Archive

Archive for the ‘Social Issues’ Category

Katherine Rich – resign!

16 September 2014 2 comments

.

I reprint the following from the Herald, in full, as I believe it tells the story better than I could;

 .

Wendyl Nissen - Tuning out - Dirty Politics and the blogs

I don’t usually write columns about politics but I’m going to talk about smear campaigns and conflict because it involves me.

As you may know I write a column called Wendyl Wants to Know in the Weekend Herald every Saturday which looks at what is in processed food.

Most of the time the findings are not very good and involve additives or high sugar and salt levels you wouldn’t want near your family. Other times I am pleasantly surprised to find a producer making genuinely healthy food.

Earlier this year I was on the receiving end of a concerted effort, including legal letters, to get me discredited through my bosses at the Herald.

The person behind it was Katherine Rich, the chief executive of the Food & Grocery Council, which represents companies who produce soft drinks and processed foods, some of which I have written about.

According to their website, the “FGC promotes the role the industry plays in the health and nutrition of New Zealanders in making better diet and lifestyle choices”.

The management board includes representation from Nestle, Frucor and Mars NZ. Katherine was objecting to my role in highlighting many of the artificial colours commonly used in soft drinks and processed foods and the fact many had been banned in other countries.

Fortunately I work for editors who dislike bullying and I felt very supported by them. We dealt with the complaints to her satisfaction, I thought.

After that I noticed that right-wing bloggers Whale Oil (Cameron Slater) and Cactus Kate (Cathy Odgers) appeared to have begun a smear campaign against me. I haven’t read any of the blogs but I was alerted to them and their subject matter.

Please do me a favour and don’t go searching on the site for them. I believe they are invented to discredit me and if you click on them you’ll just give them the satisfaction that they are being read.

Since then the book Dirty Politics has been released and there are now allegations that these bloggers were paid money to conduct smear campaigns against people disliked by their clients. One of those clients is alleged to be Katherine Rich.

The regularity of the posts against me makes me think that someone had paid for them. Why else would they bother smearing someone who simply writes a few columns about healthy living when, according to Dirty Politics, they had much bigger fish to fry? I can’t prove this, I can’t say who might have paid for them and I will probably never know.

It has also been revealed that Katherine, while campaigning for the rights of food producers to put unhealthy additives in their food, was also on the government-funded Health Promotion Agency board – an agency designed to work for the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders. The conflict of interest is so alarming that a group of 33 scientists and health practitioners signed a letter to John Key asking him to investigate.

I spend every day working for a better life for New Zealanders. I run a business which makes environmentally friendly natural cleaners and I give the recipes away for free; I write a weekly newsletter helping more than 11,000 people discover better, more natural ways to live; I write a column in the Woman’s Weekly with recipes and hints to live a greener life; and in the Herald I try to alert readers to foods which are too high in sugar or salt and contain additives which in many countries are banned for health reasons but are still used here. I wouldn’t have thought that these contributions were reason for a smear campaign.

Last week I resigned from my regular Friday morning slot on NewstalkZB, which I have been doing for 15 years, because I didn’t want to be on the same platform as Cameron Slater, another commentator on the station, while there are allegations that his views involve cash for comment.

I’m all for free speech when there are genuinely held views, but I believe that if you are paid to express them by big industry or politicians with an agenda, that is not fair.

Over the years I have been writing Wendyl Wants to Know for the Herald, I have been offered many incentives to write nice things about processed foods for food producers. I have turned them all down because my readers have to trust me. Objectivity is the first rule of journalism.

A friend said “this can’t be the New Zealand we know”, and I agree. As my husband says, “we need to be on the side of the angels”, and I try very hard to be.

.

This blogger adds his voice to calls for Katherine Rich to resign.

Her activities and association with Cameron Slater makes her position on either the Food & Grocery Council or Health Promotion Agency  no longer tenable.

.

 


 

.

Additional

TVNZ: Katherine Rich stands firm against calls to resign

NZ Herald: PR men say Dirty Politics claims don’t hurt

Other blogs

The Daily Blog: A brief word on why Wendyl Nissen is a hero

.

.

= fs =

Early Voting starts…

6 September 2014 Leave a comment

.

20-september

.

