02 pm Here we go folks.If you don’t know your rights – you don’t have any.
If you don’t defend the rights that you are supposed to have – you lose them.
Given that some of you appear to be profoundly ignorant of your (our) lawful rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly – here they are so you can study them for yourselves, and take them on board.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 14. Freedom of expression
—Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek,receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 16. Freedom of peaceful assembly
—Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________All good?
GOT IT?
That’s great.
FYI and consideration, some years ago I did a comparison of the NZ Bill of Rights Act (BORA) 1990, with its arguably far superior ‘parent’ document – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948.
To the best of my ability, I have done a cut and paste job so that our basic human rights can be easily compared.
You can see for yourselves that our NZ BORA is arguably a weak and crippled stunted dwarf compared with the UDHR.
Interesting that it took NZ 42 years to finally get the NZ BORA 1990 on the books, after the UDHR was launched in 1948.I’ve put this compilation on my blog – so you can see it for yourself.
Feel free to use it if it is helpful to you.Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - Muzza M (141) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:07 pm Hey Labour people, doing things and saying things that are perceived by the average person as being nothing more than muck raking and shit slinging is why the Helen Clark government got its arse kicked. Kiwis have had enough of this nastiness. Just some free advice. - magic bullet (407) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:10 pm Thanks penny! - publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:19 pm # freedom101 (241) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 1:07 pmIt would be impossible for Natiional to hold a similar protest as no one in Labour has a business.”
What – National Party supporters can’t make and hold placards at intersections?
(They can do this in Auckland – I’ve seen them!
Hey!
They could hold a National pro-asset sale picket AT THE SAME INTERSECTION that Labour did!
It would be right outside Mrs Hapeta’s Hotel Coachman, and just like the Labour supporters, the National supporters could hold their signs supporting asset sales and wave at vehicles on both sides of Fitzherbert Ave.
HOW CONVENIENT!
Then maybe they could go back to the pub for a drink or something and reflect on just how many of the voting public were tooting in support of asset sales?
Hmmmm……….. might end up more of a ‘wake’ than a celebration?
WHY DON’T NATIONAL TRY IT AND SEE?
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - labrator (808) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:56 pm Has anyone seen philu and Penny Bright on the same thread at the same time? Don’t cross the streams… - NX (484) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:10 pm I thought Palmerston North was a quarantine for gingas . . . . - reid (6,788) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:10 pm Odd isn’t it how none of the lefties here appear to understand what they did wrong.They’re either stupid or they’re liars.
I wonder which one it is?
Disgusting creatures.
- big bruv (8,932) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:14 pm Comrade Penny Bright.Given we live in a democracy would you be happy to go along with the will of the people if there is a clear majority in favour of partial asset sales?
Would you then accept that the majority of Kiwis do not care?, would you fold your tent, get a real job and stop your narcissistic personal crusade for public recognition?
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:17 pm # labrator (808) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 5:56 pmHas anyone seen philu and Penny Bright on the same thread at the same time? Don’t cross the streams…”
Don’t know philu from a bar of soap – but if you poor things can’t handle the arguments that I’m putting forward, then don’t know how the hell you’re going to cope with TWO of us with a similar point of view?
Or maybe it’s been the end of a long. hard week and you’re just tired and not trying very hard?
But the quality of the debate on this SIGNIFICANT issue of freedom of expression has been, (how do I put this nicely)
pretty pathetic.Maybe it’s just that I’ve had a bit of practice over the years on this issue – so I’m a bit more up with the play?
Oh well – sometimes when there is heat – there is light?
Hopefully some of you now are a little more aware of the LAWFUL democratic rights that New Zealanders have to freedom of expression and peaceful protest?
With a surname like mine – I’m genetically hardwired to be optimistic – just can’t help myself.
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - nickb (1,972) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:23 pmreading posts from “public watch dog” makes me miss phil.
Haha fuck me I am thinking the same thing! At least phil had a semblance of personality and would crack a funny every so often. Penny is just a Dronebot from an outer galaxy.
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:33 pm # nickb (1,971) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:23 pmreading posts from “public watch dog” makes me miss phil.
Haha fuck me I am thinking the same thing! At least phil had a semblance of personality and would crack a funny every so often. Penny is just a Dronebot from an outer galaxy.”
Thanks for the offer nickb – but I think I’ll pass.
You can’t handle the debate?
Harden up.
Penny (obviously too) Bright (for some of you lot
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - kiwi in america (1,169) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:41 pm oh dear – here was me thinking that PB was a female version of phil and no sooner did I think the thought then she posts that she pines for phil! I guess he passed on the urge to post mindless leftist dribble through cyberspace – at least we’re spared the endless dots ……… and pro drug ranting!Phil fed off people debating him – can I suggest the easiest way to moderate Penny’s effusions is to ignore her!
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:47 pm # reid (6,781) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:10 pmOdd isn’t it how none of the lefties here appear to understand what they did wrong.
They’re either stupid or they’re liars.
I wonder which one it is?
Disgusting creatures.”
No Reid, it is not ‘odd’ because ‘none of the lefties’ have done anything wrong.
I think what is ‘disgusting’ is when people like you – who are apparently pig-ignorant of our basic human rights – just ‘make it up’.
Sorry Reid, but in my considered opinion, it is those (like you) who STILL have no understanding of the lawful rights to freedom of expression and peaceful protest, despite my BEST efforts to provide the information, who are the ‘stupid’ ones.
Toothless. wilfully blind little goldfish – just full of empty little goldfish bubbles…………quite sad really……..
All the best.
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - big bruv (8,932) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:52 pm Comrade BrightCare to answer the question I asked of you at 6.14pm?
- tankyman (102) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:00 pm @Jmac. Sorry just to check something you posted. “124″ votes? Serious? Thats laughable - publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:03 pm # big bruv (8,928) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 6:14 pmComrade Penny Bright.
Given we live in a democracy would you be happy to go along with the will of the people if there is a clear majority in favour of partial asset sales?
Would you then accept that the majority of Kiwis do not care?, would you fold your tent, get a real job and stop your narcissistic personal crusade for public recognition?”
Poor Big Bruv – yet another sad little goldfish – full of hot air – who simply can’t handle the debate.
errr…. thanks for the employment advice, but I actually have an (albeit unpaid) VERY important job, and judging by the responses I’m getting from some – especially you Big Bruv – I’m right on target – or I wouldn’t be copping the flak.
Keep going!
Some boyz are SO silly!
Don’t you realise that you are my barometer?
The more you appear to be upset by my well-informed and considered opinions – the more I realise just how effective I must be and what good job I must be doing!
I mean – no one is has a gun to your head FORCING you to read my posts – are they?
SO WHY DO YOU – if they so upset you?Just ignore them Big Bruv!
(You just can’t – can you? Poor little toothless goldfish – absolutely NO self-discipline – how sad is that? Diddums…… Thanks you SO much for the compliment Big BRuv.
