Continued from: Karl Du Fresne has a public baby waa-waa cry-session
On 27 march, Karl Du Fresne had a bit of a public melt-down over Radio NZ, complaining,
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – RNZ’s bias needs to be tackled
He accused Radio NZ on being a left wing organisation;
But on some programmes, a stubborn Left-wing bias persists.
Kim Hill is the worst offender. This is a problem for whoever runs RNZ, because she’s also its biggest name.
Chris Laidlaw lists to the Left too, as does Jeremy Rose, a journalist who frequently crops up on Laidlaw’s Sunday morning show. Rose appears to be on a lifelong mission to convince people that there are humane alternatives to nasty, heartless capitalism.
Part of the problem is that National Ministers regularly refuse to front on Radio NZ to explain government policy. An example this morning was typical of National ministers ducking for cover whenever negative stories hit the media.
The Salvation Army will be closing services and making staff redundant, as government funding is cut for critical social services;
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – Salvation Army warns of cuts to budgeting services
Cuts to services – such as provided by the Salvation Army – will hit the poorest; most down-trodden; people and their families, in our society. It would be like stealing coins from a blind beggar on the footpath.
All the while, National spends-up large on Tim Groser’s job-hunt at the WTO;
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – NZ First calls on Groser to refund travel costs
And National’s colossal spend-up on consultants and witch-hunts is now legendary;
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – ‘Consultancy culture’ cost $525m last year – Labour
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – PM defends money spent on MFAT leak
The above stories all reflect badly on National. But is it the fault of state-owned, Radio NZ? Is the broadcaster “left-leaning”, as Du Fresne charges?
Or, is the reason somewhat more prosaic?
So, Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett, was invited to appear on Radio NZ’s “Checkpoint” this morning (29 April) to explain why funding for social services for organisations such as the Salvation Army, will be cut.
When Bennett was invited to front on “Checkpoint” – she refused. Instead she provided a written statement. (Well, wasn’t that ‘big’ of her?)
Hear: Radio NZ – Checkpoint – Labour speaks out against recession funding cuts
This is not the first (nor last) time that National Ministers have refused to front on Radio NZ. It happens with annoying regularity (with Dear Leader John Key being the worst offender).
On the other hand, Labour’s spokesperson on social issues, Jacinda Ardern, accepted an invitation to take part in the story.
If Ministers like Bennett, Ket, et al, – whose salaries are paid by taxpayers – do not have the courage of their convictions to appear on TV, radio, or other media to explain their policies – then they are not worthy of our electoral support nor attention. They are a waste of space.
And right wing munters like Karl Du Fresne should have nothing to whinge about.
= fs =
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – RNZ’s bias needs to be tackled
The right wing, it would be fair to say, dislike the media. Or, most of the media. Fox News, religious programming, and Rantback Radio are acceptable.
But nothing that challenges us to think.
Kark Du Fresne’s recent outpouring of grievance in Fairfax Media’s ‘Manawatu Standard‘ made it plain and obvious to the reader that he has a problem with Radio NZ.
Du Fresne referred to RNZ as “left wing”. And then listed all those people whom he thinks are guilty of being “left”. People like,
Obviously, these people all need to be brought before Parliament’s House Committee for Un-New Zealand Activities. (Which, we don’t have – yet – but I’m sure one of Mr Du Fresne’s right wing colleagues such as Maggie Barry could easily organise one. More on Maggie Barry in a moment.) Then the H.C.U.N.Z.A. can ensure that Hill, Laidlaw, Rose, and Ryan never work in this town again.
Our American cuzzies did that in the 1950s, during what we now refer to as the “McCarthy Era“,
So what were Du Fresne’s allegations?
So what might the new RNZ chief executive do to enhance the organisation’s standing in a political climate that is less than favourable? One obvious step is to take a tougher line against the editorial bias that still permeates some RNZ programmes.
Which would be interesting to consider – except that Du Fresne doesn’t actually spell out where “the editorial bias that still permeates some RNZ programmes” actually lies.
He tells the reader that “the editorial bias” is there – but not where, precisely. It’s all rather… nebulous.
Du Fresne then claims that,
“Public broadcasting organisations, by their very nature, tend to be Left-leaning.”
Really? What “nature” is that, I wonder?
Perhaps Du Fresne is refering to Public broadcasting organisations challenging peoples’ thinking – whereas right-wing media tend to reinforce preconceptions and prejudices?
He goes on to say,
“It’s not hard to understand how this comes about. Journalists distrustful of capitalism naturally gravitate toward state-owned media organisations, seeing them as untainted by the profit motive.”
Now that is an intriguing claim to make.
Especially considering that Maggie Barry (who I referred to above), was the morning presenter on Radio NZ’s “Morning Report” in 1986, and hosted “Nine To Noon” show in 1990.
Later, in November 2011, Ms Barry stood as a political candidate in the general election, and won the seat of North Shore.
She stood as a National Party candidate. National being New Zealand’s main centre-right political party,
And then there’s Richard Griffin, Radio NZ’s one-time political editor, who worked for National Party ex-Prime Minister Jim Bolger, as his press secretary in the late 1990’s.
National, as I understand it, being New Zealand’s main centre-right political party.
Then there are the regular guests on Radio NZ – who are well noted for their National or ACT Party affiliations, or who simply express right-wing views;
- ex-National President, Michelle Boag;
- National & ACT supporter and anti-MMP campaigner, Jordan Williams
- rightwing blogger and National Party apparatchik, David Farrar;
- ex-ACT MP and Party President, Rodney Hide;
- ex-ACT and later, ex-National MP, Stephen Franks;
- former speech-writer and press secretary for National and right-wing commentator, Matthew Hooten;
- and former police officer and front-person for television’s “Police Ten 7“, Graham Bell (who holds right wing views on many issues).
There are probably others I’ve forgotten to list.
So what is the “... ideological mindset that permeates the entire organisation” that Du Fresne refers to?
We don’t know. Again, he doesn’t tell us.
But I wonder what Ms Boag; Mr Farrar; Ms Barry; Mr Williams; Mr Hide; Mr Franks; Mr Hooten; Mr Bell, and Mr Griffin might say about Du Fresne suggesting that,
“This becomes self-perpetuating, since the more Left-leaning an organisation becomes, the more it attracts other people of the same persuasion.”
Perhaps Radio NZ might not appear so “left-leaning” if National ministers – especially John Key – actually bothered to take up invitations to front for interviews?
On almost every occassion when government policy is under scrutiny, or when National is being heavily criticised, National ministers almost always refuse to be interviewed, to present their side of things.
The result is that National’s critics often accept invitations to be interviewed – thereby giving an impression of anti-National bias.
But it’s only an impression of bias because National Ministers refuse most invitations for interviews.
One then has to shake their head when Du Fresne then demands,
“But publicly funded broadcasters have an obligation to make programmes that reflect the views and interests of the entire community – not just those the broadcasters happen to favour.”
Bollicks. Anyone can read between the lines and understand what he is really saying. Let me “fix” the above statement so we clearly understand what Du Fresne is actually demanding of Radio NZ,
“But publicly funded broadcasters have an obligation to make programmes that reflect the views and interests that I’m comfortable with – not just those the broadcasters happen to favour for the rest of New Zealand who are a bunch of leftie, pinko, mung-bean eating, hippies.”
And this bit really takes the proverbial cake,
“This is explicitly stated in RNZ’s charter, which commits the organisation to impartial and balanced coverage of news and current affairs.”
Really, Mr Du Fresne?
Du Fresne’s demand that Radio NZ fulfill it’s Charter requirements (though he yet again omits to tell us how Radio NZ has been derelict in it’s duty) is in contrast with his views on TVNZ’s (now defunct) charter,
“The Clark government saw where things were going and tried to arrest the decline by imposing on TVNZ a public service charter, which was largely ignored. Today, the unremitting diet of banal, so-called reality shows and American crime dramas on the two publicly-owned channels is indistinguishable from the offerings on their privately-owned rivals, and disillusioned viewers have been driven into the welcoming arms of Sky TV. ” – 16 October 2010
Acknowledgement: The Spectator – Time to sell off TVNZ
“The notion of the public service broadcaster survives in the form of Radio New Zealand, but otherwise it’s in peril. TVNZ is in the process of being released from its obligations under the public service charter introduced under Labour. Its sole objective in future will be to return a dividend to the government (not that viewers will notice much difference, since the charter was largely ineffectual).” – 23 July 2011
Acknowledgement: Karl du Fresne – The changing TV landscape (sorry, media ecology)
No demand anywhere amongst his writings that TVNZ abide by it’s Charter. Just a resigned acceptance. And usually followed by none-to-subtle hints to privatise TVNZ.
Perhaps the most pertinent point of Du Fresne’s whinge-session is this remark,
“Overall, RNZ presents a more balanced range of perspectives than it used to. But on some programmes, a stubborn Left-wing bias persists.”
There we have it; “Overall, RNZ presents a more balanced range of perspectives than it used to”.
And then, “But on some programmes, a stubborn Left-wing bias persists”.
And then states that “Kim Hill is the worst offender“.
To put it bluntly – Du Fresne seems utterly confused in what he is demanding. On the one hand he states,
“But publicly funded broadcasters have an obligation to make programmes that reflect the views and interests of the entire community
This is explicitly stated in RNZ’s charter, which commits the organisation to impartial and balanced coverage of news and current affairs.”
But he also admits that,
“Overall, RNZ presents a more balanced range of perspectives than it used to…”
Whilst then stating,
“But on some programmes, a stubborn Left-wing bias persists.”
What Du Fresne has omitted to say is,
“But on OTHER programmes, a RIGHT WING bias IS PRESENTED.”
Because, my fellow New Zealanders, when people like Stephen Franks, Rodney Hide, Michelle Boag, or David Farrar are guesting on Radio NZ and expressing their right wing views – that is when Radio NZ is meeting it’s Charter obligations and presenting the Right Wing point of view.
For example, listen to Stephen Franks (if your stomach can bear it) on Jim Mora’s 4pm Panel on 8 April. Franks is ranting some right-wing rubbish, as usual, on people’s “reliance” on insurance,
I think we all know what is going on here. Du Fresne isn’t interested in “balance” at all. He is demanding unquestioning, Stalinist-style, fealty to the current National government.
He even let’s it slip, near the end of his diatribe against Radio NZ,
“The second, more pragmatic, reason is that the Left-wing bias apparent in some of RNZ’s programmes is hardly likely to endear the organisation to the politicians who control its fate.”
Why would a supposedly independent public broadcaster need to “endear” itself to the government-of-the-day?
And does that logically mean that when Labour is in power, that Radio NZ must “endear [itself] to the politicians who control its fate”?
Du Fresne does add this caveat, though,
“In saying this, I’m not suggesting for a moment that RNZ should become a tame government puppet. That would be far worse than the status quo.”
Bullshit. That is precisely what Du Fresne is calling for; becoming a tame government puppet.
Ironically, four years ago, Du Fresne had this to say about Radio NZ,
“Another commenter sneered at my statement that the news media functioned as a marketplace of ideas, claiming this was a meaningless slogan typical of “faded old neoliberal ideology”. Really? Perhaps I’m imagining all those lively and informed expressions of opinion and exchanges of ideas – exchanges that help shape public opinion on the issues of the day – that I see every day in newspaper stories, opinion pieces and letters to the editor, or hear on talkback programmes and interviews on Morning Report. Priggish leftists hate this stuff because it permits the dissemination of views they disapprove of.” – 30 May 2009
Acknowledgement: Karl du Fresne – Why leftist academics hate the media
So back in May 2009, Du Fresne was positively gushing with adoration at Radio NZ?!
So what’s changed?
In 2009, the msm* were in love with Dear Leader and the six month old National government could do no wrong. The Media-Key “honeymoon” was just beginning. Media reports critical of Key were minimal. Everyone loved Key and National.
Now, four years on, as the “honeymoon” has ended and a bitter “divorce” is in progress, the media is reporting one scandal after another. National policies are drawing heated criticism from all sectors of society. National poll ratings are gradually falling. And Dear Leader is no longer as popular as he once was.