Early voting kicked off on Monday and according to media reports, there has been a heavy response from the public.

This is excellent news!

Meanwhile, I’ve supported three people to cast an early vote, who might not have otherwise voted without encouragement. All three votes went to Labour.

This is the only way to win this election and seize back the power for the people: find someone who normally doesn’t vote and encourage them to do so. Whether they vote for Labour, the Greens, or Mana-internet is immaterial – as long as they vote!

 

.


 

References

TVNZ News: Early voting turnout more than doubles

 


 

.

 

 

20 september 2014 VOTE

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

Categories: Social Issues, Various Tags:

Guest Author: The Rock Fuels NZ Roastbuster Rape Culture

- by Jessie Hume

.

unnamed

.

This is making me feel pretty uncomfortable.

Here we have an instance of Jono and Ben posing like “exposed celebrities”. But do you know what I’m seeing? I’m seeing two dudes who basically “roasted” a woman online (exposed pictures of her without her consent) just like the Roastbusters did, who are then making fun of the situation, just like the Roastbusters did. I know they are not condoning rape. They are, however, knowingly condoning this kind of without-consent behaviour toward women, specifically, posting photos of women online without permission.

.

unnamed-1

.
The Rock, like many other Radio Network and Media Works radio stations yesterday posted illegally stolen and explicit photographs of Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities. They did so with full knowledge that lawsuits were under way, they did so knowing that Jennifer granted NO CONSENT. The original photos were very obviously private and completely inappropriate for public distribution. They were stolen, and it is not her fault they were stolen, she had reasonable expectations of privacy.

Consent. It’s simple.

Despite complaints and rapidly increasing public concern The Rock continues to publish the images and laugh about how funny this kind of without-consent behaviour is. The rock alludes to masturbating to the images. I spoke with Leon from Media Works who assured me the images would be removed from other Media Works sites, but The Rock appear to be updating their links. What is interesting is not only publishing the images a without-consent act, it is considered amusing.

People here we have it. If you ever thought rape culture wasn’t a thing it’s right here, in action. Is doing stuff to chicks without consent funny? Are women “asking for it” if they take photos of themselves naked with their partners and store that on private, password-protected spaces? No. People are actually using that phrase “asking for it” including the radio DJs. Do you realise how that sounds? Can we stop it? A woman taking private photos of herself, for her partner, is not asking for global humiliation. She is not “asking” for anything.

Remember, these organisations have been contacted by the public, some of them removed photos, some tried to post “tamer” photos or link to hosts elsewhere, some continued to laugh about posting the images because ratings are money and money is cool. It would be nice, if we did something, to stop men who have no concept of consent controlling New Zealand news media. It is 2014. The time to act is now, let’s do something. Your action matters.

Action Alert (Please share this blog): 

The Rock are still publishing the images on their website and updating links. Let them know what you think. School them on consent and that acting without consent isn’t actually a laugh: bking@mediaworks.co.nzjase@therock.net.nz. You can also do so on their Facebook page:

You can email Jennifer’s representative and report anyone who has distributed the images here: info@id-pr.com attention Liz Mahoney.

- Jesse Hume

(Re-pubublished by kind permission.)

.

 

.

= fs =

2014 – Ongoing jobless tally

21 August 2014 14 comments

.

Unemployment logo

.

Continued from: 2013 – Ongoing jobless tally

So by the numbers, for this year,

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

.

*

.

See also

Reported Job Losses

.

*

.

Current unemployment statistics

 

December 2013 Quarter

December 2013 quarter Quarterly change Annual change
(000) (Percent)
Employed* 2,297 +1.1 +3.0
Unemployed    147  -1.3  -8.9
Not in the labour force 1,103  -0.5  -1.0
Working-age population 3,547 +0.5 +1.2
(Percent) (Percentage points)
Employment rate  64.7 +0.3  +1.1
Unemployment rate    6.0  -0.2   -0.8
Labour force participation rate  68.9 +0.3  +0.7

All figures are seasonally adjusted. Source: Statistics New Zealand

* Employed: Includes people who worked one hour (or more) per week, whether paid or unpaid.

.