You have made my evening
Quite possibly the feeling is not mutual?
SO sorry – but not my problem.
Penny (obviously far too) Bright (for you Big Bruv
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - big bruv (8,932) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:13 pm Comrade PennyI note that you still did not answer the question, like all narcissists you have fallen into the trap of thinking that this is all about you.
Now…given you make a big noise about democracy will you abide by the democratic will of the people if they vote in favour of partial asset sales?
If not…why not?
- James (1,122) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:35 pm Penny…just what are these “assets? What makes them “assets” and who are the actually “assets” for…? - reid (6,788) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:39 pm Sorry Reid, but in my considered opinion, it is those (like you) who STILL have no understanding of the lawful rights to freedom of expression and peaceful protest, despite my BEST efforts to provide the information, who are the ‘stupid’ ones.Toothless. wilfully blind little goldfish – just full of empty little goldfish bubbles…………quite sad really……..
Uh duh Penny. How many lawyers does liarbore have, you know, people like Charles Chauvel? What if the Nats, when he was first standing as an unelected candidate, had gone and stood outside his law firm and behaved exactly the way your mob did today.
That’s the issue. Not human rights.
What you’re saying is that’s perfectly OK. Fine. Reap the whirlwind, idiot.
Let’s identify every single Liarbore candidate regardless of whether or not they’re elected, and fund people to go along and hold a ‘political protest’ outside their places of work every single day from now till the election. Schools, hospitals, university depts, govt depts, the local dole office, will all be inundated with daily protests. If they don’t work, we’ll go and stand outside their homes. In fact, we’ll do that anyway, cause it’s a “lawful right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest.”
Fucking d’oh Penny. I used to think sometimes you had a good point. Sorry to say (for you) that’s no longer the case.
P.S. Penny, when I ignore something you say, that pertains to something I have said, the usual reason is cause I think, IMO, it’s irrelevant, it doesn’t apply or it’s simply incorrect. It’s rather tiresome correcting dissembly, for that’s what it is. If you don’t know you’re doing it, then that makes you rather stupid. If you do know you’re doing it, that makes you evil. Which is it?
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:49 pm # big bruv (8,930) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 7:13 pmComrade Penny
I note that you still did not answer the question, like all narcissists you have fallen into the trap of thinking that this is all about you.
Now…given you make a big noise about democracy will you abide by the democratic will of the people if they vote in favour of partial asset sales?
If not…why not?”
This is my view:
It must be a lawful requirement that it is only a binding vote of the public majority that can determine whether public assets held at NZ Central Govt or Local Govt level are sold; or long-term leased via Public-Private –Partnerships.
It must be a lawful requirement that a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of NZ Central Govt public finances be undertaken to substantiate that private procurement of public services previously provided ‘in-house’ is cost-effective for the public majority.
Hope that helps Big Bruv.
Cheers!
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - reid (6,788) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:06 pm It must be a lawful requirement that a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of NZ Central Govt public finances be undertaken to substantiate that private procurement of public services previously provided ‘in-house’ is cost-effective for the public majority.Penny you seem to have a lot of faith in business cases (a.k.a. “cost-benefit analyses) and I assume you support Len’s published business case for his CBD loop?
Is that correct?
- big bruv (8,932) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:06 pm PennyOnce again you have avoided the question, I will try one last time.
This election will be one where asset sales feature prominently, should the Nat’s emerge with a clear majority will you take that as the word of the people you claim to represent and take it as democracy in action?
Surely if you are so keen on democracy you would welcome the choice of the people and give up your pointless campaign?
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:08 pm Fucking d’oh Penny. I used to think sometimes you had a good point. Sorry to say (for you) that’s no longer the case.”Oh dear – poor Reid -hasn’t yet learned the art of dealing with matters on an issue by issue basis in order to maximise unity and effectiveness.
So you cut off your poor little goldfish nose to spite your poor little goldfish face?
Diddums
How DUMB is that?
For the umpteenth time – the Labour Party asset sale intersection picket – (if you bothered to read what was actually stated in the article………
“Mr Lees-Galloway and about 15 supporters gathered outside Mrs Hapeta’s Hotel Coachman about 5pm on Monday – protesting against the Government’s plans to sell state-owned assets.
Mrs Hapeta said she felt attacked by the protesters, who held signs and waved at vehicles on both sides of Fitzherbert Ave.”
INTERSECTION PICKET ‘idiot’!
Aimed at the TRAFFIC ‘idiot’!
Not outside the hotel ‘idiot’!THE PROTEST WASN’T AIMED AT THE HOTEL (‘idiot’) IT WAS AIMED AT THE TRAFFIC!
Uh duh!
Got it now ‘idiot’?
Keep at it Reid, and one day you may develop a bit more political ‘nous’?
You’re not showing a lot at the moment – but if you (eventually) take on board that people can have differing viewpoints on a number of issues, and you can agree to disagree in a civilised way – then you don’t end up wanting to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’ – like you are doing (like a spoilt brat hissy fit six year old).
“Fucking d’oh Penny. I used to think sometimes you had a good point. Sorry to say (for you) that’s no longer the case.”
How TRULY PATHETIC are you Reid – (on this particular issue)?
Oh – I see.
I have a good point when YOU agree with it?Ever occurred to you REID that just because you don’t (at this particular point in time) agree with me, that it may still be a good point?
No?
Try growing up.
(Meant of course, in a caring way
Penny (too) Bright (for you to handle on this issue?
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com - Nookin (581) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:12 pm “It must be a lawful requirement that it is only a binding vote of the public majority that can determine whether public assets held at NZ Central Govt or Local Govt level are sold; or long-term leased via Public-Private –Partnershipsunder.”What is wrong with the current process under the Local Government Act and the guiding principles under the Public Finance Act? Or do you want to make it logistically impossible to make a decision?
- reid (6,788) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:32 pmTHE PROTEST WASN’T AIMED AT THE HOTEL (‘idiot’) IT WAS AIMED AT THE TRAFFIC!
Uh duh!
Got it now ‘idiot’?
Er, yes it was actually, Penny.
The protesters – all unionists, parked their van 150m down the road, walked to the Coachman, started protesting, left when told to by the candidate, went 150m back down the road to their van, and continued protesting.
A court of law would convict you for that.
What a moron.
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:35 pm # big bruv (8,931) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:06 pmPenny
Once again you have avoided the question, I will try one last time.
This election will be one where asset sales feature prominently, should the Nat’s emerge with a clear majority will you take that as the word of the people you claim to represent and take it as democracy in action?
Surely if you are so keen on democracy you would welcome the choice of the people and give up your pointless campaign?”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________Sorry Big Bruv, as I pointed out (quite clearly I thought) my considered opinion is that a vote should be on the specific issue of
asset sales – not if National gets in – therefore that becomes a blanket mandate.All clear now are we?