That is the nub of the issue here. The Right are beginning to feel defensive and threatened. Like a cornered wild beast, they are lashing out at their critics – especially the media,
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – John Key calls media ‘Knuckleheads‘
And people like Karl Du Fresne - an unrepentant Right Wing political commentator – is bitter. He’s not feeling the love anymore, folks.
On a final note; Du Fresne complains that Radio NZ is biased and left wing.
Perhaps we might take him more seriously if his own columns were less biased and right wing.
Wikipedia: Kim Hill
The Listener: Karl du Fresne
* msm = mainstream media(newspapers, radio, televison broadcasters – as opposed to “New Media” such as bloggers, websites, youtube, etc)
= fs =
Coming to “The Daily Blog” on 1 March…
= fs =
“A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” – Oscar Wilde
It’s no great secret that the news media in this country – with perhaps one or two exceptions - has been going downhill in the last three decades.
As an example, the previous entities, the ‘Evening Post‘ and ‘Dominion‘ in Wellington, once employed three reporters – two full time and one part-time – to cover local body politics and events in the city. No councillor or mayor could pass wind without one of the journos picking it up. If something smelled rotten, the journos would sniff it out fairly smartly.
Now, with continuing cutbacks at Fairfax media, and most sub-editors gone, the combined entity known as the ‘Dominion Post‘ has one journalist covering City Council activities on a part-time basis. Coverage has becomes sporadic, disjointed, and out of context.
Which is why Wellingtonians now have little idea what’s happening at their Council.
TVNZ and TV3 once had current affairs programmes, at prime time, conducting in depth investigations into government activities and dubious behaviour from dodgy politicians.
Many of those programmes, ‘Holmes‘, ‘Assignment‘, have gone. ‘Sunday” was an hour long on Sunday nights – that’s been cut to thirty minutes.
The main current affairs prpgrammes – TVNZ’s ‘Q+A‘ and TV3′s ‘The Nation‘ – have been relegated to Sunday mornings at 8am and 9am. Hardly conducive to encouraging the public to be aware of political issues in our country. Only insomniacs and the most committed political junkie would be willing to forego a Sunday morning lie-in to watch TV journos in action with our elected representatives.
Private and State radio is perhaps the only part of the industry that has remained consistent.
Talkback Radio – idiot voices screaming at other idiot voices on issues that idiots know little about.
It is the realm where superficial “knowledge” is the main currency and shrill prejudice holds sway over calm reasoned analysis on issues. Imagine allotting a bunch of bigoted, ill-informed rednecks equal speaking time at the Oxford debates, shouting down their more knowledgeable and wiser debating opponants, and that gives an insight into talkback radio.
Even the talkback “hosts” are not ones to rise above the common, noisome mud of prejudice and wilful ignorance, as happened last week,
But hardly surprising.
It’s all part of the commercial radio game; win as many listeners as you can by being as offensive and outrageous as you can. That wins ratings, which in turn let’s you sell more advertising, leading to higher profits, which results in increasing dividends to ever more demanding shareholders.
Ever wondered why radio stations and newspapers “love” Michael Laws so much? Wonder no more. He sells advertising.
Ironically, when radio stations like NewstalkZB are then held to account for offensive behaviour, the additional publicity they gain – as in the case of the subsequent NZ Herald story above – gives them even more public attention. And higher ratings. And sell more advertising… It’s a win/win for them.
Radio NZ – after the political assassination of TVNZ7 – the last remaining non-commercial, public service media in this country.
And National is gunning for it,
It’s fairly obvious why Peter Cavanagh is resigning as Chief Executive: National has plans to commercialise Radio NZ.
This will no doubt be aided and abetted by Radio NZ board chairman, Richard Griffin. As well as having been a former Radio NZ political editor, Griffin took the job of press secretary to former National, prime minister, Jim Bolger (See: Richard Griffin to chair Radio NZ board).
The stage is set…
For National, non-commercial SOEs such as Radio NZ and TVNZ are anathema to their free market ideology – the very same ideology that saw the closure of TVNZ7 by deliberate political design, despite public support for the channel,
The commercialisation of media such as TVNZ is of considerable benefit to National Party (and perhaps Labour?) politicians, for two very good reasons,
- They yield a profit to the State, thereby making government’s job much easier to balance The Books.
- Commercialisation encourages ratings-driven programming. Hence the preponderence of crime ‘drama’, reality TV shows of every description, cheap US sitcoms, home improvement shows, and more cooking programmes than you can shake a wooden spatula at.
The second rationale has a by-product that governing politicians welcome with cunningly-disguised glee; ratings driven programming does not include current affairs shows and documentary making. These are now funded by NZ on Air – and even NZOA has been captured by National’s party apparatchiks,
… to fund brain-deadening crap like this,
See previous blogpost: NZ on Air funding soft-core porn garbage? Since when? Since now!!
It is no coincidence that the gradual demise of intelligent programmes that inform and challenge the viewer has been consistant with the rise and rise of commercialisation of the media – especially the state owned “public broadcaster”, TVNZ.
Quite simply, junk programmes such as cooking porn; MaF officials measuring the size of fish in someone’s bucket; and crime ‘dramas’ depicting the latest grisly murder (usually a female victim) in ghoulish detail, is what sells advertising.
And it should be no surprise that as the media shies away from serious reporting of current affairs, we had the lowest voter turnout last year since 1887 (see: Steve Liddle: Election apathy shows need for civics at school).
The Americanisation of our media (“if it bleeds, it leads”) is creating the Americanisation of our electoral process (apathy and low voter turnout – see: Voter turnout in 2012 US presidential elections 9% lower than 2008 ).
Major political parties – especially those on the Right, such as National – love this kind of thing. An unsophisticated public results in low-information voters. Low information voters allow governments to get way with all manner of dubious policies such as cuts to services; more user pays; environmentally-damaging activities, and further implementation of neo-liberal ideology.
It literally encourages the dumbing-down of society until the consequences are satirised in movies like this,
“Idiocracy” was produced as a speculative “what if” sf movie. It’s now more like a documentary. If you haven’t see it – this blogger strongly recommends that you do. You’ll be feeling a creepy sense of deja vu throughout it (and you’ll never look at ‘power drinks’ in quite the same way again).
It now appears that we, the New Zealand public, have till the end of the year to mobilise to pressure National not to interfere with the running of Radio NZ.
A statement from the Coalition for Better Broadcasting on 16 January, said,
The real story here is that the National Government – having fully commercialised TVNZ and done away with non-commercial TV channels Stratos, TV6 & 7 – is also slowly strangling RNZ to the point that it cannot survive. In 2007 a KPMG report to the Ministry of Culture and Heritage found that RNZ was already running as efficiently as possible. It recommended a funding increase to allow RNZ to continue its high standards. But the following year, the National Government froze the RNZ budget and that freeze still exists with RNZ operating on the same budget as 5 years ago.
The CBB believes this is a shockingly poor way to treat our national radio broadcaster: the station we rely on in times of emergency, disaster and crisis. We note the repeated absence on RNZ of our Prime Minister (who prefers to goof around on commercial stations) and many of his Cabinet colleagues. This fact and frequent remarks made by Ministers, makes it clear that the decision to freeze funding to RNZ is an attempt to influence the station’s ability to present in-depth news and current affairs. This contradicts statutory requirements that the government does not influence RNZ editorial stance and may even be illegal.
The under-funding of Radio NZ has been abysmal, with National wilfully attempting to strangle the broadcaster by a lack of money.
The situation for Radio NZ has become so dire that in late 2011, the Crown Entity registered itself as a charity,
The state-owned broadcaster registered itself as the Radio New Zealand Charitable Trust with the Charities Commission last month.
Some of its charitable purposes, which were listed on the commission’s website, included education, research, fundraising and providing grants to a number of individuals and groups.
A spokesperson for Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman said the broadcaster still received $34 million a year but couldn’t say how long it had been receiving that amount.
A financial review of Radio NZ for the 2009/10 financial year showed it had a net deficit of $498,000 after tax, compared to a surplus of $13,000 the year before.
The review said RNZ had been too cash-strapped to participate in the 2010 New Zealand Radio Awards or put in a bid for the Rugby World Cup 2011 coverage.
This is a deliberate campaign against Radio NZ and constitutes political interference – something that is strictly forbidden by law. National has found a way to circumvent that law.
Make no mistake, the dumbing down of Radio NZ is National’s final mission-plan to eliminate all critical, in-depth media analysis and reporting in this country. Turning Radio NZ in a radio-version of TVNZ would destroy any remaining semblance of serious current affairs programming, resulting in another medium for mindless, unquestioning, consumerism.
This is the neo-liberal agenda at it’s nastiest. To be successful in re-shaping a society into a “free market”, the new right must first remove all critical elements in society and either destroy it or marginalise it.
The commercialisation of Radio NZ would be the beginning of that marginalisation. Next would be a partial privatisation, followed by a full-scale sell-off.
This blogger encourages the reader to;
Join Save Radio New Zealand on Facebook. Get your friends and family to “Like” the facebook page – the more the better! Support a replacement for Peter Cavanagh who will maintain the non-commercialised status of Radio NZ.
If you have a National MP as your electorate MP, let him/her know your your vote in 2014 will depend on what happens to Radio NZ. Tell your National MP that not only will you vote for another Party, but you’ll be making a donation to them as well! Demand that Peter Cavanagh’s replacement support and maintain the non-commercialised status of Radio NZ.
Write a short letter to your local newspaper and voice your feelings on this issue. The deliberate demise of TVNZ7 was bad enough – but attacking Radio NZ is the final straw. Demand that Peter Cavanagh’s replacement support and maintain the non-commercialised status of Radio NZ.
Write to Labour Leader David Shearer and demand that, if he expects voter support, that Labour reverse National’s policies and undoes any commercialisation of Radio New Zealand.
On Point #4, the demise of TVNZ7 and impending commercialisation of Radio NZ underscores one very critical issue: that important services such as Radio NZ must be protected by entrenched legislation that makes it difficult – if not impossible – for incoming National regimes to to undermine such Crown entities.
It is unbelievable that an organisation such as Radio NZ – which has been operating in one form or another since 1925 – is vulnerable to the ideological machinations of a “government” that has been in office for only the last four years. In existence for 88 years – vulnerable to attack in four?!
A new Labour-led government’s Broadcasting Minister’s first task must be to enact legislation that;
- entrenches protection for Radio NZ,
- denies right governments any opportunity to commercialise the broadcaster,
- ring-fenches funding and ties it to the rate of inflation – perhaps by the Remuneration Authority which also sets MP’s salaries and perks.
The same protections must be in place for any new non-commercial public TV broadcaster that is set up by an incoming Labour-led government. Crown Entities must be free of covert political interference by the likes of Key, English, Joyce, et al, who cannot resist sticking their grubby fingers into places they shouldn’t.
At the risk of sounding overly-dramatic, this issue is not just about saving Radio NZ from commercialisation. This is a battle for the minds and souls of New Zealanders.
As Dave Armstrong wrote in August 2011,
“Despite its budget freeze, National Radio continues to do an excellent job. Its current affairs programmes are intelligent and objective. That’s why you rarely hear the prime minister on Morning Report or Checkpoint. As the recent BBC Hardtalk episode showed, Mr Key becomes dangerously exposed when interviewed by a tough, intelligent journalist. He tends to send in street-smart Gerry Brownlee to take one for the team on Radio New Zealand, while he has a cosy yet inane chat with ex-children’s presenter Petra Bagust on Breakfast or talks to Veitchy on sports radio about hot chicks. That’s far more fun than explaining to Mary Wilson why parents are going to have to pay more for childcare.”
In countries ruled by totalitarian regimes (late Soviet Union, North Korea, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Syria, United States, etc), despots control the media with an iron fist. Members of the state security apparatus watch every word printed; every word uttered; every picture or video screened.
In the West, we do despotic control of the media in more subtle ways. We use “market forces” instead of secret police forces.
The Western model is far more successful because the general populace doesn’t realise it’s happening. In fact, the general populace rather like “Master Chef Albania” or “CSI Timbuktu” or “Mumbai Squalid Home Improvement”. Unfortunately, watching such drivel doesn’t make the populace any smarter or informed. It simply prepares them for Talkback radio.
It’s up to the rest of us to lead the fight and stop National in it’s tracks.