March 2014 Quarter

March 2014 quarter Quarterly change Annual change
(000) (Percent)
Employed 2,318 +0.9 +3.7
Unemployed    147   0.0  -1.1
Not in the labour force 1,093   -0.9  -2.9
Working-age population 3,559 +0.3 +1.4
(Percent) (Percentage points)
Employment rate  65.1 +0.4  +1.4
Unemployment rate    6.0   0.0   -0.2
Labour force participation rate  69.3 +0.4  +1.4

 

All figures are seasonally adjusted. Source: Statistics New Zealand

* Employed: Includes people who worked one hour (or more) per week, whether paid or unpaid.

.

Additional statistics

Officially unemployed stats;

In the March 2014 quarter compared with the December 2013 quarter:

  • The number of people employed increased by 22,000 people.
  • The employment rate rose 0.4 percentage points, to 65.1 percent.
  • The number of people unemployed was unchanged.
  • The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 6.0 percent.
  • The labour force participation rate increased 0.4 percentage points, to 69.3 percent.

Official unemployment: unchanged

The  under-employment stats;

Over the year, the total number of under-employed people increased by 27,200 to 122,600. As a result, the under-employment rate increased 1.0 percentage points to 5.3 percent.

Official under-employment: up

 

Source

Definitions

Jobless: people who are either officially unemployed, available but not seeking work, or actively seeking but not available for work. The ‘available but not seeking work’ category is made up of the ‘seeking through newspaper only’, ‘discouraged’, and ‘other’ categories.

Under-employment: employed people who work part time (ie usually work less than 30 hours in all jobs) and are willing and available to work more hours than they usually do.

Employed: people in the working-age population who, during the reference week, did one of the following:

  • worked for one hour or more for pay or profit in the context of an employee/employer relationship or self-employment 

  • worked without pay for one hour or more in work which contributed directly to the operation of a farm, business, or professional practice owned or operated by a relative 

  • had a job but were not at work due to: own illness or injury, personal or family responsibilities, bad weather or mechanical breakdown, direct involvement in an industrial dispute, or leave or holiday.

Source

.

.

[To  be periodically up-dated]

.

.

= fs =

Report: Increasing the minimum wage v.s. job losses

7 August 2014 6 comments

.

PUT-THE-POLITICIANS-ON-MINIMUM-WAGE-AND-WATCH-HOW-FAST-THINGS-CHANGE

.

Introduction

Labour recently announced a policy which evidence strongly indicates will impact positively on every low-wage earner in this country; families;  as well as benefit small-medium businesses;

.

Labour pledges $2 rise in minimum wage to $16.25

.

The knee-jerk reaction from Dear Leader Key and his little wannabe side-kick, Simon Bridges, was as predictable as the sun rising;

Key hit back at the announcement.

[...]

New Zealand already had the highest minimum wage relative to the average wage in the developed world, he said.

Pushing it up too too fast would cost jobs.

“It’s pretty well documented around the world that, yes, you can make changes and do that over time but if you think about the mass of employers in New Zealand they’re not the big companies like Fletcher Building or Fonterra they’re actually the hundreds of thousands of small businesses around New Zealand and they simply will employ less staff, fire people or ultimately not take on staff in the future.”

Labour Minister Simon Bridges, reiterated Key’s claims, saying the policy would hurt businesses.

“Labour’s policy to immediately increase the minimum wage to $16.25 would cost at least 6000 jobs … If you want to make people unemployed this is a good way to go about it,” he said.

So how true is it that raising the minimum wage “would cost 6,000 jobs”?

As far back as November 2011 (the previous election campaign)  Key repeated the mantra  that  6,000 jobs would be lost if Labour increased  the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

.

raising-minimum-wage-wont-cost-jobs-treasury

.

However,  those bright young things at Treasury  seemed to hold a radically different view;

The Department of Labour says the rise will cost 6000 jobs. But Treasury has a counter view; “This has not been true in the past. The balance of probabilities is that a higher minimum wage does not cost jobs.

Indeed, according to a report on the Australian Business Insider, the notion that increasing minimum wages led to unemployment was “exploded as a myth”, after it was revealed that;

“…  a November 2011 study from Barry Hirsch and Bruce Kaufman of Georgia State University and Tetyana Zelenska sheds light on how businesses respond to increases in labour costs, and the results were surprising. 