To assist – I have compiled some key evidence to back up my concerns on how, in my considered opinion, we tend to get the government that the majority of big business want us to have, and achieve that through corporate media manipulation.
It is not complicated.
Big business and National support partial privatisation /asset sales.
The public and Labour (according to their 2011 stated position – which is different to that of the 1984 -87 Labour Government) now oppose partial privatisation/ asset sales.
So – arguably big business/National – through their connections with corporate media begin a campaign to undermine Labour.
First Darren Hughes, then Phil Goff’s leadership over his handling of the Darren Hughes matter, then the big fuss over the ill-disciplined comment by Damien O’Connor about gays and unionists – now this absolute stupid little ‘storm in a teacup over
a lawful intersection picket focusing on Labour’s opposition to asset sales.The hope is that that the marvellous ‘spin doctor’ packaging of ex and current corporate raider (shonky?) John Key – will last and somehow the public who are SO taken by ‘Mr (phoney as hell) ‘Popular Prime Minister – will have some form of collective frontal lobotomy and forget their monthly power bills, and the ‘bad old ‘inefficient days’ before Max Bradford’s electricity reforms – when you could afford to turn your heater on in winter.
There will be more of such ‘pickiness’, in my opinion….. a LOT more.
If you want to see the results of my research – you know where to look.
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.comPS: “Surely if you are so keen on democracy you would welcome the choice of the people and give up your pointless campaign?”
Thank you for confirming that I am DEFINITELY ‘on track’ with my ‘pointless’ campaign.Good on you Big Bruv – thanks for that!
- Inventory2 (6,073) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:40 pm Let’s make sure that asset sales ARE an election issue. Then we can scrutinise the cabinet voting records of Goff, King et al between 1984 & 1990 when assets were sold with gay abandon. Bring it on! - reid (6,788) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:47 pm You know what the tragedy is here Penny, with tactics like what your mob use all the time?It’s the real issue get’s lost.
The protest was about asset sales.
Who knows that?
Hardly anyone.
That’s your fault, BTW, not the “biased media’s” fault.
Shame, it would have been much more interesting shooting you lefty mentals down in flames over asset sales than over this action by a mean, vicious, spiteful and typical, Liarbore activist.
I2, snap.
- publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:53 pm # reid (6,785) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:32 pmTHE PROTEST WASN’T AIMED AT THE HOTEL (‘idiot’) IT WAS AIMED AT THE TRAFFIC!
Uh duh!
Got it now ‘idiot’?
Er, yes it was actually, Penny.
The protesters – all unionists, parked their van 150m down the road, walked to the Coachman, started protesting, left when told to by the candidate, went 150m back down the road to their van, and continued protesting.
A court of law would convict you for that.
What a moron.”
So how come the article which is the subject of this thread, says:
“Mr Lees-Galloway and about 15 supporters gathered outside Mrs Hapeta’s Hotel Coachman about 5pm on Monday – protesting against the Government’s plans to sell state-owned assets.
Mrs Hapeta said she felt attacked by the protesters, who held signs and waved at vehicles on both sides of Fitzherbert Ave.”
A court of law would convict me FOR WHAT?
You would know of course Reid.
Think I’ve probably had A LOT more experience with protesting, and courts than you?
If I had been there – I wouldn’t have budged ONE INCH, and would have suggested to Mrs Hapeta that she and National party supporters had an equal right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest, and could organise a similar intersection picket, with placards saying:
‘Support asset sales!
Vote National!Right outside her hotel.
“What a moron”?
A bit of ‘projection’ happening here again is there ‘Reid’.
How can I put this respectfully?
You just don’t appear to have a blinding clue……… (well on this issue anyway
Ok folks!
It’s been fascinating trying to educate you about your basic human rights, and I could be here all night – but I’ve now got some intelligent and pleasant male company – (SUCH a change from Kiwiblog
so!Bye for now
Penny Bright
htp://waterpressure .wordpress.com - reid (6,788) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 8:59 pm So how come the article which is the subject of this thread, says:“Mr Lees-Galloway and about 15 supporters gathered outside Mrs Hapeta’s Hotel Coachman about 5pm on Monday – protesting against the Government’s plans to sell state-owned assets.
Mrs Hapeta said she felt attacked by the protesters, who held signs and waved at vehicles on both sides of Fitzherbert Ave.”
Because my source of the information I gave Penny is not that article. Duh.
You would know of course Reid.
Apparently, that’s true, Penny.
Bye for now.
- big bruv (8,932) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 9:09 pm Comrade PennySo….in typical left wing fashion you will ignore the will of the people, you will push aside what a majority want and press on with your very own left wing version of democracy.
We have seen what the left class as democratic, it was called the Electoral Finance act, it outlawed anybody who dared speak out against the government, it seems you favour that same style of democracy, in other words, if you get the outcome you want then it is democratic, it does not matter what the majority might want.
Look Comrade, nobody is denying you the opportunity to protest, but perhaps you should stop hiding behind this democracy lark, there is nothing democratic in your endeavours, you want to force the majority to do things your way…..the typical actions of a socialist/communist.
- James (1,122) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 9:44 pm Most of what comrade Bright calls assets are in fact liabilities to every kiwi taxpayer…their constant subsidised upkeep ( they tend to lose money like rail etc) keeps us poorer than we would be if able to retain control of our REAL assets…which are the earned dollars in our pockets and use them where WE choose. State assets are only assets to those who comprise the state…and bludgers who want a freebie off of someone else’s effort. - nickb (1,972) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 10:54 pm Penny is nothing but a troll, both metaphorically and (looking from the photo of her posted on here) literally. - publicwatchdog (311) Says:
April 16th, 2011 at 12:48 am # nickb (1,972) Says:
April 15th, 2011 at 10:54 pmPenny is nothing but a troll, both metaphorically and (looking from the photo of her posted on here) literally.”
Another empty little burp from yet another toothless little goldfish?
Is THAT the best you can do?
Childish, pathetic little boyz – you wouldn’t last ten minutes in an engineering workshop.
yawn…………………………….
Oh – perhaps you’ll prefer these photos?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzccHIB3paQ
Oh yes – you’ll just LOVE these!
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.comPS: Thank you though for confirming that I’m absolutely on target!
Sweet dreams
Anti-Petrobras EVENT! Wellington Civic Square next WEDS 20th April 10.00 am to 3.pm
Evict Petrobras from the sacred waters of Te Tai Rawhiti
| Time |
Wednesday, April 20 · 10:00am – 3:00pm
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Location |
Wellington CIVIC SQUARE
|
|
|
|
| Created By | |
|
|
|
| More Info |
Tena ano koutou!! As you will know by now we are engaged in direct action against the Petro giant company Petrobras in the sacred waters of Te Tai Rawhiti .. as part of the campaign we are staging a major event in Wellingtons Civic Square next WEDS 20th April 10.00 am to 3.pm there will be kapa haka, music, speakers, displays etc. Te Whanau a Apanui are coming down in force COME AND SUPPORT US! EVERYONE WELCOME!