Spread the word, people.
Previous related blogposts
Scoop.co.nz: PM has questions to answer over NZ on Air link
NZ Herald: TVNZ reveals Seven Sharp presenting team
Tom Frewen: GC In Breach Of Funding Agreement?
Tumeke: Seven Sharp already looks blunt
Brian Edwards: TVNZ exchanges current-affairs for a mess of pottage at 7pm
Tumeke: The future of RNZ
= fs =
[This blogpost best read to the popular cult-hit, Gangnam-style.]
The sleaziest blogger in New Zealand, Cameron Slater, taking up the reins of editing the sleaziest newspaper, ‘Truth‘ – appropriate. There must be some fundamental law of bio-physics which explains the process how such clumpings take place.
The appointment is ostensibly to give a boost to ‘Truth’s‘ circulation – a Big Ask in this age of internet and freely available news-content. Better newspapers than kitty-tray-liner-’Truth‘ are finding that their circulations are falling, despite attempts and gimmicks to stem the slide.
What Slater has to offer ‘Truth‘ is a bit of a mystery.
More sleaze? Plenty on the internet, with blogs such as the one Cameron edits.
A return to the Page Three Girl, with unfeasibly large mammary glands? How quaint.
Listings of recent divorces, such as the ‘Truth‘ used to publish? Care factor; nil.
Stories of political corruption and incompetance? Plenty of those. But considering that National is in power, I doubt his political handlers on the Ninth Floor will take kindly to their attack-pooch turning on their own. They shan’t be amused.
Or will he launch ongoing attacks on the Parliamentary Opposition? Bashing Labour, the Greens, Mana, NZ First, etc, will be a pointless exercise. Not being part of the government, what would be the point?
Or else Slater can just make up any old sh*t. As TV3′s Duncan Garner took him to task on 15 March, this year, when Slater was caught out fibbing (again),
” For the record, claims made by the Beached Whale (Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater) that 3 News secured footage of John Key’s 2008 speech from the PSA are inaccurate.
The footage is held in our library.
It brings into question the credibility and accuracy of all his other blogs, read by dozens of followers.
Big claims from a big man on a small blog site.
It’s a shame he is wrong. Why does Slater make so much of his stuff up? “
Source: Whale Oil lies again – opinion
The most stomach turning aspect of this appointment is not that Slater will be ‘Truth’s‘ editor – the two are a perfect match for each other – but his comments today on Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report‘,
” It used to be that journalists held the powerful to account. They went out there and they outed people that basically caused the working man grief.”
Hear: Radio NZ – Blogger takes helm at Truth
Yes, it’s terrible when someone does things that “caused the working man grief”. Things like this,
Slater had nil reservations about posting personal details of a port worker. Perhaps he thought that smearing a man whose wife had died from a terminal disease would not “cause the working man grief “?
Let’s hope Slater is more responsible in his new, paid role.
What are the chances?
= fs =
Hark back to 11 November 2011; two men met at a cafe for a chat over a cuppa tea.
Nothing unusual about that, you might think?
Except that the men were John Banks and John Key; leaders of two political parties; campaigning for an upcoming election; and about 40 journalists were present to record the event and report it for their respective media outlets.
The publicity stunt went awry when a recording device was discovered on their table, and Dear Leader was not impressed,
“ John Key remains intractable today about the teapot-tape fiasco, maintaining and repeating his line that he is a victim of a deliberate attempt by the Herald on Sunday to covertly record his conversation with John Banks. .
Continuing on from his defiance yesterday, the Prime Minister reiterated on Firstline his stance against “News of the World tactics” and said he went to the police because it was “a matter of principle”.
Firstline host Rachel Smalley, who has seen part of a transcript of the conversation, told Mr Key that hacking into the phone of a family whose child has been murdered, like the News of the World did, is very different to mistakenly leaving a microphone on a table.
“No it’s not,” Mr Key replied, “it’s an illegal attempt to get information and that’s the principle”.
“I have a totally clear conscience about what I’ve done, I think it’s the Herald on Sunday and the cameraman that may not have a clear conscience and in the end, they will have to answer to the police,” he said.
“There are many times where I am in a public place but that doesn’t mean I can be taped…I don’t care about the tape, I haven’t heard the tape but my recollection of the conversation was that it was pretty bland”. ” – Source
John Key was fairly adamant; he was outraged that he had been recorded without his knowledge and point-blank refused to permit the contents of the tape to be made public. On 30 November he made his Royal Displeasure further known when the coercive arm of State authority – the NZ Police – raided the offices of Radio New Zealand, searching for copies of the “teapot tape”.
Further raids on other media followed.
Contrast Key’s wrath with his attitude toward the alleged video-taping of his meeting with the GCSB on 29 January, this year. In response to allegations made by David Shearer, Key responded on 16 October,
“There was no tape, to say the GCSB erased it is a very serious allegation and he should put up or shut up, he should apologise.” – Source
Does such a tape or any other form of recording exist?
We don’t know. The GCSB says it has searched and “found nothing”.
But most pointed is that a spokesperson for the Prime Minister said on 12 October,
“We are checking that there is no recording that GCSB made. ” – Source
On 29 January, Key visits the GCSB for a briefing. He makes some sort of speech in the GCSB cafetaria.
On 11 October, Key is interviewed by TV3 where he stated point-blank that he was unaware of any recording made of his visit to GCSB HQ on 29 January. (See: Secret GCSB recording catches Key out – Labour)
On the same day, GCSB boss, Ian Fletcher, states categorically,
“The department has made exhaustive enquiries of its records and its IT systems, and can find no audio-visual recording of the Prime Minister’s visit to GCSB on 29 February 2012.” – Source
On 12 October, Key’s office announces that they are “checking that there is no recording that GCSB made“.
On 16 October, Key invites the Labour leader to present any recording, “and he should put up or shut up“.
This seems a remarkable turnaround for our Prime Minister?!
He obviously wasn’t aware that he was being recorded – and yet, after checking with the GCSB – is agreeable to Shearer releasing any recording that might be in his possession?!
This seems in stark contrast to Key’s anger at being recorded last year, in Epson – also unknowingly - when he not only refused to release the tape – but called in the police to enforce his diktat.
Key was obviously having none of it.
So why the sudden change of heart at being unknowingly recorded in the GCSB’s cafetaria?
What happened between 12 October and 16 October that allowed Key to comfortably challenge Shearer to “ put up or shut up“?
Fairly bloody obvious, I would think.
The GCSB found the recording before copies could be made (otherwise it would have leaked by now); deleted it; and then advised the Prime Minister “that no recording existed”.
There is simply no other way to explain Key’s inexplicably contradictory responses on being unknowingly recorded on two separate occassions, only 110 days apart.
NZ Herald: Bugged in the Act
NZ Herald: PM blocks release of chat tape
Dominion Post: Radio NZ hands over ‘tea tape’ interview
= fs =
Matthew Hooton is a right-wing blogger, political commentator, and National Party fellow-traveller. He has been an occassional guest panellist on Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury’s excellent “Citizen A”, as well on as Radio New Zealand’s late-Monday morning slot, “Politics with…”.
In his favour, he is one of the more coherent from the neo-liberal camp and can present a reasoned opinion without resorting to cliched, right-wing rhetoric or blame-speech. In short, you can listen to him without groaning; face-palming, and eventually reaching for the “off” switch or the Remote channel-changer.
Lately though, this blogger has been hearing something unusual from the man who is a self-professed fan of the original, neo-liberal, ACT Party.
It turns out that Matthew Hooton is either a closet Winston Peters fan, or has been up to a subtle piece of mischief-making lately…
On Radio NZ’s political segment on Monday late-afternoons, hosted by Kathryn Ryan, Mr Hooton has been making some very strange noises about a National-Conservative Party-NZ First coalition.
Those with a fair memory will recall that NZ First has been in coalition with National once before, in 1996.
To put it mildly, Peters’ decision to go with National was unpopular with the public. The coalition deal did not last long and neither did it end well.
But considering it was New Zealand’s very first coalition government under MMP, Peters might be forgiven. It was a steep learning curve for the entire country.
So why has Mr Hooton been saying things like,
“If you assume that this report makes it much more likely that the Conservative Party will come into Parliament, and if you also assume that Winston Peters would prefer not to be a third wheel on a Labour-Green government , then National really can get it’s support down as low as say 40% now, and with New Zealand First and the Conservatives be assured of forming a government.
… But if the government does accept these, then National now knows very clearly it’s path to it’s third term is through that Winston Peters-Colin Craig deal.” – 13 August
“Then, forget about all this nonsense flirting with these one-MP parties, and focus on forming a government – god help me for saying this – with New Zealand First and the CCCP [Colin Craig's Conservative Party - not the USSR].” – 20 August
It seems fairly clear that, having learned the lessons of the late 1990s, it seems highly unlikely that Peters would risk another public backlash by coalescing with National. It would be annihilated in the following election…
… which, may give us a clue why Matthew Hooton has been dropping little “hints” about a potential National-NZ First-? Coalition arrangement.
Could it be that, like this blogger, Matthew Hooton has seen and understood the portents in the political tea-leaves, vis-a-vis latest political opinion polls, which show a steady decline for National?
Could it be that Mr Hooton understands that ACT and Peter Dunne are dog-tucker – especially once MMP reforms are implemented?
And could it be that a third term for National can only be guaranteed if,
- Colin Craig’s Conservative Party breaks the new 4% threshold, and,
- NZ First does not make it back into Parliament?
Without NZ First, a Labour-Green-Mana Coalition may be unable to beat a National-Conservative Coalition. It may come down to a simple one or two seat majority, as happened last year.
So why would Mr Hooton be touting a National-Conservative-NZ First Coalition?
Because, traditionally, supporters of NZ First tend to be disaffected voters.
They vote against the incumbent government (in this case National), just as voters cast their ballot for NZ First in 1996, believing it to be a vote against the incumbent Bolger-led National government.
If a meme can be developed that there is a possibility that NZ First may opt to join a National-Conservative Party coalition (even though there is zero indication of this happening), then that may alienate potential voter-support for Peters.
After all, what would be the point of voting for Peters if he simply props up the current government? That would be the subtle, psychological message that Hooton may well be trying to implant in Voterland’s collective psyche.
It’s a kind of reverse psychology; “a vote for NZ First is a vote for a John Key-led government”. Which would put off voters who don’t want a Key-led National coalition, thereby reducing NZ First’s chances of breaking the 4% threshold.
They may instead vote for the Conservative Party, which presents itself as the new “maverick kid on the block”.
(And yes, I know the Conservative Party is most likey to coalesce with National. But, like voters who opposed asset sales still voted for John Key, those who vote for Colin Craig may not consider that eventual outcome. All they see is an new Alternative Option.)
So when the likes of Matthew Hooton drop little hints of a National-NZ First deal – just ask yourself; what’s Matthew up to?
Is he happily fomenting mischief?
Or is he really a closet fan of the Dapper Suited One?
= fs =
As the economy continues to stagnate, business confidence plummets, unemployment remains stubbornly high, and other negative social and economic indicators feature in our daily media reporting, National’s desperation for any means for economic growth becomes more apparent.
The national cycleway fizzled out; the Christchurch re-build moves at a snail’s pace; and the Sky City convention centre has become a liability as the public is (rightly) concerned about increasing problem gambling.
National continues to look at easy, quick-fix solutions. And nothing is easier as a quick-fix than digging a hole and extracting precious stuff. You can’t get easier than that.
Facing staunch public opposition, on 20 July 2010, National announced that it was backing away from mining in Conservation land. In an attempt to allay mounting public anger, Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee stated categorically,
“At the time the discussion document was released, I made it clear that it was a discussion. There were no preconceived positions from the Government. We have no intention of mining national parks.”
But it seems that the Nats cannot help themselves. Like a kleptomaniac drawn to shiny things, National disclosed on 25 June,
” The Government has confirmed plans to survey for minerals in world heritage sites on the West Coast.
Aeromagnetic surveying will be conducted in the South Island from Haast to Karamea, including large chunks of Te Wahipounamu South West New Zealand world heritage area.