The group surveyed managers of fast food restaurants in Georgia and Alabama as they contended with three annual increases in the federal minimum wage between July 2007 and July 2009. 

They asked the managers if they were taking any steps to offset increases labour costs. 

[...]

…only 8 per cent of managers surveyed thought that firing current employees was at all important to make up for lost wages. 

Indeed, raising the minimum wage allowed management to extract more performance from current employees in more than half of all cases. 

Higher labour costs weren’t only offset from cuts to total labour cost, either. Management also took several steps to increase efficiency and productivity to compensate for the higher costs… “

The Georgia State University study also asserted (page 31);

Further, our study does not find evidence of clear-cut employment losses – even
over three years and a 41% increase in the MW. Possibly over a still longer time span, or with a larger
sample of restaurants, a negative effect might appear. Discussion with owners and evidence outside our
study period suggest that negative effects may manifest through reduced store openings and increased risk
of store closings. Given this important qualification, the message from our study, along with other results
in the literature, is that employment effects in the short-to-medium run are small, perhaps near zero in
many settings, and certainly smaller than expected based solely on the competitive model. It would be
surprising (at least to us) were an important reason for this result not the behavioral dimensions of wage
setting and human resource management (e.g., discretionary effort, equity concerns, management heterogeneity)
 that the standard competitive and monopsony models largely ignore.

The data

Here in New Zealand, the minimum wage has risen fifteen times since March 2000;

Previous minimum wage rates

In force from: ADULT YOUTH TRAINING
1 March 1997 $7.00 $4.20
6 March 2000 $7.55 $4.55
5 March 2001 $7.70 $5.40
18 March 2002 $8.00 $6.40
24 March 2003 $8.50 $6.80 $6.80
1 April 2004 $9.00 $7.20 $7.20
21 March 2005 $9.50 $7.60 $7.60
27 March 2006 $10.25 $8.20 $8.20
1 April 2007 $11.25 $9.00 $9.00

 

In force from: ADULT NEW ENTRANT TRAINING
1 April 2008 $12.00 $9.60 $9.60
1 April 2009 $12.50 $10.00 $10.00
1 April 2010 $12.75 $10.20 $10.20
1 April 2011 $13.00 $10.40 $10.40
1 April 2012 $13.50 $10.80 $10.80
1 April 2013 $13.75 $11.00 $11.00

 

In force from: ADULT STARTING OUT TRAINING
1 May 2013[4]
n/c
$11.00
n/c
1 April 2014 $14.25 $11.40 $11.40

 

Notes:

  1. From 2001 to 2008 the adult minimum wage applied to employees aged 18 years and over. Prior to that, the adult minimum wage only applied to those aged 20 years and over. From 1 April 2008, the adult minimum wage applies to employees aged 16 years and over, who are not new entrants or trainees.

  2. The youth minimum wage applied to employees aged 16 and 17 years. From 1 April 2008, the youth minimum wage was replaced with a minimum wage for new entrants, which applies to some employees aged 16 or 17 years.

  3. The training minimum wage was introduced in June 2003.

  4. From 1 May 2013 the minimum starting-out wage replaced the minimum wage for new entrants and the training minimum wage for trainees under 20 years of age.

[Above chart and information-notes courtesy of MoBIE/Dept of Labour]

So how do those increases compare to our employment/unemployment rates? Let’s superimpose the dates for each increase in the adult minimum wage with numbers of  employed persons. (Red vertical bars indicate increase in minimum wage. All data courtesy of Dept of Labour/MoBIE.)

6 March 2000 – Increased from $7.00 to $7.55 p/h

(Labour)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2000NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2000

.

5 March 2001 – Increased from $7.55 to  to $7.70 p/h

(Labour)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2001NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2001

.

18 March 2002 – Increased from  $7.70 to $ 8.00 p/h

(Labour)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2002NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2002

.

24 March 2003 – Increased from   $ 8.00 to $8.50 p/h

(Labour)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2003NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2003

.

1 April 2004 – Increased from  $8.50 to $9.00 p/h

(Labour)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2004NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2004

.

21 March 2005 – Increased from  $9.00 to $9.50 p/h

(Labour)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2005NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2005

.

27 March 2006 – Increased from  $9.50 to 10.25 p/h

(Labour)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2006NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2006

.