See also! Invite ALL your friends! http://www.stopdeepseaoil.org.nz/national-day-against-oil.html |
Big business and National support asset sales – the public and Labour oppose assets sales – so corporate media tries to undermine Labour.
1) Big business want ‘partial privatisation’ of state assets.
2) John Key/ National support ‘partial privatisation’ of state assets.
3) Phil Goff/Labour oppose ‘partial privatisation’ of state assets.
4) The Botany by-election arguably helps prove that significant numbers of the voting public oppose ‘partial privatisation’ of state assets.
5) Corporate media campaign begins to undermine Phil Goff/Labour….
(Supporting facts and evidence in the following articles………)
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/business-supports-partial-privatisation-state-assets-nn-84414
Business supports partial privatisation of state assets
Business leaders are optimistic that a government signal of plans to sell shares in several state-owned enterprises, while keeping a control of them, will be acceptable to voters.
Prime Minister John Key said the Government has asked Treasury for advice on extending Air New Zealand’s mixed ownership model to Mighty River Power, Meridian, Genesis and Solid Energy.
Advice has also been sought on reducing the Crown’s 74.69 percent shareholding in Air New Zealand, while still maintaining a majority stake.
Business leaders today talked about the difference between partial privatisations and the privatisation of state business in the 1980s and 1990s. Mr Key said his Government was “interested in what works, not in following any particular ideology”.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=10702162
Business leaders support partial privatisation of state assets
Business Roundtable executive director Roger Kerr File photo
Business leaders are optimistic that a government signal of plans to sell shares in several state-owned enterprises, while keeping a control of them, will be acceptable to voters.
Prime Minister John Key said the Government has asked Treasury for advice on extending Air New Zealand’s mixed ownership model to Mighty River Power, Meridian, Genesis and Solid Energy.
Advice has also been sought on reducing the Crown’s 74.69 percent shareholding in Air New Zealand, while still maintaining a majority stake.
Business leaders today talked about the difference between partial privatisations and the privatisation of state business in the 1980s and 1990s. Mr Key said his Government was “interested in what works, not in following any particular ideology”.
With broad public support and constructive participation by other political parties the policy had the potential to achieve widespread acceptance, Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O’Reilly said.
Business Roundtable executive director Roger Kerr said New Zealand governments were spooked by the issue of privatisation.
The roundtable has argued that there are myths about the 30 or so privatisations in the 1980s and 1990s and the country has moved in an opposite policy direction by buying back rail and Air NZ and starting Kiwibank.
He said the Government move was a step in the right direction but there were issues with partial ownership.
“All the economic research indicates that privately owned business on average outperform publicly owned ones. But partially owned state-owned enterprises can still be subject to political interference and the results are not as clear,” he said.
Employment and Manufacturers Association chief executive Alasdair Thompson said it was the opposite of selling the family silver.
“This is about realising the value from part of certain state assets and using the funds released to invest in even more valuable state assets.”
O’Reilly said that allowing New Zealanders to invest directly in a changed mix of state-owned assets was a policy that was both progressive and moderate.
“Broadening the pool of investment opportunities for New Zealand families is a key step towards a more vibrant economy.
“Greater involvement by more stakeholders also fosters accountability and better performance.”
Meridian Energy today noted the Prime Minister’s speech in a note to the NZX under the code for listed debt instruments.
“As with any company Meridian will continue to be guided by its shareholders expectations for the company,” Meridian said.
Solid Energy chairman John Palmer last year raised the issue of partial privatisation but was criticised by Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee for over-stepping the mark.
Palmer, who is also chairman of Air NZ, argued that Solid Energy’s situation was vastly different to the emotional discussion surrounding Kiwibank, and he talked about the merits of Air NZ’s ownership structure. The airline is listed on the sharemarket.
The National government has made it clear that it will not sell state assets in its first term and will signal any intention in election policy.
Palmer said there should be majority ownership of Solid Energy because it had some key national assets. The sale of new shares in the coal miner did not require the sale of the Government’s existing stake but would dilute it.
The Crown’s commercial portfolio contains almost $95 billion of assets, of which $55b is in commercially focused companies and $40b in investment funds, according to Treasury.
– NZPA
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10702066
PM: Nats to sell parts of state assets
Prime Minister John Key before his state-of-the-nation speech in Auckland today. Photo / Greg Bowker
Prime Minister John Key has announced plans to sell off parts of state assets and cut back on the rate of Government spending.
Mr Key delivered his state-of-the nation address at Henderson’s Trust Stadium this morning to a group of about 380 people, mostly from the business community.
Click here for the full text of Mr Key’s speech.
He said National was looking to sell off parts of major power companies Mighty River Power, Meridian Energy and Genesis Energy along with coal company Solid Energy using the mixed-ownership model under which Air New Zealand operated.
“In each case, the government would retain majority ownership and control, and the freed-up capital would be used to purchase other public assets, thereby reducing the government’s need to borrow,” Mr Key said.
“I am convinced that Air New Zealand would not be run as well nor provide as good a service to customers if it was owned 100 per cent by the Government.”
National had also asked Treasury to look into reducing Government shareholding in the national carrier, Mr Key said.
“No other SOEs are being considered and no decisions have been made,” Mr Key said.
“Our final policy will be decided prior to this year’s election and we will seeking a mandate from the electorate before proceeding with any change,” he said.
Any sell-off would be subject to conditions including Government retaining a 50 per cent stake in the company, New Zealand investors claiming a place at the “front of the queue” when it comes to shareholding and any freed capital going back into public assets, said Mr Key.
New Zealand State Owned Entities (SOEs) not caught up in today’s proposal include Metservice, New Zealand Post, Kiwirail and Ontrack, Landcorp and Crown Fibre Holdings.
SOEs are directed to operate successfully as a business and earn profit on par with private commercial companies.
Many former SOEs were privatised by Labour and National through the 1980s and 1990s, including Telecom and State Insurance.
Opportunities for ‘mum and dad’ investors
Speaking to media after his speech, Mr Key said he was confident there would be significant interest in buying shares in currently state owned companies, by New Zealand “mums and dads” as well as institutions with investment portfolios such as the Super Fund and ACC.
“There is a lot of New Zealand investment that’s looking for a home. I don’t think the issue is about whether we can find New Zealand-based capital.”
He said foreign investors would be able to buy in, but he had sought Treasury advice to make sure the first opportunity to buy in was directed at New Zealanders.
There were various ways of ensuring New Zealanders did get the best opportunity to buy, including a discount for “mum and dad” investors. Another possibility was collecting interest in the shares, which he expected would be oversubscribed, allowing greater flexibility to decide who bought the shares.