The surveying follows a similar project in Northland last year, when more than 13,590 square kilometres of the region were surveyed from February to August. That was followed by an announcement from Energy and Resources Minister Phil Heatley this month, of a competitive tender process for exploration permits for metallic minerals in the region. “
They said were “just looking“.
On the following day – probably sensing rising public unease – Dear Leader John Key rushed to reassure the public,
“I can give you an assurance we won’t be mining on world heritage sites. What we are doing is gathering information for a variety of other reasons.”
One wonders what Key’s “ variety of other reasons ” are?!
As one media report states,
” The Conservation Department says it is one the great natural areas of the world, with “landscapes of untouched beauty”.
The West Coast surveys will not include areas protected under Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. However, the schedule does not prevent mining in world heritage areas such as Te Wahipounamu.
Economic Development Ministry spokeswoman Tracy Dillimore said yesterday that Te Wahipounamu would be surveyed to provide a good understanding of the geology and mineral potential of the wider area.
“New Zealand is potentially highly prospective for a wide range of minerals. The Government would like to see New Zealand maximise the benefits of safe and environmentally responsible development by reputable operators”. “
On 11 July, in response to a Herald-Digipoll, Grey District mayor, Tony Kokshoorn was invited to comment on the issue of mining on the West Coast, on Radio New Zealand’s ‘Afternoon With Jim Mora’s‘ show.
To say that Kokshoorn was enthusiastic about mining – including open cast mining – would be the understatement of the year,
” … Look the benchmark has always been talked about in the last two years was when Gerry Brownlee said they were going to actually mine on Schedule 4 [DoC] land. What happened was you had a big protest that was just alluded to a minute ago, down Queen Street and they said 50,000 went down there and that was taken as the benchmark and people were against mining on Conservation land.
But the benchmark is totally wrong. I mean, it’s a well known fact it was nothing like 50,000 people. It was more like only 25,000 or 30,000 people that marched in the first place, so it’s all out of kilter. The bottom line here is that West Coasters and a lot of people in New Zealand, they do want mining. They want to actually get the wealth that’s in the ground, out, so we can have good health, education, and policing.
Why would we send our workers to Australia and the rest of the world, to earn big wages and earn those countries valuable overseas exchange when we can have it, and we can have wealth ourselves? “
Jim Mora asked,
“ Even if it’s open-cast, a lot of it? “
Mayor Kokshoorn replied,
” Yes, of course. Look, it’s a pin-prick on the surface. The West Coast runs from Karamea to Haast, which is the equivalent of Wellington through to Auckland. It’s a huge, huge, area. We’re not going to ruin the crown jewel that we have, and which is our rain forest. We’re gonna make sure they stay intact.
There’s a big tourist industry round that and you got to go back to the fact that the Resource Management Act 1991 was put in place for that exact reason, and was to get a win/win so we can actually manage our environment and at the same time get economic development for our region. So for anyone to think that somehow we’re going to ruin it; we’re going to get the chainsaws out again; or we’re going to get the bulldozers out, that is just absolute rubbish.
Those days went many, many years ago. “
Source: Radio NZ The Panel with David Slack and Ali Jones (Part 2)
Tony Kokshoorn sez “we’re not going to gret the bulldozers out again”. In which case, pray tell, Mr Mayor, how do you propose to dig an open-cast mine? With f*****g teaspoons???
And how can he say that “those days went many, many years ago” – of chainsaws and bulldozers – when that is precisely how open cast mines are dug out of ground or mountains. Let us be absolutely candid and straight up; open cast mines are excavated with bulldozers and other massive earth-moving equipment.
The waste material – millions of tonnes of rock – has to be dumped somewhere. Much of those tailings contain toxic heavy metals and other elements,
” Mining can cause serious long-lasting water pollution through acid mine drainage. Copper, lead, zinc, cadmium and arsenic can leach out when water contacts the exposed rock in mine workings or tailings. This pollution is very serious and can be a problem that remains long after a mine is abandoned.
On Mt Te Aroha, poisonous waste - from just 90,000 cubic meters of tailings of the Tui mine, (which was abandoned in 1970 when the mining company went bankrupt) , is costing taxpayers over $17.5 million to attempt to fix. The Martha Mine will have over 40 million cubic meters of toxic tailings. Which means the Tui Mine tailings are just 0.225% of the volume of the Martha mine tailings ! “
To remind folk what an open-cast mine looks like, this is the Newmont mine in Waihi,
Perhaps the most dubious claims made by the likes of Tony Kokshoorn, Steven Joyce, et al, is that mining will create new jobs and increase our wealth.
As recently as 5 July, Key stated,
” New Zealanders, mostly, understand that while we owe it to future generations to do everything we can to protect our environment, we must also do all we can to leave them with a robust and sustainable economy where they can expect a good job and a good standard of living.
We have always believed that New Zealand’s mineral wealth can play a large part in the economy, and we have also always believed this can be done with a minimal impact on our environment”. “
They almost always point to Australia as an example.
However, Australia’s wealth is predicated on several other factors as well,
- A$1.3 trillion-dollar compulsory savings fund
- Stable political system and economy
- Strong trade union movement that ensures regular wage increases and protection of conditions
- The service sector of the economy, including tourism, education, and financial services, accounts for about 70% of GDP. Source
Far from rolling in cash, Australia has a balance of payments that is more than 7% of GDP negative, and has had persistently large current account deficits for more than 50 years. Source
“ One single factor that undermines balance of payments is Australia’s narrow export base. Dependent upon commodities, the Australian government has endeavoured to redevelop the Australian manufacturing sector. “
So it appears that the mining industry is not quite the ‘gold mine‘ that many believe for Australia.
More to the point, in de-constructing the illusion that mining is some kind of economic ‘panacea‘, is the example set by Bolivia. A cursory comparison of fiscal indicators between Bolivia and New Zealand yields some interesting facts,
|Gross domestic product (2011)||
US$24.604 billion 
US$161.851 billion 
|Gross domestic product per capita (2011)||
|GDP Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) Total (2011)||
$50.904 billion 
$122.193 billion 
|GDP Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) per capita (2011)||
|Gini coefficient ||
58.2 (high, 2009) 
36.2 (medium, 1997) 
5.5% (est.) 
6.5% (est.) 
5.1% (2011 est.) 
2% (2011 est.) 
6.5% (2011 est.) 
4.5% (2011 est.) 
 Source IMF
 Source IMF
 Source Wikipedia – The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among values of a frequency distribution (for example levels of income). A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has an exactly equal income). A Gini coefficient of 100 expresses maximal inequality among values (for example where only one person has all the income) .
 CIA Factbook
Bolivia’s economy is heavily dependent on oil, gas, and mining,
” Bolivia’s estimated 2011 gross domestic product (GDP) totaled $23.3 billion. Economic growth was estimated at about 5.1%, and inflation was estimated at about 6.9%. The increase in GDP primarily reflected contributions from oil and gas production (7.9%); electricity, water, and gas distribution (7.6%); construction (7.2%); transport and communications (6.0%); and financial services (5.5%). Exports rose by more than 30% between 2010 and 2011 to $9.1 billion, due mostly to increased commodity prices, not increased volume.
In 2011, Bolivia’s top export products were: hydrocarbons (45% of total exports), minerals (27%), manufactured goods (24%), and agricultural products (4%). “
Quite simply, Bolivia’s reliance on mining and hydrocarbons does not seem to have yielded the wealth that people like Key, Joyce, Kokshoorn, and others, are telling us should be our reward for digging bloody big holes in the ground.
Whilst the Bolivian GDP grew two and a half times that of New Zealand, the income appears not to have “trickled down” to ordinary Bolivian workers.
In fact, as the chart above shows, GDP per capita and GDP Purchasing Power Parity per capita is greater for New Zealanders by several orders of magnitude, than it is for Bolivians.
Further GDP per Capita rankings can be found here: List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. Despite Bolivia’s higher GDP growth, New Zealanders’ per capita incomes are far higher. Our standard of living is greater.
Accepted wisdom tells us that our more diverse economy is more productive, and a subsequently greater wealth-producer. Opportunities for higher wages (than Bolivia) abound throughout our economy that includes food processing, wood and paper products, textiles, machinery, transportation equipment, banking and insurance, tourism, as well as mining and hydro-carbon extraction.
As David Slack said on the same panel, hosted by Jim Mora, when he addressed the NZ Herald-Digipoll ‘support’ for mining,
” I’m kinda dismayed that there’s still this Lotto mentality that wants to just find a way to just happen upon our wealth rather than developing our economy so that we’ve got more high value business so that we’ve got perpetual wealth from that… [host interuption]
… Yeah, well you’ll have it once then it’s gone, and you’ll only be getting the royalties off it, not the whole damn thing. “
If mining was such a quick-fix wealth creator, then Bolivia should be light-years ahead of us. It clearly is not, and this blogger believes that our higher per capita income can be attributed to the diversification and sustainability of our economy.
It should also be remembered that, as David Slack pointed out, New Zealand does not earn $100 million from the extraction of Mineral X. We benefit from only the royalties (currently set at 1 or 5 %), some taxes, and a few thousand jobs.
This Fairfax article is illuminating,
“ Crown royalties from the mining industry returned just $6.5 million last year… “
“ Mining was a $2b a year industry, with $1.1b in exports… “
Obviously, New Zealand makes bugger-all from mining royalties.
And if the mining companies are owned by offshore interests (eg; New Zealand’s two biggest gold mining companies; Newmont, which owns the open pit Martha Hill and underground Favona mines at Waihi, is US-based; and Australian-based OceanaGold), then profits made are remitted overseas, worsening our balance of payments. Only company tax (which can be minimised) and employment of local people provide any measurable benefits to our economy – and even those are minimal.
” Where the mining activities result in a tax loss, this loss may be set off against income from non-mining activities, although the benefit of the mining loss is reduced by 50%; ie $300 of mining losses are required to be offset against $200 of non-mining income. The reasons for these unusual offset arrangements relate back to a period when mining companies paid a lower rate of tax than ordinary companies.
Mining companies are prohibited from grouping their profits or losses with other mining companies or with non-mining companies.
Despite these limitations, the tax regime for mining companies is generally regarded as concessionary. For example, it allows mining companies to immediately deduct their exploration expenditure and any expenditure incurred in the development of the mining licence. Thus buildings, mine-shafts, plant and machinery, production equipment and storage facilities, which would ordinarily be capitalised under standard accounting conventions, may be deducted immediately for income tax purposes. “
Further regarding taxation, the Fairfax article states,
“… but the Government had not yet done any work on how much more tax or jobs could be created from expanding mining into conservation land.”
Dear Leader is already on record opposing the Capital Gains Tax, and any other tax for that matter,
” National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes not raise taxes. “
And lastly; jobs.
How many workers does the mining industry employ?
” Number employed: 4,000 directly, another 8,000 indirectly, as suppliers of goods and services “
By comparison, the tourism sector plays a significant role in New Zealand’s economy,
Year to March 2011 (released October 2011)
- Tourism Expenditure
Total tourism expenditure was $23.0 billion, an increase of 2.1 percent from the previous year.
- Tourism Contribution to GDP
Tourism generated a direct contribution to GDP of $6.9 billion, or 3.8 percent of GDP. The indirect value added of industries supporting tourism generated an additional $8.8 billion to tourism.
- Domestic and International Segments
Domestic tourism expenditure was $13.2 billion, an increase of 2.5 percent from the previous year.
- Tourism Export Earnings
International tourist expenditure in 2011 ($9.7 billion) represents 16.8% of the total export earnings ($52.4 billion). Tourism is New Zealand’s second largest export earner, followed dairy ($11.6 billion or 19.9% of exports) in 2011.
- Tourism Employment
The tourism industry directly employed 91,900 full-time equivalents (or 4.8 percent of total employment in New Zealand), an increase of 0.6 percent from the previous year.
- Tourism Contribution to GST
Tourists generated $1.7 billion in goods and services tax (GST) revenue. “
It should not escape anyone that there is a high degree of irony here. A multi-billion dollar industry (tourism) relies on the very environment that the Mining industry would despoil with their activities.
To sum up;
- Mining is not as beneficial to a modern economy as some insist.
- Bolivia is a mining nation and is lagging behind New Zealand in per capita income.