1 April 2007  - Increased from 10.25 to $11.25 p/h

(Labour)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2007NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2007

.

1 April 2008   - Increased from  $11.25 to $12.00 p/h

(Labour)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2008NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2008

.

1 April 2009   - Increased from $12.00 to $12.50 p/h

(National)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2009NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2009

.

1 April 2010   - Increased from $12.50 to $12.75 p/h

(National)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2010NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2010

.

1 April 2011   - Increased from  $12.75 to $13.00 p/h

(National)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2011NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2011

.

1 April 2012   - Increased from $13.00 to $13.50 p/h

(National)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2012NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2012

.

1 April 2013   - Increased from  $13.50 to $13.75 p/h

(National)

.

NEW ZEALAND EMPLOYED PERSONS - 2013NEW ZEALAND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS - 2013

.

The above graphs reveal the following;

  1. In eleven out of fourteen years, numbers of employed rose after a minimum wage increase.
  2. Nearly all the years which show a fall in employment numbers are post-Global Financial Crisis; 2009, 2010,  and 2012.
  3. The fall in employment numbers in 2009, 2010, and 2012, occurred post-minimum wage increases which were smaller amounts than pre-2008 minimum wage increases. Ie; 50 cents, 25 cents, and 50 cent incremental increases for respective years 2009, 2010, and 2012.
  4. One of those three years – 2010 – showed a drop in employment for only one Quarter before rising again.
  5. By contrast, increases between 2000 and 2008 range from 15 cents an hour (2001) to $1 an hour (2007) – and show continuing, sustained, employment growth.
  6. Employment fell in 2006, due in part to  a “… slowing in growth over 2005 was largely driven by the external sector.  A relatively high exchange rate and some relatively poor agricultural production seasons resulted in weak export growth, while a strong domestic economy contributed to considerable growth in import volumes.  Recently, however, growth in the domestic economy appears to have eased with weakness in the household sector as growth in private consumpti on and residential investment slow.  This has led to a significant slowing in import volume growth and has seen some rebalancing towards net exports following strong increases in agricultural production“.

So would increasing the minimum wage benefit every low-wage earner in this country; families;  as well as benefit small-medium enterprises (SMEs)?

Why do critics – usually adherents of neo-liberal dogma and National Party ministers, supporters,  and fellow-travellers – vociferously deny the advantages of raising the minimum wage?

Neo-liberals who maintain that increasing the minimum wage creates job losses see only one half of the Grand Picture. They see money flowing from employers to employees – and that’s as far as they see what is happening.

What they are missing is the second half of the Grand Picture; those employees do not bury their extra pay in the back yard, forever consigning it to the earth as compost.

Instead, employees spend their pay increases.

There are currently 54,600 workers currently on minimum wage in this country.

Increasing the minimum wage from $14.25 per hour to $16.25 per hour means an extra $80 per week for a worker (gross). That means 54,600 workers’ spending power increasing by a staggering $4,368,000 per week (gross).

That’s a whole lot of extra groceries, clothing, shoes, appliances, medication,  and other essentials and  consumer goods being purchased in our economy.

All of a sudden, small-to-medium businesses will have 54,600 potential customers spending an extra $227,136,000 annually(gross). Plus additional tax-revenue gained by the State. Plus less paid on welfare, as more people are employed.

Right-wingers will make the oft-parroted, plaintive cry, “But where will the money come from?”

The answer; from the productivity created by those 54,600 workers. They just get to keep more of that productivity, instead of  into the bank accounts of invisible share-holders or disappear off-shore to corporate owners.

And as those 54,600 workers spend more, SMEs will sell more; which will mean higher turn-over; more profits; more investment; more jobs…

The logic is clear-cut; increasing the minimum wage increases spending power; generates more economic activity; and achieves the same goal which Key & Co used to justify their 2009 and 2010 tax-cuts;

 “…The tax cuts we have delivered today will inject an extra $1 billion into the economy over the coming year, thereby helping to stimulate the economy during this recession. More important, over the longer term these tax cuts will reward hard work and help to encourage people to invest in their own skills, in order to earn and keep more money.”

If  tax cuts for the rich can help “stimulate the economy“, then so can a livable wage increase for 54,600 low income earners.