New Zealand was “severely at risk” that foreign lenders would stop lending to New Zealand or charge higher interest rates.
“We can’t underestimate what Standard and Poors are saying. They are saying they would downgrade New Zealand, putting up the price of interest rates, unless we get on top of debt.”
He said if New Zealand was borrowing less, it meant there was more to invest in other areas.
‘Hocking off the family silver’
The announcement of planned asset sales was met with condemnation by Labour SOEs spokesman Clayton Cosgrove.
He accused National of planning to “hock off the family silver to foreign pixies”.
“They’ve done it before. It didn’t work then though we were promised we would be better off. And it won’t work now. It’s a dumb idea.”
“These enterprises have a combined value of $11.75 billion, and earn Kiwis $700 million a year.
“If John Key’s economic plan consists of hocking off the family silver to the foreign pixies from whom he’s also borrowing $120 million a week to give tax cuts to the rich, then he’s living in a fantasy land.”
Labour Party Finance spokesman David Cunliffe said the mixed ownership model favoured by National would relinquish Government control of state assets while giving little in return.
Minority shareholder rights would dilute public influence in running the companies, while compliance costs of public listing would still be incurred, he said.
“Arguably ‘mixed ownership’ is the worst of both worlds, and certainly not the best.”
Putting the proposal to sell off parts of SOEs in a speech themed around saving and investing was misleading, said Mr Cunliffe.
“Dressing it up as a savings plan is at best a bad joke. Since when did flogging off assets amount to saving and investing?
“John Key says he is singing the saving song today, but the substance is the same old agenda of irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy and flogging the family silver to pay for them.”
Cuts in Government spending
Mr Key said the asset sales would come alongside an up-to-$300 million cut in new spending assigned to this year’s budget – from $1.1 billion to $800 to $900m.
Mr Key said both moves were necessary to boost New Zealand’s economic performance and deliver jobs, higher incomes and better living standards.
“The way for New Zealand to get ahead is to sell more to the rest of the world. That means making some changes.”
Mr Key said the reduced spending would allow New Zealand to record a meaningful surplus one year earlier than projected, in the 2014-2015 financial year.
“The government simply has to get its finances in order if New Zealand is to achieve a long term improvement in its economic prospects.
“I have therefore challenged my Ministers to balance the books more quickly.
“Government spending will continue to increase each year in dollar terms but at a slower pace than the rest of the economy.”
$300m a week borrowing
Mr Key said the Government was still having to borrow an average of $300 million a week “to pay the bills”.
That has raised the national debt level to 85 percent of GDP, putting New Zealand on par with Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Spain, he said.
“That is very uneasy company indeed.
“We recognise that New Zealand’s level of foreign debt is our biggest vulnerability,” he said.
“In the worst of the recession, running a budget deficit was the right thing to do, as it gave much-needed support to the economy.
“Now, as the economy recovers, borrowing $300 million a week is unaffordable and is holding the economy back.
If debt remained at those levels, Standard and Poor’s would downgrade New Zealand’s credit rating, Mr Key said.
“This year the theme of the Budget will be savings and investment.”
Electricity prices won’t rise, says Key
Mr Key said he did not believe New Zealanders would face higher electricity prices as a result of private shareholders demanding greater profits from electricity companies.
He said the government had reformed the electricity industry and put controls on, including reducing cost increases of electricity generation.
He believed the companies would be more successful with some private capital. The government was “cash strapped” and could not invest in them to the same extent, restricting their growth.
He said while his critics would claim he was selling off the family silver, he believed the most important thing for New Zealanders was making sure the country didn’t go broke.
“I think the public will respect us for taking the tough decisions, but the right decisions for New Zealand. We’re really saying to New Zealanders, look, sometimes mum and dad change the mix of their assets. The car might be too big and they get a smaller thing. We’re looking to do a similar thing, but overall growing the size of New Zealand’s balance sheet.”
Labour’s promises were too extravagant and would mean they had to borrow, taking New Zealand down the same road as Ireland and Spain.
– with NZHERALD STAFF
Partial asset sales a dumb idea, says Labour
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/partial-asset-sales-dumb-idea-says-labour-4007707
Published: 1:01PM Wednesday January 26, 2011 Source: ONE News
Source: ONE News-
Watch Video
-
Related
Labour says hocking off the family silver to “foreign pixies” has been tried before and failed, and “won’t work now”.
Responding to a speech by Prime Minister John Key today in which he indicated the government is looking at partial asset sales, Labour’s SOE spokesman Clayton Cosgrove said talk of the partial privatisation of New Zealand’s biggest power companies shows Key’s lack of vision.
“They’ve done it before. It didn’t work then though we were promised we would be better off. And it won’t work now,” said Cosgrove. “It’s a dumb idea.”
Cosgrove said the enterprises have a combined value of $11.75 billion and earn Kiwis $700 million a year.
“If John Key’s economic plan consists of hocking off the family silver to the foreign pixies from whom he’s also borrowing $120 million a week to give tax cuts to the rich, then he’s living in a fantasy land.”
Key said in his State of the Nation speech today that the mixed-ownership model under which Air New Zealand operates – where the government owns most of the company but there is a minority of outside equity – gives the best of both worlds.
The government has asked Treasury for advice on the viability of extending the mixed ownership model to Mighty River Power, Meridian, Genesis and Solid Energy, Key said.
But Labour Party leader Phil Goff believes New Zealanders will face higher power prices and cuts to essential services like schools and hospitals under Key’s plan.
“This isn’t an economic plan. It’s a recipe for disaster. Hocking off our assets to foreign buyers and slashing spending is vintage National,” he said.
“Mums and dads don’t have spare cash floating around to buy up shares,” Goff said.
He said low and middle income New Zealanders have been stung by the GST hike and now will face cuts to health and education while “paying through the nose to heat their homes once National sells off our power companies to foreign investors”.
The Green Party said Key’s announcement indicates a swing to the right which will damage the economy long-term and hurt ordinary New Zealanders.
“The gloves are coming off. John Key’s speech…signals National’s plan to privatise state assets in the next term,” said co-leader Russel Norman.
“Selling state assets to foreign corporations, which will inevitably happen under this plan, will drive up the current account deficit, send profits overseas and drive up costs for Kiwis.
“Our current budget deficit has been created by the government’s tax cuts and poor quality spending. John Key is now using his mismanagement of the economy as an excuse to sell public assets and cut important social and environmental spending,” added Norman.
Norman said New Zealand needs state assets to drive innovation and investment.
“If the government wants to create opportunities for Kiwi investors then it should look into State Owned Enterprises issuing investment bonds. This is a much better option than selling off the assets.”
More problems than answers
The Council of Trade Unions says partial privatisation plans will do little to address debt problems and will cause more problems than they solve.