- Bolivia’s GDP is growing 2.5 times faster than ours – but so is their inflation, whilst incomes still lag behind ours.
- Australia’s mining wealth is considerable – no doubt – but their balance of payments is more than 7% of GDP negative, and has had persistently large current account deficits for more than 50 years
- Australia is far too reliant on mining wealth; their economy is far too dependent on commodities; and they need to diversify.
- Crown Royalties are minimal – 1-5% .
- Big profits by foreign-owned mining companies leave New Zealand.
- Open cast mining creates a considerable impact on the environment, despite claims to contrary.
- Mining companies enjoy a taxation regime that “is generally regarded as concessionary”.
- And far more New Zealanders are employed in the Tourism sector than in the mining industry.
To repeat David Slack’s comments from Radio New Zealand,
” I’m kinda dismayed that there’s still this Lotto mentality that wants to just find a way to just happen upon our wealth rather than developing our economy so that we’ve got more high value business so that we’ve got perpetual wealth from that… [host interuption]
… Yeah, well you’ll have it once then it’s gone, and you’ll only be getting the royalties off it, not the whole damn thing. “
Whilst Dear Leader John Key stated,
” New Zealanders, mostly, understand that while we owe it to future generations to do everything we can to protect our environment, we must also do all we can to leave them with a robust and sustainable economy where they can expect a good job and a good standard of living.
We have always believed that New Zealand’s mineral wealth can play a large part in the economy, and we have also always believed this can be done with a minimal impact on our environment. “
I know who I believe.
NZ Herald: Optimism dips in struggling economy
Fairfax Media: NZ economic growth ‘unspectacular’
NZ Herald: Unemployment rate lifts to 6.7pc
= fs =
21 May – Public meeting: TVNZ7 gets the big tick!
400+ People pack Wesley Church Hall tonight!
A chilly Monday night in downtown Wellington, and people were steadily filing in, to fill a reasonably sized hall in Taranaki Street’s Wesley Church Hall,
The Goodnight Kiwi was on hand to greet people, as they filed into the hall,
Within another half hour, and the hall was full, with people standing around the walls, in the doorway, and out into the foyer.
The crowd numbered 400+ and seemed to represent a wide spectrum middle New Zealand, young and old,
Completing a panormaic view of the packed hall, which kept filling even as the guest speakers were addressing the audience,
Note: From this point onward, a fault in my camera results in a degraded image-quality.
Soon after 7pm, Wellington Central MP and deputy leader of the Labour Party, Grant Robertson opened the meeting; welcomed the audience; and introduced the guest speakers; moderator, Wallace Chapman (broadcaster); Clare Curran (Labour spokesperson on Broadcasting); Sue Kedgley (ex Green MP); Dr Peter Thompson (Victoria University, Senior Lecturer in Media Studies ); and Tom Frewen (Journalist & Media Commentator),
Wallace Chapman is better known in his role as host for TVNZ7′s popular “Backbenches” – though Robertson was at pains to point out to the audience that Chapman was present in a personal capacity only, and not as a representative for TVNZ7 or any other body.
Wallace Chapman welcomed the audience and commented that no public service TV channel was immune from political interfence, whether the BBC and Radio New Zealand. He said that TVNZ7 and its’ supporters were often dismissed by critics as supporting “minority viewing”. Chapman said that 1.4 million viewers per month was not minority viewing, and quoted Noam Chomsky regarding minorities.
Chapman then read out a selection of letters and emails from people who supported TVNZ7. He quoted one young viewer who said,
” I don’t feel left out of society with TVNZ7. I feel included.”
Chapman then introduced Labour’s spokesperson on Broadcasting, Clare Curran.
Ms Curran began by asking the audience,
“Who remembers ‘Goodnight Kiwi’?”
A sea of arms shot up – probably 99% of the audience raised their arms.
Ms Curran said that ‘Goodnight Kiwi’ was out in the foyer (see photo above) and the costume was the same that had been used by TV2 in it’s public promotion of itself.
She then asked,
“Who remembers Fred Dagg?”
Perhaps not as many hands went up this time, but still the vast majority indicated that they knew the name.
Ms Curran explained that the actor who played the popular ‘Fred Dagg’ character, John Clarke, was a well -known comedian and satirist on Australian TV. Clarke did short, satirical skits each evening on Australia’s public channel, lampooning some aspect of politics in Australian society.
“We need ‘Backbenches’ to take the piss out of politicians.”
Curran said that ‘Backbenches’ was the only show on television that took a light-hearted, often satirical view of politicansm and this would be lost when TVNZ7 was closed down. She added that “we have already lost TVNZ6 and government was about to lose TVNZ7“.
She reminded the audience that Australia’s government invested $912 million on their public service ABC and SBS channels.
By comparison, TVNZ7 cost New Zealand only $16 million.
Ms Curran then asked the audience,
“ Remember what happened when they threatened to take the bird call off Radio New Zealand? “
She said that public outrage had stopped that from happening and we needed the same to happen to stop politicians from pulling the plug on TVNZ7. Ms Curran added that we needed a proper debate on public broadcasting in this country. Curran said that it was government that was killing TVNZ7, just as it had frozen all funding for Radio NZ and had not increased its’ budget for the last three years.
Ms Curran added that this was the same government that had appointed National Party functionary, Stephen McElrea, to NZ on Air’s Board of Directors. McElrea is John Key’s electorate secretary. She said NZ on Air was now funding commercial tv projects such as “The GC”, and added,
” Labour believes that public TV is essential and it must be resurrected if TVNZ7 is killed off. When we get a Labour-led government soon, let’s put it in[public TV] place. Let’s make a decision now that we do value public TV. “
Ms Curran said that all other Opposition parties were supporting this issue and not just the Labour Party. She said,
” We think Peter Dunne supports public TV.
Today Grey Power issued a media release supporting retention of TVNZ7 and were appalled at it’s [impending] closure. “
Ms Curran then read out a few emails she had received, supporting TVNZ7,
” It was inexpensive. “
” In its’ absence, we’ll just get more junkfood telly. “
” TVNZ7 is an incubator of ideas. “
Ms Curran then concluded her talk with a passionate plea,
” This is an opprtunity for us to get mad and get involved. We must fight to keep it. And if it’s killed off, we must bring it back. “
Wallace Chapman then introduced the next speaker, ex-Green MP, Sue Kedgely,
Ms Kedgley went straight for the government’s “jugular”, stating that it was fatuous that National can’t find $16 million to fund TVNZ7 when other countries can afford public TV. She said that even Russia could afford public TV.
Ms Kedgeley suggested that if government was so cash-strapped that there were options to raise money to fund TVNZ7. She suggested,
- Funding TVNZ7 from a levy on Sky TV. Sky TV already pays to have TVNZ channels Kidzone and Heartland on their channels.
- Sell off spare spectrum and use a $200 million windfall for public TV.
She said there were many other options but the reason National wasn’t exploring them was,
” National doesn’t believe in public TV because it’s outside the ‘market’. “
Ms Kedgeley was adamant that it was important that some broadcasters, “were not beholding to corporations and could ask the hard questions.”
She suggested that National was keen to get rid of TVNZ7 because of a perceived “left wing perspective”, and said,
” We have the most de-regulated media in the world. There’s no regulation for local content. No controls on cross-ownership. No rules around pay-TV at all. “
Ms Kedgeley said that as corporations were buying up our print and electronic media, that there were fewer and fewer independent sources of news other than the internet. There was nothing to stop Rupert Murdoch from buying other TV channels in this country and he could buy TVNZ if the government decided to sell it if they’re re-elected in 2014.
She said there would be less and less current affairs on TV if TVNZ7 was closed down. Ms Kedgeley referred to current affairs programmes on TV1 and TV3 being relegated to Sunday mornings and contrasted that with current affairs shows broadcast on TVNZ7 during prime-time .
Ms Kedgeley added that if we lose public TV, “our children will grow up learning more about Los Angeles than our own communities“. She decried the situation that it seemed that TVNZ’s “main growth area was making TV channels for Sky’s pay-tv business“.
She told the audience that the previous broadcasting minister, Jonathan Coleman, had once said,
“New Zealanders don’t give a toss about public service TV. “
Ms Kedgeley replied, “How wrong he is! “
“ So what can we do? ” Ms Kedgeley asked,
” We can mobilise to support TVNZ7!
We can support Clare’s Private Member’s Bill promoting public TV!
But we may have to wait for the next Labour-led government to set up a new public TV. I think this is the beginning of grass-roots public support for public TV. “
As Ms Kedgeley spoke, this blogger noticed more and more people entering the hall. There was standing room only,
Next to speak was radio journalist and commentator, Tom Frewen. Mr Frewen has hosted the excellent ‘Focus on Politics‘ on Radio NZ and is possibly one of the finest investigative journalists and commentators we have in this country.
Mr Frewen started of with a challenging statement to the audience,
” I come not to save TVNZ7, I come to bury it.”
He added that if this meeting was being held in Invercargill or Christchurch, tv cameras from local television stations would be present to report the event. Mr Frewen said that a lack of television cameras was noticeable because Wellington had no regional public TV, and other networks were not interested in reporting this event.
He said that he was under no illusion that TVNZ7 would not be saved by this government, or by TVNZ,
” We can’t have it unless politicians want to spend money on it. Labour and the Greens will have to break with the idea that TVNZ will support public TV. It will not. “
On a lighter note, Mr Frewen that he did not like calling it TVNZ7,
“It should be ‘One’.”
There was clapping from the audience at that simple statement.
Mr Frewen remarked on how bad our commercialised TV had become in the last 20 years. He said that it is up to politicians to sort this out,
“We can’t have public meetings every month. I’m mad as hell, but there’s no point in being angry. I want you [pointing at politicians seated at guests table] to fix it“.
He also called for an investigation by the Auditor-General regarding NZ on Air’s funding for “The GC”. Mr Frewen wanted to know why funding was going to a Dutch production company. He suspected that NZ on Air had been “taken for a ride“.
Mr Frewen said he wanted a proper public discussion on this issue and wanted a framework of public TV presented to the public, to determine if people liked a proposal.
His final comment was short and succinct,
“And that’s it.”
The next speaker to be introduced was Dr Peter Thompson, a Senior Lecturer in Media Studies at Victoria University,
Dr Peter Thompson
Dr Thompson accompanied his talk with a power-point presentation that summarised his comments point-by-point.
He began by stating that it was a like wishing for a ‘digital tooth fairy’ to assume that once TVNZ7 is “buried”, then public-interest programmes would be broadcast elsewhere. He cited the ghettoisation of current affairs programmes (‘Q+A‘,’ Think Tank ‘, ‘The Nation‘, etc) on Sunday mornings, instead of prime-time viewing. He said that the lack of funding for TVNZ7 was a purely political decision by National, and nothing else.
Dr Thompson said that despite appearances, government does not “speak with one voice”. He said that government departments have different priorities and do not always want the same thing. He said Cabinet had looked at TVNZ7 but that it did not meet their criteria to be “fiscally neutral”, so handed it back to TVNZ.
Dr Thompson said that eventually we could have a situation where people could have any channel, as long as it was Sky. He added,
” But viewers can only choose what they watch if it’s available. “
He added that free-to-air commercial TV isn’t free,
” You pay for it through the ads you see on TV. The cost of those ads is part of the stuff you buy.”
Dr Thompson then broke his talk down into three broad areas,
He said that the cost of Sky for subscribers was approximately $1 per day.
He contrasted that with the cost of TVNZ7 to taxpayers – 1 cent per day.
Every household could pay $10 per year to fund and save TVNZ7.
2. Re-reregulate Sky and pay-TV.
3. A levy on Pay TV.
Dr Thompson offered several funding models that would pay for TVNZ7. These ranged from a small levy of pay TV, telcos, and internet providers, to other options such as subscriptions to public TV. He said subscriptions might work for public TV, but not public radio.
He suggested another option of returning to a form of TV licensing.
Dr Thompson said that it was a right of citizens in society to have access to a non-commercial, public TV. He added that levying Sky TV would be putting some of their profits back to the public. Dr Thompson called it a “polluter pays principle”, to which their was laughter from the audience.
Dr Thompson revealed that he was both optimistic and pessimistic in his feelings about TVNZ7.