It cuts both ways.

Even as Key has stated on numerous occassions,

 

We think Kiwis deserve higher wages and lower taxes during their working lives, as well as a good retirement.” – John Key, 27 May 2007

We will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates.” – John Key, 29 January 2008

I don’t want our talented young people leaving permanently for Australia, the US, Europe, or Asia, because they feel they have to go overseas to better themselves.” – John Key, 15 July 2009

Science and innovation are important. They’re one of the keys to growing our economy, raising wages, and providing the world-class public services that Kiwi families need.” – John Key, 12 March 2010

We will also continue our work to increase the incomes New Zealanders earn. That is a fundamental objective of our plan to build a stronger economy.” – John Key, 8 February 2011

We want to increase the level of earnings and the level of incomes of the average New Zealander and we think we have a quality product with which we can do that.” –  John Key, 19 April 2012

Summation

Evidentially speaking, the data above shows;

  1. More often than not, employment numbers rise after an increase in the minimum wage.
  2. Unemployment is affected by factors other than minimum wage increases (eg; Global Financial Crisis, drought, etc).
  3. Labour increased the minimum wage $5 per hour (2000 to 2008), and unemployment dropped to 3.4% by December 2007.
  4. National increased the minimum wage  $2.25 per hour  (2009 to 2014)  and unemployment currently stands at 6% (new unemployment stats due for release on 6 August).

Key’s assertion that lifting the minimum wage would lead to “6,000 jobs lost” is therefore patently false, and electioneering with peoples’ lives.

.


 

References

Fairfax media:  Labour pledges $2 rise in minimum wage to $16.25

TV3: Raising minimum wage won’t cost jobs – Treasury

Australian Business Insider: A 2011 Study Exploded One Of The Biggest Fears About Raising The Minimum Wage

Georgia State University: Minimum Wage Channels of Adjustment

MoBIE/Dept of Labour:  Previous minimum wage rates

NZ Treasury: New Zealand Economic and Financial Overview 2007

MoBIE/Dept of Labour:  Employment & unemployment – December 2007

Statistics NZ: Household Labour Force Survey: March 2014 quarter

MoBIE: Minimum Wage Review Report 2013

NZ Parliament: Tax Cuts—Implementation

Trading Economics: New Zealand Employed Persons

Trading Economics: New Zealand Unemployed Persons

 

Previous related blogposts

John Key’s track record on raising wages – 5. The Minimum Wage

Dollars and common sense – raising the minimum wage

Treasury’s verdict on raising the Minimum Wage?

Treasury’s verdict on raising the Minimum Wage? – Part II

 

 


 

.

Living Wage

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 August 2014

.

.

= fs =

An interesting poll from TVNZ. Note some of the VERY left-wing questions!?

24 July 2014 5 comments

.

 

20 September

.

July 19 – Yesterday, I received this poll, sent by TVNZ to my email.

What I found very interesting were some of the question relating to issues that have not been discussed – literally – for decades. The question regarding free tertiary education is again an election issue. This is something we can attribute directly to the rise and rise of the Mana-Internet Alliance.

The questions (and answers I gave) are presented here as screen-shots. (Only the final two pages are not included, as they contained some personal responses and details. My preference for which Party I will be endorsing with my Party Vote for will be the subject of an up-coming blogpost.)

.

TVNZ on-line survey p1

 

.

TVNZ on-line survey p2

.

It is a shame that the “anti-smacking” question (above) was put without real reference to what the law actually states. If people actually knew the actual nature of the  repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, they might be more inclined to vote as I did. It is a fallacy that the repeal of Section 59 banned all smacking and is a deliberate distortion promulgated by neo-conservatives and religious right elements in our society.

.

TVNZ on-line survey p3

.

I responded somewhat “lukewarm” to the question about compulsory Kiwisaver (above). The problem of compensating low-income earners and beneficiaries should be taken into account along with implementing compulsion. Forcing the poor, who might be currently living in garages and unable to afford even the basics, to save for Kiwisaver would be an untenable proposition and a farce.

.

TVNZ on-line survey p4

.

I voted “strongly disagree” to the proposition that high income earners should not receive superannuation. We have been through this issue before and it was blindingly obvious that high income earners simply hid their money by clever accounting tricks – thereby avoiding cuts to their super.