“Inevitably we will see more of the bad behaviour of the private electricity companies and the commercially focussed SOEs intensify, with more price rises, reluctance to invest in new generating capacity, and reluctance to invest in a secure supply,” CTU economist Bill Rosenberg said.
“The partial sale would hardly dent the government’s debt but at a significant cost to the effectiveness of New Zealand’s infrastructure. Most of the shares will end up overseas owned, increasing New Zealand’s overseas liabilities. It just moves public debt to private debt.”
And Rosenberg said the announcement of a further cut in the government operating allowance is small in terms of debt levels but will put pressure on government services like health and education.
“If we want to provide investment opportunities to the public, Kiwi infrastructure bonds could be offered that the government uses for development purposes.”
Exciting news
The Employers & Manufacturers Association said trading up state assets “into even more valuable assets” is exciting news.
“This is the opposite of selling the family silver,” said chief executive, Alasdair Thompson.
“This is about realising the value from part of certain state assets and using the funds released to invest in even more valuable state assets.”
Thompson said the association is calling for an Investment Development Fund dedicated to infrastructure into which proceeds from asset sales would be channelled for Kiwis to invest in.
“This would allow us to develop our country using much more of our own money instead of borrowing it from foreigners,” he said.
Realistic policy
BusinessNZ is welcoming the focus on investment in the Prime Minister’s state of the nation speech.
Chief Executive Phil O’Reilly said allowing New Zealanders to invest directly in a changed mix of state owned assets is a policy that is both progressive and moderate.
“Broadening the pool of investment opportunities for New Zealand families is a key step towards a more vibrant economy.
“Greater involvement by more stakeholders also fosters accountability and better performance.”
O’Reilly said the timeframe for the policy is measured and gives a good amount of time for public discussion.
“With broad public support and constructive participation by other political parties this policy has the potential to achieve widespread acceptance,” O’Reilly said.
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/john-armstrong-on-politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502865&objectid=10710626
Botany byelection loss holds silver lining for Labour Party
At last, Phil Goff has something to smile about.
Exactly why the Labour leader is smiling might not seem immediately obvious given that National’s Jami-Lee Ross won Saturday’s Botany byelection in a canter, securing almost double the number of votes of his Labour counterpart.
The answer is that everything is relative in politics. Labour did better than it hoped. National did not fare as well as it would have expected.
Of some worry to National will be the bleeding of its votes to the New Citizen Party, which picked up 10.5 per cent of the total candidate vote and pushed Act into fourth place.
If replicated in electorates across Auckland with large populations of New Zealand Chinese, such splintering of centre-right support could see large piles of wasted votes if the new party fails to reach the 5 per cent threshold.
That could diminish the centre-right’s representation in Parliament by one or two seats – seats which may well be crucial for National to retain power.
It is questionable, however, how meaningful conclusions drawn from a byelection can be, let alone one as stifled by circumstances as this one.
Still, the debut of the New Citizen Party and National’s failure to lift its vote would seem to pour cold water on the possibility of National securing a majority alone.
Article continues below
The complicating factor is Saturday’s abysmally low turnout. However, the non-vote would more likely be weighted in Labour’s favour.
The 36.6 per cent turnout – half that of a general election – meant both major parties got fewer votes than at the 2008 election. Labour’s vote proved more robust. National’s vote halved from more than 17,000 to just over 8000. In comparison, Labour’s vote fell, but far less dramatically – from around 6500 to just over 4000.
The net result is: Labour increased its share of the candidate vote in the seat from 21 per cent in 2008 to 28 per cent on Saturday.
Moreover, it did so in the face of a number of handicaps – notably the party’s candidate, Michael Wood, committing one of politics’ great sins early on by saying he would not win the seat.
At a minimum, the result boils down to a psychological victory for Labour, one which Goff wasted no time milking by staging a lunch-time photo-opportunity yesterday at a cafe in Botany town centre.
His claim the result is a “significant swing” against the Government ignores National having won about the same share of the vote as it did in 2008.
Moreover, although such comparisons are questionable, there is not a big difference between Labour’s party vote in the seat in 2008 and its candidate vote this time.
As for Act, Rodney Hide may not know whether to laugh or cry. The party’s candidate, Lyn Murphy, got 671 votes.
That amounts to less than 5 per cent of the vote in the kind of seat where Act should be hitting double figures.
However, Act’s party vote in the seat was less than 5 per cent in 2008. The byelection result suggests that while Act may still be down, the party is definitely not out.
The party is holding its annual conference next weekend. It does so with a fig-leaf of electoral respectability – but nothing more.
By John Armstrong | Email John
IF YOU DON’T KNOW YOUR RIGHTS – YOU HAVEN’T GOT ANY!: A comparison of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 -with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
15 April 2011
COMPARISON OF THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 AGAINST THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1948.
(Compiled by Penny Bright who hopes that the comparisons are all in their proper places!
Any corrections would be welcomed!)
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948
ON 10 DECEMBER 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member Countries to publicise the text of the Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories”.
Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore,
The General Assembly,
Proclaims this UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
_____________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
109 Commenced: 25 Sep 1990 II: Civil and Political Rights Democratic and Civil Rights
[Preamble]
An Act
(a) To affirm, protect, and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in New Zealand; and
(b) To affirm New Zealand’s commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[Part 0 Short Title
Section 1 Short Title
(1) This Act may be cited as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
(2) This Act shall come into force on the 28th day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.
Part I General Provisions
Section 2 [Rights Affirmed]
The rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights are affirmed.
Section 3 [Application]
This Bill of rights applies only to acts done
(a) By the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the government of New Zealand; or
(b) By any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law.
Section 4 [Other Enactments]
No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights),
(a) Hold any provision of the enactment to be impliedly repealed or revoked, or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or
(b) Decline to apply any provision of this enactment by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights.
Section 5 [Justified Limitations]
Subject to Section 4 of this Bill of Rights, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Section 6 [Interpretation]
Wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.
Section 7 [Attorney-General’s Report]
Where any Bill is introduced into the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General shall,
(a) In the case of a Government Bill, on the introduction of that Bill; or
(b) In any other case, as soon as practicable after the introduction of the Bill, bring to the attention of the House of Representatives any provision in the Bill that appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms in this Bill of Rights.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 20 [Rights of Minorities]
A person who belongs to an ethnic, religious, or linguistic minority in New Zealand shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of that minority, to enjoy the culture, to profess and practise the religion, or to use the language, of that minority.
Article 3 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
____________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 8 [Life]
No one shall be deprived of life except on such grounds as are established by law and are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 10 [Experimentation]
Every person has the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without that person’s consent.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 11 [Medical Treatment]
Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 4 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 5 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
____________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 9 [Torture, Cruel Treatment]
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 6 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 7 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
_______________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 19 Freedom from Discrimination
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993.
(2) Measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination that is unlawful by virtue of Part II of the Human Rights Act 1993 do not constitute discrimination.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 8 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
____________________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 27 [Remedies]
(1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s right, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.