He said that he believed TVNZ7 will be canned by the government.
But he also believed that, in the end, something bigger in public TV would arise. He was confident that the public would reclaim their right to have public TV.
Dr Thompson concluded his talk by offering copies of his speech to those who were interested. He received good applause from the audience.
Wallace Chapman then welcomed questions from the audience and posed the first question himself to Tom Frewen,
” NZ on Air says they are in the ‘diversity game’. They say they have ‘something for everyone’. What do you say to that? “
Tom Frewen replied that it’s not always about diversity. He said it’s about “who the programmes are made for“. He said it’s about whether the programmes are made for the viewer – or for advertisers.
He raised the example of the recent ‘Strongman‘ mine-disaster documentary, that had been shown on TV3. Mr Frewen said it was a fine documentary,and had obvious relevance to the Pike River mine disaster. He said the closing commentary, shown immediately before the end-credits, made it obvious that the doco referred to current mining issues.
He then questioned, ” but where was the panel discussion afterwards? The government got off very lightly “.
Mr Frewen said that NZ on Air had been taken for a ride on “The GC”. The producers had noticed that there was “spare money sloshing around” and had presented “The GC” as a documentary for NZ on Air funding. He said the final product “was for advertisers, not for us“. He said programmes had to be made for the viewer, and not for advertisers, otherwise it was a commercial exercise and not public TV.
A question from the audience; “There were no votes in this. How do we get the public onboard? “
Clare Curran said she had a couple of suggestions.
Firstly, she said, we needed a public discussion on this. It won’t happen overnight, she said, but we needed a public conversation on this issue. She asked people to talk to friends, family, and workmates, to make this an issue.
Secondly, she invited people to vote for Labour, so that a Labour-led government could re-introduce a stronger public TV system, with guaranteed, ring-fenced funding and at arms-length from political interference.
Another question from the audience; “How do they calculate ratings for TVNZ7, especially for arts programmes? “
One of the panellists replied that Nielson collects data from 500 households, using an electronic box mounted on TV sets. The box collects information on when a TV is switch on and what channels and programmes are being watched.
However, the box does not monitor actual watching by the viewer, and does not record if the viewer stops watching to go make a cup of tea during the ad breaks, or if the viewer has left the room, or fallen asleep on the couch.
Another question; “How are the 500 households chosen? “
Answer; Households were chosen by their demographics, to ‘roughly represent’ the composition of New Zealand society. However, that demographics would not take into account small minorities,
“You won’t see Armenian programming on television “, one of the panellists remarked.
Another question; “Referencing the Leveson Inquiry [investigating Murdoch's corporate activities and corruption in the UK], should we be having a Royal Commission of Inquiry into media ownership in New Zealand ?”
Ms Curran answered the question by saying,
- We needed a public debate on media ownership in this country.
- The Commerce Commission was engaged in an investigation into media contracts and content.
Next question came from Tom Frewen, and pointedly asked Wallace Chapman,
“Why do you think there is no discission or reporting of this on other television networks? “
Mr Chapman relied that aside from ‘Media7‘ [media commentary programme on TVNZ7] broaching the subject, no other television channel wanted to be seen referencing this issue. He said it was not an issue that benefitted coverage by other television stations.
Dr Thompson asked the audience a question of his own; “If public TV was administered by a foundation, what should it look like? There were considerable infrastructure issues to work out with a fully independent public TV broadcaster, if it was to be separate from TVNZ. What sort of public TV do we want? “
One audience member offered a suggestion that an independent trust could be modelled on the charitable trust that owned the ‘Guardian‘ newspaper in the UK. He said it was important to remove TVNZ7 out of the hands of politicians.
Another audience member said that a charitable trust could be funded by the Lotteries Commission, and agreed that it was important to keep public TV out of the hands of politicians.
Another audience member suggested a subscription-style funding model, such as the PBS Network in the United States.
Dr Thompson replied that there were problems with that system in terms of ‘economies of scale’. New Zealand needed 270 million people to make a fully-funded subscription model work. There were simply not enough people in this country to make a voluntary subscription system work.
Tom Frewen added that a subscription model was another form of pay-TV. It would work only if there was no other available alternative model. He agreed with Dr Thompson that the population was too small to make it work properly.
Sue Kedgeley said she was not in favour of subscriptions either and would rather see at least one commercial-free, free-to-air TV channel.
Ms Curran said that NZ on Air needs to be looked at to see how they are spending their [taxpayers] money. She added,
“TVNZ7 should have been growing, so our children do not grow up with American accents. We need to have public TV independent of government, and funding ring-fenced. Labour is committed to public TV.”
One member of the audience stood, and was obviously passionate – if somewhat misguided in his criticisms – when he seemed to attack the politicians on the panel, demanding to know, over and over again,
“What are you doing about it? “
Ms Curran attempted to placate the obviously agitated man, and Grant Robertson stepped in to explain that the Opposition were the opposition because the public had not voted for opposition parties in sufficient numbers. He said that if the public wanted public TV, they have to support it at the ballot box,
Sue Kedgeley added that the public has not had a passionate debate on the issue, and that we needed a group to fight for public TV, much like ‘Greenpeace’ fought on behalf of the environment. “We need a Greenpeace-style body campaigning passionately for public TV and to carry it through “, she said.
Mr Chapman agreed that there was considerable public frustration on this issue.
This blogger then had an opportunity to address the audience and panel,
” I’ve no doubt that TVNZ7 will not be saved by this government. Unless 50,000 people take to the streets, National’s record of listening to the public is not great.
I suggest two ways that a future public TV channel could be kept out of politicians hands, because that, to me, is the greatest threat.
Firstly, funding should be independent. I suggest a body such as the Remuneration Authority which decides the pay and conditions of politicians and which is independent of their control. Such an independent body could be legislated to fund public TV and Radio NZ, and make funding automatically inflation adjusted. That takes control awqay from politicians.
Secondly, we need to use the power of contracts, which the New Right use to good effect, to bind governments to maintain public TV. A contract could be for a term of 7 years which would be two parliamentary terms plus one year. That should take it well out of the hands of any National government.”
The next member of the audience asked how many peple in the audience had Sky TV, and suggested that Sky customers suspend their subscriptions for one month, as protest against the demise of TVNZ7.
Another member of the public demanded to know, “Can we get Dr Thompson on TV? “
Wallace Chapman replied,
“I don’t know how we can do that. “
Dr Thompson added that his appearance on TV [to speak on behalf on TVNZ7] would be unlikely,
“State TV is to shy of upsetting government. “
He said that Jim Blackman, who ran ‘Stratos TV‘ until earlier this year, tried to link up with TVNZ7, and there were some talks on the issue, but nothing came of it. He suggested that people should get in touch with Mr Blackman and support him.
Grant Robertson then stood and said that he was promising to commit to forming a Campaign for Public Broadcasting and would work through the Save TVNZ7 website to keep people informed on progress.
He seemed determined that this would happen, and suggested that members of the audience should volunteer to participate.
Mr Robertson thanked the audience for turning up on a chilly Monday night, and thanked Wallace Chapman, for flying down from Auckland to attend and host this public meeting.
Grant Robertson also paid tribute to Wallace Chapman for his role in fronting ‘Backbenches’, and for making politics fun for viewers to watch.
There was a loud, enthusiastic round of applause from the audience, and the meeting concluded.
This blogger met the blogger from ‘Kumara Republic‘, and we chatted about our respective bloggings.
Copyright (c) Notice
All images are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
- Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
- Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Russell School Breakfast Club is requested.
- For non-commercial use, images may be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
= fs =
As previously reported (Money in the Banks Part #Toru), ACT President confirmed that John Banks had requested Kim Dotcom to split his $50,000 donation into two lots of $25,000, so they could be recorded as “anonymous”. He told Checkpoint’s Mary Wilson,
“He has given me an indication as to why he made that suggestion – and that was that he initially was going to put in $25,000 of his own money and he figured that other people should be putting in the same sort of numbers.”
However, in a bizarre twist, that original story has been removed from Radio NZ and has been replaced with this “correction”,
The story “ACT president confirms Banks suggested donation be split” no longer exists on the Radio NZ News page, and the hyper-link goes to the new story, “ACT president ‘mistaken’ over donation comment”.
George Orwell would be doubleplusgood happy at this example of re-written history – or “error correction”, as it was described in the novel of “1984″.
However, be that as it may, this blogger heard the original interview between Mary Wilson and Chris Simmons, and can confirm that Simmons did say,
“He has given me an indication as to why he made that suggestion – and that was that he initially was going to put in $25,000 of his own money and he figured that other people should be putting in the same sort of numbers.”
It occurs to this blogger that Simmons slipped up; inadvertantly stated a truth he did not intend to disclose; and has somehow pressured Radio NZ to remove all traces of that interview from the broadcaster’s website. (A screenshot of the above “correction story” has been kept, in case that story disappears as well. We are living in strange times.)
The issue was discussed on this evening’s “News and Late Edition”.
Related Blog Posts
= fs =
Perusing the on-line news section of Radio NZ, I was struck by this short story,
Help me out here, folks, ‘cos this is another one of our recent (?) behaviours that has me utterly perplexed. Now call me kinda old fashioned… But what kind of moron doesn’t let an ambulance pass?!?!
Perhaps it’s just another one of those human behaviours that has been with us, since the first Cave Child graffitied a nice piece of cave wall-art, about a zillion years ago.
Or, perhaps it’s an unpleasant reminder of the quantum-shift in some peoples’ thinking, that they are more important than anything/anyone else – including an ambulance with lights and sirens blazing/blaring, as the medics try to save some poor schmuck who is bleeding to death…
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the Ayn-Randian-Me-First attitude, that neo-liberalism espouses, than someone who refuses to move over because… well, because they don’t want to! Hell, I pay my taxes! I have a right to be on the road!! Screw everyone else!!
If that’s the case, I hope such people are a tiny, tiny, tiny minority. But, judging by the selfishness expressed on many internet fora – I sadly think not.
Just like the able-bodied person who parks in a Disabled Person’s carpark… “Hey, I’ll only be a few minutes!” Or, “Hey, why should they get all the best carparks?!”
Or the smoker who doesn’t care a hoot about lighting up in a car, with children in the car beside him/her (I’ve seen this myself)… “Hey, f****n nanny state isn’t going to tell me where I can or can’t smoke!“
And of course, there are the drunk drivers (those that are still alive) who drink; drive; and just don’t care.
It’s all human selfishness.
Once upon a time, selfishness was deemed an undesirable virtue. Now, there is practically an entire political ideology built around it.
Anyway, the point is simple: People! See the ambulance? Get out of the way! It could be your friend or family member they’re racing to assist!
And if you see some idiot holding up an ambo or fire appliance, despite lights and siren going full tit…
Use your cellphone; dial *555; and report the idiot.
The next life you save could be someone precious to you.
Support & Donations
Fellow blogger, Danyl Mclauchlan, from the excllent “Dim-Post“, was a guest on Radio NZ, this morning. The discussion revolved around poverty; the growing wealth-gap; and why “growing the pie” is an abject failure under current New Right social and economic conditions.
His comments are insightful and crystal clear to understand, and I recommend folks to have a listen, here.
Former education minister, Anne Tolley, and John Key have some serious explaining to do,
It is a serious matter for a Minister of the Crown to allege that a news-media story has been fabricated. Aside from being potentially slanderous – it is a distasteful mis-use of ministerial power. It is State power attempting to intimidate and destroy the credibility of the media.
This is Third World, banana-republic stuff.
It is not what we expect from our elected representative. (And make no mistake, MPs are our elected representatives – well-paid civil servants.)
“John Hone Riiwi Toia Mutu and wife Debroah Anne Mutu have been deregistered as teachers and ordered to pay $20,000 each in costs after a hearing by the Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal.
Mrs Mutu was a principal at Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Kaikohe in 2004 when her husband, who was a teacher at the school, was found on a mattress with a 15-year-old student.
Mrs Mutu tore up the student’s written complaint about the incident, which occurred when she was home alone.
Mr Mutu was suspended by the school’s board of trustees in 2007 and his wife resigned in 2008, but she was later employed as a principal at a Kaitaia school before being appointed one of the Education Ministry’s 46 student achievement practitioners.