Targetted superannuation invites the growth of a labyrinth of rules, exemptions, asset-income testing, and an associated invasive  bureaucracy. Better to have Universal Superannuation,  alongside a comprehensive progressive tax rate  that claws back super-payments by slightly higher marginal tax rates.

And the final tranche of questions;

.

TVNZ on-line survey p5

.

It is interesting to note that questions regarding tax cuts were omitted. I would have liked to have seen what New Zealander’s attitudes toward cutting taxes would have been. Especially if the question was framed as a choice between more tax cuts and less social services.

Now that would really have been a barometer of our nationwide psyche!

Now we just have to await the outcome of this poll…

.


 

.

References

Wikipedia: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007

 


 

.

Skipping voting is not rebellion its surrender

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 July 2014.

.

.

= fs =

Guest Author: A Cry of desperation from Christchurch

Sarah O’Brien

.

 

.

I spoke to my father (84 yrs old) and asked.. ‘are you going to watch Hope & Wire”?

His response… ‘No, it hardly represents what the people here are still going through. It misrepresents Christchurch all together, and the language is unacceptable.  All this intermittant rubbish the writer has crammed into it… represents us as a group of badly educated, sex driven white supremists’!!!

YES.. I couldn’t agree more…

Having now lived through over 13000 earthquakes, and dealing on a daily basis with my own paper war to have my insurance contract with IAG (via the ASB) honoured, living with black mold in the ceilings, no carpet, gib off bedroom & living room walls and having had raw sewerage in the house for 2 years as EQC refused to fix this under ‘emergency repairs’ (while my insurers didnt want to know until I was deemed ‘Over cap with EQC, not able to get it fixed myself or ‘I’d loose my insurance claim’!!!)’.

Now I witness see daily ‘fletchered cosmetic repairs failing’, and elderly / disable persons having to shift from their homes for the 2nd or 3rd time, as their floor boards were ‘propped up’ (Jack and Packed) with bits of MDF / Malamine / Gib board and even an old chair leg!!!

Entry doors and windows still cannot be secured, water ingress every time it rains, and drive / pathways inaccessible to those who are elderly or disabled in small ways.

Why?? Because Gerry & his army of twats has decided its OK for up to 20% of structural repairs (replacement of piles) under houses , are able to be completed without consent!!!!! Therefore, we have cowboys being paid millions and their work is not requiring council building inspection!!!! Is this what our insurance is paying for???

YES: the government led (CERA) Fletcher repair scheme has cost the taxpayers three times more than it ever should, caused hundreds of deaths, illness (mental and physical), and this whole Government orchistrated genocide and complete ignoring of the plight of the Christchurch people is criminal….

But do YOU know how I felt at the end of Hope & Wire??

I shed a blubbery tear and felt…

BUGGER YOU NEW ZEALAND. ALL YOU SO CALLED FELLOW COUNTRYMEN & WOMAN. JUST BUGGER YOU ALL.

Why???

Because I have pleaded with you all to listen, protest, become involved and support us.. You get out there to save the dolphins. You rally to stop fracking. You rally to have emergency houses built in Auckland. You rally to help North Island flood victims or Wellington storm / earthquake victims.. you rally to stop wars in other countries.

Yet you leave the victims of this city for four years to survive sub-zer0 degree nights, relentless floods, living in 3rd world conditions. Many still living in tents and garages…. and STILL STUCK WITH EQC / FLETCHERS AND INSURERS STAFF WHO RELENTLESSLY BULLY AND THREATEN ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE VICTIMS OF THIS. OUR NATIONS TRAVESTY.

Yes… BUGGER YOU. If this was rugby… another springbok event.. would you take a day off work and protest??? THIS IS GENOCIDE HERE!! WAKE UP!!!

Sarah O’Brien
Christchurch resident, July 2014

.


 

Previous related blogposts

Interview: Angie, the Earthquake Angel

A tale of two tragedies

Additional

Fairfax media: Christchurch rent crisis ‘best left to market’

The Christchurch Fiasco : the Insurance Aftershock and its Implications for New Zealand and Beyond


 

.

National's trickle down policy is a frozen tap

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

.

.

= fs =

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 923 other followers