(2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised bylaw have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.
(3) Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Article 9 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
_____________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 21 [Unreasonable Search and Seizure]
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence, or otherwise.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 22 [Personal Liberty]
Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 23 [Arrest]
(1) Everyone who is arrested or who is detained under any enactment
(a) Shall be informed at the time of the arrest or detention of the reason for it; and
(b) Shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) Shall have the right to have the validity of the arrest or detention determined without delay by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the arrest or detention is not lawful.
(2) Everyone who is arrested for an offence has the right to be charged promptly or to be released.
(3) Everyone who is arrested for an offence and is not released shall be brought as soon as possible before a court or competent tribunal.
(4) Everyone who is
(a) Arrested; or
(b) Detained under any enactment for any offence or suspected offence shall have the right to refrain from making any statement and to be informed of that right.
(5) Everyone deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person.
Article 10 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
_________________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 24 [Criminal Justice]
Everyone who is charged with an offence
(a) Shall be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the charge; and
(b) Shall be released on reasonable terms and conditions unless there is just cause for continued detention; and
(c) Shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer; and
(d) Shall have the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence; and
(e) Shall have the right, except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of a trial by jury when the penalty for the offence is or or includes imprisonment for more than 3 months; and
(f) Shall have the right to receive legal assistance without cost if the interests of justice so require and the person does not have sufficient means to provide for that assistance; and
(g) Shall have the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if the person cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 25 [Fair Trial]
Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:
(a) The right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court:
(b) The right to be tried without undue delay:
(c) The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:
(d) The right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess guilt:
(e) The right to be present at the trial and to present a defence:
(f) The right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence under the same conditions as the prosecution:
(g) The right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty:
(h) The right, if convicted of the offence, to appeal according to the law to a higher court against the conviction or against the sentence or against both:
(i) The right, in the case of a child, to be dealt with in a manner that takes account of the child’s age.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 26 [Nulla Poena Sine Lege, Double Jeopardy]
(1) No one shall be liable to conviction of any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occured.
(2) No one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again.
Article 12 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
________________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 18. Freedom of movement—
(1) Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.
(2) Every New Zealand citizen has the right to enter New Zealand.
(3) Everyone has the right to leave New Zealand.
(4) No one who is not a New Zealand citizen and who is lawfully in New Zealand shall be required to leave New Zealand except under a decision taken on grounds prescribed by law.
Article 14 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
______________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 13 [Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 15 [Religion and Belief]
Every person has the right to manifest that person’s religion or belief in worship,observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.
Article 19 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
_______________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 14. Freedom of expression
—Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek,receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 20 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
______________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 16. Freedom of peaceful assembly
—Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 17. Freedom of association
—Everyone has the right to freedom of association.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 21 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
_____________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 12 [Electoral rights]
Every New Zealand citizen who is of or over the age of 18 years
(a) Has the right to vote in genuine periodic elections of members of the House of Representatives, which elections shall be by equal suffrage and by secret ballot; and
(b) Is qualified for membership of the House of Representatives.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 22 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1.Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Article 24 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 28 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 29 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
____________________________
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 28 [Other Rights and Freedoms]
An existing right or freedom shall not be held to be abrogated or restricted for reason only that the right or freedom is not included in this Bill of Rights or is included only in part.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 29 [Legal Persons]
Except where the provisions of this Bill of Rights otherwise provide, the provisions of this Bill of Rights apply, so far as practicable, for the benefit of all legal persons as well as for the benefit of all natural persons.
__________________________________________________________________________
TRUTHOUT! ‘An independent, noncommercial platform for free thought is key to keeping politicians honest’
15 April 2011
Internationally significant articles from independent, noncommercial media:
Suggest you subscribe!
Penny
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Truthout’s work to bring new ideas into the national conversation and to maintain an independent, noncommercial platform for free thought is key to keeping politicians honest. We’ll never be shills for any political party – instead, we’ll continue to represent our readers’ needs for real information and a thoughtful expression of the progressive morality. Please help us continue on this path. We need to push back against the corporatists that wish to control the conversation and keep us playing their game. We’re aiming to raise $60,000 during this drive, in part to help cover the costs of the attack on Truthout’s web site at the beginning of this month. Right now we’re about $35,000 away. Can you help?
Click here to donate.
(Truthout is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. EIN: 20-0031641)
You can also donate by check, made payable to:
Truthout, P.O. Box 276414, Sacramento, CA 95827
(Please include your email address on your check.)
Thursday 14 April 2011
Congressman Dennis Kucinich | My Experience Dealing With the Department of Defense Regarding Pfc. Bradley Manning Has Been Kafkaesque
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Truthout: “Since my initial request to visit Private First Class (Pfc.) Bradley Manning on February 4, 2011, the Department of Defense (DoD) has consistently sought to frustrate any attempts to communicate with Pfc. Manning regarding his well-being. I was initially told that I would need Pfc. Manning’s approval in order to meet with him. When Pfc. Manning indicated his desire to meet with me, I was belatedly informed that the meeting could only take place if it was recorded because of a Monitoring Order imposed by the military’s Special Courts-Martial Convening Authority on September 16, 2010, which was convened for the case.”
Read the Article
Amy Dean | Spreading Models of Success: The Denver Doctrine
Amy Dean, Truthout: “At a time when working people are fighting defensive battles to preserve essential services at the state and national levels, it is all the more important that labor and community advocates are also building for the long term. Some of the best forward-looking policy making by progressives in the past decade has happened at the level of municipal regions – through a process I call regional power building. In the 1990s and early 2000s, I served as president and CEO of the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council and as founder of an organization called Working Partnerships, USA.”
Read the Article
Paul Krugman | For Alan Greenspan, Redemption, and Wisdom, Remain Elusive
Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co.: “Mr. Greenspan is an ex-maestro. His reputation is pushing up the daisies, it has gone to meet its maker, it has joined the choir invisible. He’s no longer the Man Who Knows; he’s the man who presided over an economy careening to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression – and who saw no evil, heard no evil, refused to do anything about subprime, insisted that derivatives made the financial system more stable, and denied not only that there was a national housing bubble, but that such a bubble was even possible.”
Read the Article
Report: Big Profits Drove Faulty Ratings at Moody’s, S&P
Kevin G. Hall, McClatchy Newspapers: “Profits at both companies soared, with revenues at market leader Moody’s more than tripling in five years. Then the bottom fell out of the housing market, and Moody’s stock lost 70 percent of its value; it has yet to fully recover. More than 90 percent of AAA ratings given in 2006 and 2007 to pools of mortgage-backed securities were downgraded to junk status. Wednesday’s report provided greater detail about the behavior of Brian Clarkson, the president of Moody’s at the time of his departure in mid-2008, when the financial crisis was in full bloom.”