The practitioners are ministry-appointed experts sent into schools to help them implement national standards.
Labour has accused Mrs Tolley of misleading Parliament and the public after education spokeswoman Sue Moroney raised questions at the final question time last term on October 6.
Mrs Tolley replied, saying “that principal has never been suspended”.
A ministry spokesman said the information it had provided Mrs Tolley “at the time was correct” and it became aware of the allegations against Mrs Mutu only subsequently, when she appeared before the Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal a few days later.
“The minister did not know at the time she answered questions in the House that Mrs Mutu had been stood down.
“Debroah Mutu had not fully disclosed the serious nature and extent of the charge against her to the ministry at any time prior to October 10.”
The ministry terminated Mrs Mutu’s practitioner role when it learnt she was before the tribunal, the spokesman said. It had since reviewed its secondment process.” – Source
This raises several issues,
- If, as a ministry of education spokesman claimed, “the information it had provided Mrs Tolley “at the time was correct” and it became aware of the allegations against Mrs Mutu only subsequently, when she appeared before the Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal a few days later” – why did Tolley not issue a correction in the House at the first available opportunity?
- Key was asked if Tolley should have issued a correction when she discovered the principal had been stood down and Key replied, “That’s one option always available to a minister to make sure they correct that.”
- Will Tolley be issuing an apology to Radio NZ?
- Tolley is paid $257,800 (up from $249,100 prior to November) as a Cabinet Minister. If it is not her responsibility to ensure that she deals in facts – whose responsibility is it?
- How does the apparent incompetence of the Ministry of Education relate to this government’s on-going cuts to civil servants? Are we going to see more of these horrendous mistakes as National makes further cuts to government departments – until their efficiency is serious degraded to such a level that they cannot function in any meaningful fasion?
- And is this how the leaky homes fiasco and the down-grading of the mining safety Inspecorate began?
Conclusions based on public information seems to indicate the following;
- Anne Tolley mis-led Parliament by making statements denying that the Mutu’s had been struck off.
- Tolley’s intemperate remarks attacking Radio NZ were an abuse of ministerial power.
- Tolley was advised within a week about the Mutu’s being struck off – and did nothing about it. Despite knowing the true situation, she made no effort to correct her earlier statement to the House.
- The effectiveness of the Ministry of Education, and other government departments, may be threatened as ideologically-driven cutbacks began to have inevitable consequences to public service competance and productivity.
Considering that Ms Tolley is now Minister of Police, I believe the public need to be confident that she is competant and not prone to lashing out at news media who raise valid issues.
This blogger considers that she is not up to the task, and should stand down.
“What Mr Dunne gets:
- No sale of KiwiBank or Radio New Zealand.
- Statutory limits will be introduced on the sale of public asset to no more than 49 per cent of shareholding to private interests and limits would be put on the extent of single entity ownership.
- A ban on guided helicopter hunting on conservation land will be introduced to Parliament.
- The budgets of both Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand will be maintained.
- The Families Commission will be revamped.
- There will be public consultation on Mr Dunne’s Flexi-Super policy.
- Guaranteed access to rivers, lakes, forests and coastline.
- An agreement to reintroduce Mr Dunne’s income sharing legislation which failed to win enough support in the last Parliament.
- Free health-checks for over 65-year-olds would also be investigated.“
Whoa…! Back up that coalition-pony, sonny boy!
“No sale of KiwiBank or Radio New Zealand“?!?!
Since when did National advocate or campaign on the privatisation of Kiwibank or Radio New Zealand?
In fact, John Key made it a campaign promise that Kiwibank was not up for sale, and that the only state assets on the block were Genesis Power, Meridian, Might River Power, Solid Energy, and Air New Zealand. No mention whatsoever of Radio NZ or Kiwibank.
What’s going on here?
Either Peter Dunne is telling fibs and creating a false “victory” – or else National had a secret agenda of further asset asales!?
Someone is misleading the public.
+++ Updates +++
The above article starts out positive and seemingly Dunne has succeeded in saving TVNZ7 from disappearing and being replaced by a shopping channel…
Until one reads this in the same piece,
“I would have preferred to have got a much more explicit agreement regarding the future of TVNZ 7 but the National Party wouldn’t go there.”
And Dunne then adds,
“TVNZ keeps saying it needs to run as a commercial body, and it obviously makes its own decisions, but I think it needs to recognise there is a significant chunk of the population that prefers the approach TVNZ 7 takes and would be very disappointed if that channel was to close.“
So he really hasn’t “saved TVNZ7″ at all. In fact, Dunne admitted as much this morning (Dec 6) on Radio NZ, when he said on “Morning Report“,
” …I wanted to get an absolute committment to the retention of TVNZ7. We weren’t able to get that. The government wasn’t prepared to make that, uh, concession…”
Ok, so let’s sum this up,
- Dunne get’s a promise from National that neither Kiwibank nor Radio NZ will be sold.
- But National never suggested selling Kiwibank or Radio NZ in the first place.
- So what kind of “victory” is it to get a committment on something that the Nats weren’t intending to do anyway?
- Dunne then negotiates to get an absolute committment to save TVNZ7.
- And fails.
Have I missed anything?
Moving right along…
“Free health-checks for over 65-year-olds” – ???
Great. More rip-offs from my generation, the Baby Boomers. Everyone else has to pay for health checks – but all of a sudden we get freebies?
Yet again Baby Boomers – being a sizeable bloc of voters – gain tax-payer funded social services whilst everyone else has user-pays.
No doubt these “free health checks” will be funded from that sale of state assets. Once again Baby Boomers are ripping off future generations for our own selfish benefit.
The word obscene comes to mind.
Email Peter Dunne to let him know what you think about asset sales:
Election Eleven – Monday
The last four days, and the election campaign is into the ‘last stretch’. Expect things to get interesting… dramatic… and desperate…
John Key and the growing “Cult of Personality”? So we really should start addressing him as “Dear Leader”?
Hmmmm, I didn’t realise that John Key won the Rugby World Cup? I’ve been mis-led – someone said it was the All Blacks!
Radio NZ invited both Phil Goff and John Key to debate on Morning Report. As per his M.O., Key refused. So much for his criticism of the media last week for focusing on the “Teapot Tapes” saga, rather than addressing the “ishoos”.
Phil Goff fronted on RNZ to be interviewed,
So while Phil Goff was addressing issues on Radio NZ – where was John Key? Missing in Action? Kidnapped by Grey aliens? Nope, here he is,
Is this what Key calls “discussing issues”?
Some people just don’t seem to “get it”…
I’m not sure if “Daniela” is a low-information voter who has totally mis-understand the aim of Labour’s letter – or is a National/ACT supporter deliberately ‘stirring the pot’.
By what stretch of imagination does “Daniela” think that the letter is “threatening”? Does she really think that Labour activists, aliens, or Moonies are going to break into her home; kidnap her; and transport her to a secret underground volcano lair???
But this bit really “takes the cake” and suggests to me that “Daniela” is happily fomenting mischief with this,
“Daniela also forwarded the flyer to the blogger Whale Oil, saying she was upset because she felt like the letter made it sound criminal to head back to work after having a baby.” Source
So let me get this straight; “Daniela” thinks that Labour is trying to “criminalise” her for heading back to work after having a baby?!
Does “Daniela” not realise that National actually does have a policy which attempts to force mothers of 1 year old children back to work? As the article states,
“National’s welfare policy would see sole parents asked to seek full-time work when their child turned 14, part-time when they turn five, and the work-testing of all sickness and invalid beneficiaries. If women have a subsequent child while already claiming a benefit they will have to look for work when that child is one year old. “
“Daniela” seems hopelessly confused by all this. She doesn’t seem to undersytand that Labour’s mail-out is actually making a factual statement. This excerpt is from TVNZ’s Q+A,
“GUYON Because this will, in some cases, mean that mum has to work full-time when the first child hits one, won’t they? Because it’s about returning to work obligations. So if you’ve got a 14-year-old, say, and you have another child when you’re on the DPB, you’ll have to work full-time when that child is one year old.
PAULA So your other children are 14. So you’ve got other children that are 14 years and older, you’re on welfare, and then you have another baby, so there’s not many. So last year, there were about 70 of them, and yes, they will have to look for full-time work.
GUYON So who’s gonna care for the kid?
PAULA Well, it’s within respect, as well, that it does need to fit in, so we’re not gonna make them work all night, for example, and then look after children all day. The job kind of needs to fit with them. But there is going to be childcare options. And, actually, people do it now.
GUYON Let me take you back to when you first came into parliament. You made a speech in 2005. I’ll quote from it. You say, ‘As we are pushed to increase women’s participation in the workforce, we need to ask the question of who will be raising the next generation, and a lot of women are saying that they would like to – that staying at home and raising their children is an option they would like not only to have, but one they would like to be actively encouraged to do.’
PAULA Yeah.” Source
So it is National’s policy to make mothers of 1 year olds to seek work outside the home.
And it would be likely that, given such a new “Nanny Statish” law forcing new mothers to practically abandon their baby, they may well end up missing their child’s first birthday.
I hope someone brings all this to “Daniela’s” attention. Because so far, she either doesn’t get it – or she’s playing to someone elses agenda.
Which is it, “Daniela”?
The following is a brief, 1.03 minute excerpt from a fuller interview held on Radio NZ’s “Nine to Noon” show, hosted by Kathryn Ryan.
Rod Oram is a New Zealand journalist writing on corporate, economic and political issues. He is a columnist for ‘The Sunday Star-Times’ and ‘Good Magazine’, a regular broadcaster on radio and television and a frequent public speaker. He is an adjunct professor in the business school at Unitec in Auckland and he has contributed to several regional economic development projects. – Wikipedia
In 1.03 minutes, Oram raises a serious question as to the economic logic behind part-selling state assets.
The full interview can be heard here. (Worth while.)
Acknowledgement and thanks to Josephine for bringing this to my attention.
It seems that practically any criticism of our Dear Leader, these days, elicits a critical response from certain quarters. Robyn Malcolm’s remarks at the opening of the Greens’ campaign have been described by the NZ Herald, as “vitriolic”,
The NZ Herald article carries on with similar comments,
“But fronting the campaign opening in Wellington, Malcolm savaged Mr Key’s performance.” – Ibid
Robyn Malcolm’s comments consisted of the following,
“”We have a leader who seems to be more interested in talking about his cats on the radio, being seen at the rugby and getting on the cover of the Woman’s Weekly. I thought that was my job…”
“We ended up voting in a Government who’ve revealed their total lack of interest in leading us into the 21st century with any innovation, courage, or social integrity, despite what a nice guy he [Mr Key] seems to be…”
“An unshakeable and abiding love of fossil fuels … and an inability to follow through on promises of any kind, but will make anything up for a Hollywood mogul should they happen to come down this way…” ” – Ibid
Ms Malcolm’s comments are critical, certainly. Hard-hitting, probably.
But “vitriolic“? And “savaging“?
These are subjective interpretations – opinion – not impartial reporting. To some people, Ms Malcolm’s remarks would be harsh. To others, they would be fair comment. The determination of how we, the public, might feel about her statements should be left up to us to determine – not prompted by a media report.
Gordon McLauchlan, on Jim Mora’s Radio NZ afternoon panel, made precisely the same pertinent observations and criticised the Herald’s slanted reporting of this event.
One wonders how it came to pass in this country, that an ordinary citizen can be vilified in such a manner by the press, for daring to criticise our elected representatives. This sort of thing was more common in my parents’ country-of-birth, prior to the collapse of the Soviet empire.
As an aside; I heard most of Ms Malcolm’s speech on the radio. I was driving at the time, so wasn’t paying much attention. What I can recall is that she was certainly critical of John Key and his love-affair with photo-opportunities – but certainly did not sound anywhere near “vitiriolic”. Quite the opposite, I considered her words and tone to be quite measured and reasonable.
If anyone has been “savaged” – it is Robyn Malcolm by the unreasonable editorialising in the Herald’s article. The tone and wording of that article is truly, vitriolic.