Read the Article
The Planet Strikes Back
Michael T. Klare, TomDispatch: “To grasp our present situation, however, it’s necessary to distinguish between naturally recurring planetary disturbances and the planetary responses to human intervention. Both need a fresh look, so let’s start with what Earth has always been capable of before we turn to the responses of Eaarth, the avenger. Our planet is a complex natural system, and like all such systems, it is continually evolving. As that happens – as continents drift apart, as mountain ranges rise and fall, as climate patterns shift – earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, typhoons, prolonged droughts, and other natural disturbances recur, even if on an irregular and unpredictable basis.”
Read the Article
Radioactive Human Embryos: Our Nuclear Legacy?
Dr. Brian Moench, Truthout: “In the 1940s, many of the world’s premier nuclear scientists saw mounting evidence that there was no safe level of exposure to nuclear radiation. This led Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atom bomb, to oppose development of the hydrogen bomb. In the 1950s, Linus Pauling, the only two-time winner of the Nobel Prize, began warning the public about exposure to all radiation. His opinion, ultimately shared by thousands of scientists worldwide, led President Kennedy to sign the nuclear test-ban treaty.”
Read the Article
All Wisconsin Votes Unverified
Brad Friedman, Truthout: “It’s true that the newly corrected (and still unverified) totals from Waukesha place the current margin between Justice David Prosser – who has indicated fealty to Walker and the state GOP’s agenda – and his independent challenger, Asst. Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, are miraculously close to the numbers that will be needed to trigger a state-sponsored ‘recount’ of the ballots. It is also true that Nickolaus’ explanation for her ‘human error’ are questionable at best. Her reasons for waiting some 29 hours between discovering the enormous error, as well as her blame on failing to hit a ‘save button’ in Microsoft Access (which doesn’t feature such a button) demand independent scrutiny from state, if not federal, authorities.”
Read the Article
News in Brief: More Rainwater Tests Positive for Radiation From Japan, and More …
The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday released a new set of data on the levels of radioactive material in milk, rainwater and drinking water as part of a continuing effort to track radiation from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan; Egypt’s ousted former President Hosni Mubarak and his sons are still under investigation, but a legal source said that no court date has been set for questioning; a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis shows the compromise will only cut $352 million over the next fiscal year.
Read the Article
The Time Is Right to End “Zero Tolerance” in Schools
Gara LaMarche, The Huffington Post: “All too often, the debate about school reform has wrongly emphasized pushing troubled children out of school, rather than making systemic improvements so that all students have the support they need to learn. For that reason, advocates nationwide are embracing efforts to improve school climate. School leaders are recognizing the ineffectiveness of zero tolerance. And as states grapple with untenable youth-prison budgets and Congress prepares to debate reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a movement is building to end the ineffective, expensive, and tragic era of zero tolerance.”
Read the Article
Why Public Support for Free Trade Will Collapse Soon
Ian Fletcher, Free Trade Doesn’t Work: “For once, some good news: public support for free trade will almost certainly collapse over the next few years. On this issue, the public is way ahead of the political class in the quality of its thinking, and the average hardware store owner in Nebraska understands the real economics involved better than the average U.S. Senator. Public opinion certainly continues to turn against free trade: an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll in September 2010 found 53% of Americans believing free trade agreements hurt the U.S., with only 17% believing them beneficial.”
Read the Article
Sen. Bernie Sanders | Robin Hood in Reverse (Video)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont): Video of speech on the Senate floor by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).
Watch the Video
Click here for more Truthout articles
|
TRUTHOUT’S BUZZFLASH DAILY HEADLINES
|
|
There are words said by each of us that we regret, sometimes as soon as they pass our lips.
But there is a recurring pattern of disturbing hatefulness and violence in the statements of many right-wing political figures today.
Take David Prosser, the Scott Walker ally on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who is still involved in an officially undeclared election against JoAnne Kloppenburg.
Just before the April vote, it was revealed that Prosser had called the chief justice of the state Supreme Court the “B” word to her face and threatened to “destroy her.” As is often the case with people who feel self-justified, Prosser apologized, but basically blamed Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, the first woman on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, for his disgraceful behavior, according to ThinkProgress:
“In the context of this, I said, ‘You are a total bitch,'” Prosser said.
“I probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely warranted … They (Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley) are masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements.”
Meanwhile, another right-wing official, “Governor Christie of New Jersey told reporters Wednesday to ‘take the bat’ to 76-year-old Sen. Loretta Weinberg for collecting a taxpayer-funded pension while making $49,000 a year as a legislator,” again according to ThinkProgress.
But Prosser and Christie are hardly alone in unleashing abusive and violent rhetoric. There’s something wrong with our civility as a nation when so many bullies of the playground grow up to become judges and elected officials.
Mark Karlin
Editor, BuzzFlash at Truthout
Buyers Remorse? New Poll: House Republicans Doing Worse Job Than the Democrats Did
Read the Article at Crooks and Liars
ExxonMobil Is No. 2 in Avoiding Taxes. Maybe Next Year It Will Surpass GE and Be the No. 1 Corporate Deadbeat.
Read the Article at BuzzFlash
A Senate Panel Accused Powerhouse Goldman Sachs of Misleading Clients and Manipulating Markets
Read the Article at Talking Points Memo
Analysis: Obama Speech Frames a 2012 Choice for the Country
Read the Article at The Washington Post
If You Don’t Fight for Democracy and Justice, Then What You Get May Not Be Worth Having
Read the Article at BuzzFlash
IKEA Accused of Abusing Rights and Pay of American Employees
Read the Article at The Los Angeles Times
A Birther State of Mind: Arizona Passes Birther Bill for Candidates
Read the Article at Talking Points Memo
Click here for more BuzzFlash headlines
———-
Support Truthout with a tax-deductible donation by clicking here.
To ensure you receive our messages please add the following address to your email address book: messenger@truthout.org
If you need help figuring out how to do this click here to read our guide.
-
Archives
- July 2011 (5)
- June 2011 (108)
- May 2011 (107)
- April 2011 (110)
- March 2011 (53)
- February 2011 (25)
- January 2011 (7)
- December 2010 (4)
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (13)
- September 2010 (12)
- August 2010 (24)
-
Categories
- 9/11 TRUTH
- Anti-GE
- Auckland Mayoral campaign
- Botany By-election 2011
- Centre for Public Integrity
- CLG REPORT:
- Fighting corruption in NZ
- Fighting corruption internationally
- Fighting water privatisation in NZ
- Howick by-election campaign
- Human rights
- i watch news (Centre for Public Integrity)
- Internationally significant information
- Jane Burgermeister Report
- Metrowater
- Stop the $uper City
- Transparency in Govt spending
- TRUTHOUT
- Uncategorized
- VINCE SIEMER REPORT
- WORLD WATER WARRIORS
- YOU TUBE: John Clarke and Bryan Dawe
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
The Watchdog 