What is just as bad, is the outrageous hypocrisy shown by Auckland City Councillor, Cameron Brewer, who joined in the hysterical condemnation of Ms Malcolm. Brewer was reported in the same newspaper (NZ Herald) as saying,
“Given Robyn Malcolm is clearly so anti the Government and the Prime Minister, she is far too partisan to front this all-important public consultation and plan . Her personal politics will really colour this council and the plan itself. It is just not appropriate in local government to employ someone whose politics are so pointed to be fronting a public consultation campaign.” Source
Brewer has demanded that Ms Malcolm be replaced because of her perceived partisanship, saying,
“The mayor now needs to urgently reconsider whether she is the best ambassador to launch the plan.” – Ibid
Is this the same Cameron Brewer who recently considered seeking the candidacy for the National Party in the Tamaki electorate?
Why yes, I believe it is.
So, let’s be quite clear about what Cameron Brewer is saying;
- Voicing comments that are anti-government and critical of John Key makes it “inappropriate” for Robyn Malcolm to be connected with an Auckland City Council project because she could be seen as “partisan”, is not acceptable.
- Supporting the current government and intending to stand as one of their candidates, whilst being a member of the same Auckland City Council, is not partisan and is acceptable.
My parents came from an Eastern European country that, prior to 1989, had been ruled by the local Communist Party. The power and influence of the Party reached into all areas of public life.
For example, if, as a teenager, you wanted to go to University then you had to be a member of the youth wing of the Party, the “Young Communists”. If you wanted a good job, you had to be a full member, in good standing, of the Communist Party.
I think we know where I’m coming from on this issue.
In essence, for Brewer to accept Robyn Malcolm as the representative of Auckland’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, she must be a card-carrying, Key-cuddling, member of the National Party.
Thank you, Comrade Brewer, for showing us how little you value political diversity of opinion.
Will you be following up with a One-Party state and Gulag prisons for dissidents such as Ms Malcolm?
And me next, I suppose?
Another of National’s public “mission statements” on their billboards promises, “More exports, more real jobs”,
However, National past policies in cutting training programmes has seen an increase in youth unemployment from 25,000 to 58,000.
National’s Grand Plan, at it’s recent Conference was simply to introduce a “bene card” and pay beneficiaries’ living costs directly.
The only problem is;
A) A “bene card” to stop 16 and 17 year olds from buying booze and tobacco is kinda pointless when it’s already illegal for retailers to sell these products to 16 and 17 year olds.
B) WINZ already has the option to pay rent, power, and phone directly for beneficiaries.
Of course, one also has to wonder if this is as good as it gets under National – a “bene card”?!
This is a far cry from National’s bold election statements in 2008,
The National Party has an economic plan that will build the foundations for a better future.
- We will focus on lifting medium-term economic performance and managing taxpayers’ money effectively.
- We will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates.
- We will cut taxes, not just in election year, but in a regular programme of ongoing tax cuts.
- We will invest in the infrastructure this country needs for productivity growth.
- We will be more careful with how we spend the cash in the public purse, monitoring not just the quantity but also the quality of government spending.
- We will concentrate on equipping young New Zealanders with the education they need for a 21st century global economy.
- We will reduce the burden of compliance and bureaucracy, and we will say goodbye to the blind ideology that locks the private sector out of too many parts of our economy.
- And we will do all of this while improving the public services that Kiwis have a right to expect. Source
Instead of “concentrating on equipping young New Zealanders with the education they need for a 21st century global economy“, National has cut the Training Incentive Allowance and $146 million from skills training,
Even their much vaunted cycleway has not produced the 4,000 jobs that were anticipated,
It is little wonder then, that even “Business NZ” – this country’s employer group and traditionally allied to the National Party - has voiced serious concerns about National’s ability to lead this country and questions whether it has any long-term economic policy,
Deloitte New Zealand’s chief executive Murray Jack stated with brutal candour,
“Despite the prime minister saying this morning he has confidence in his party’s plan, a lot of people in this room are not sure there is one.”
When National’s own allies voice doubts that National has any coherent plan – then it is time to get worried. Very, very worried. Rod Oram also voices his doubts.
It is time for New Zealanders to consider: does National have plan for economic growth; increase wages; and reduce unemployment?
Or is it sitting back and replying on the “free market” to achieve it’s lofty-sounding goals and promises? Is National relying on a “roap map” – or a “wish list”?
Labour may not be perfect, but they are sounding a whole lot more cohent than their rivals.
Well, it looks like the unemployment rates are not “co-operating” with National’s stated intentions,
Left-wing critic; blogger; and media commentator, Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, 36, is a semi-regular guest on Radio New Zealand’s “Afternoons with Jim Mora” Panel – a segment hosted between 4pm to 5pm, each weekday. “Bomber” Bradbury is invited to participate once a month or thereabouts.
During the course of this hour, the host – Jim Mora – features topics of interest and often contains a degree of controversy. Panellists range in political belief from the right wing such as Mathew Hooton and David Farrar, to the left, such as Martyn Bradbury and Dr Brian Edwards.
During this hour, Jim Mora always asks panellists, “What’s been on your mind?”. His guests are invited to share any pressing particular issue that they might feel merits consideration. It can literally be on any issue dear to each Guest.
On 5 October, a 54 year old man sitting in the public gallery at Parliament attempted to jump over the Public Gallery balustrade and into the debating chamber. He was restrained by members of the public and security guards, before the man could complete his jump, thereby averting serious injury to himself and to anyone below him. More here.
During this incident, the Prime Minister was heard making several comments directed at the Labour Party MPs seated across the Debating Chamber from him.
He was also seen to make a peculiar motion across his throat, which has been described by many as a “throat slitting gesture”,
[Click image for video]
By coincidence, “Bomber” Bradbury was scheduled to be a guest panellist on Jim Mora’s show the following day. When asked “What’s been on your mind?” by Jim Mora, “Bomber” gave his critical opinion of John Key’s (alleged) “throat slitting gesture”.
The 4pm-5pm Panellist comments are normally presented on RNZ’s websites in two parts, split in two to account for the 4.30pm News Update.
As an example, note the “Audio from Wednesday 5 October 2011″. Click here for webpage.
However, the “Audio from Thursday 6 October 2011″ contains only Part 1. Part 2 has been removed. Click here for webpage.
However, “Bombers” comments were discussed on Mediawatch for 9 October. (Relevant commentary begins at 26.05)
Bradbury’s comments are highly critical of the Prime Minister’s actions on the day of the “Balcony Jumper”, and describes Key in unflattering terms.
So because Bradbury has criticised John Key’s actions, CEO Peter Cavanaugh has banned him from participating in Radio NZ again, and has removed Part Two of the Panellists Hour.
Martyn Bradbury explains the situation here.
If this doesn’t smack of Big Brother, then what does? In effect, Cavanaugh accepts right wing critical comments – often directed at the Greens or the Labour Party – but balks at criticism of the Prime Minister?!
Since when has it been a bannable offense to criticise the Prime Minister?
If you find Peter Cavanaugh’s actions reprehensible, then here are the appropriate email addresses to write to:
Peter Cavanagh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
RNZ’s Facebook page:
Other email addresses that might be useful:
Jim Mora <email@example.com>
The Press <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dominion Post <email@example.com>
Sunday Star Times <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The Listener <email@example.com>
NZ Herald <firstname.lastname@example.org>
“An attack on one is an attack on all.“
Email correspondence on this issue
On Monday, soon after learning of Radio NZ’s bizarre decision to “Ban the ‘Bomber’ B”, I fired of three emails to various email addresses for the SOE. This is the one email I recieved a response to,
date: Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM
subject: Recent Events…
Your recent banning of Martyn Bradbury reeks of muzzling freedom of expression. Will you also be banning right wing commentators David Farrar and Mathew Hooten? I heard Bradbury’s so-called “offending comments” and found nothing offensive or defamatory amongst them.
I sincerely hope that saner heads prevail at RNZ and this crazy decision is rescinded. Or have we reached a stage here in NZ that criticising the Dear Leader (formerly known as the Prime Minister) is no longer permitted?
Shame on you, RNZ – you are capable of much more than this kind of pettiness.
Today (Tuesday, 11 October), I received this response, from their Communications Manager, John Barr,
from: Feedback email@example.com
date: Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:40 PM
subject: RE: Recent Events…
Thanks for taking the time to contact Radio New Zealand. We appreciate feedback from our regular listeners and I can assure you that your comments about Martyn Bradbury have been noted and passed on to the relevant people at Radio New Zealand National.
Radio New Zealand has monitored and noted the on-line, email, and blog discussions over recent days relating to The Panel and Martyn Bradbury’s performance last week. There are several points that need to be made.
Mr Bradbury has not been banned from Radio New Zealand. He was told that his invitation to appear as a future panellist on Afternoons had been withdrawn but there was no suggestion that it applied to other programmes.
Radio New Zealand received many complaints from listeners regarding Mr. Bradbury’s comments on The Panel during Afternoons with Jim Mora last Thursday.
The decision to withdraw Mr. Bradbury’s invitation to take part in future editions of The Panel was made by the programme’s Executive Producer immediately after the programme. That decision was supported by the senior manager responsible for the programme and subsequently by the Chief Executive and Editor-in-Chief.
Mr. Bradbury’s invitation to participate on The Panel was withdrawn because his personal comments about the Prime Minister were deemed to be in breach of Radio New Zealand’s editorial requirements for fairness and balance. One of his comments was regarded as being potentially defamatory. The segment in question was removed from the Radio New Zealand website because it was considered to be potentially defamatory and Radio New Zealand has a duty to protect the organization against defamation proceedings.
Participants on The Panel on Afternoons with Jim Mora are given plenty of latitude to express personal opinions but it is expected that these will be presented for engagement and discussion and that panellists will conform to Radio New Zealand’s editorial policies and broadcast standards. A relationship of trust and confidence between the programme presenter, producers, and panellists is essential for the programme to be effective.
Mr Bradbury’s comments on The Panel on Afternoons last Thursday were inconsistent with information he had provided to programme producers before going on air and Mr Bradbury later apologised to the programme’s Executive Producer.
It was made clear to him that while his invitation to appear as an occasional guest on The Panel was being withdrawn, it was not a ‘lifelong ban’.
I hope this information clarifies some of the issues that have been raised over the last few days.
Thanks again for your email.
This is a Standard Response, sent to several people who have also taken time to voice their concerns to Radio NZ. It is also – according to ‘Bomber’ Bradbury, more or less utter BS. (Read ‘Bomber’s’ response here.)
It astounds me that someone of Mr Barr’s education (I assume) could think to send out such comments and not realise that with the internet, his claims could be dissected and countered as rapidly as it takes to write a response and post it on-line. It makes Radio NZ appear to be panicking and desperate as they try to cover their arses.
Obviously government funding cut-backs have impacted severely on the quality of Radio NZ’s PR department.
Perhaps the strangest of Mr Barr’s comments was this,
“Mr. Bradbury’s invitation to participate on The Panel was withdrawn because his personal comments about the Prime Minister were deemed to be in breach of Radio New Zealand’s editorial requirements for fairness and balance.”
That is absurd rubbish. There is no such requirement for Guest political commentators to be “fair and balanced” – just as there is no requirement for politicians guesting on Radio NZ to be “fair and balanced”. Can you imagine this scene taking place in Radio NZ’s studio,
Host: “Welcome, Mr Prime Minister.”
John Key: “You’re welcome, it’s good to be here.” [smiles on-microphone]
Host: “Now before we begin, Mr Prime Minister, I just have to remind you that you have to be fair and balanced in what you say today. That means explaining Labour’s taxation and welfare policies, in an unbiased, non-partisan way.
John Key: “Sure. No problem” [waves to studio technicians]
Host: “So can you tell the listeners, Mr Prime Minister, which taxation policy is the fairest for all New Zealanders, and not just the top ten percent?”
John Key: “No problem. Obviously Labour’s taxation policies are vastly fairer in that their system is progressive, and their Capital Gain Tax captures those who up till now have escaped paying their fair share. By contrast, my government’s policies have impacted unfairly on the poorest in our society, and our opposition to a Capital Gains Tax simply perpetuates inequities.” [smiles and waves at people outside studio, looking in]
It is not up to invited guests to be “fair and balanced”. Guests present their own individual, particular, viewpoints.
Instead, it is Radio NZ’s responsibility to invite guests from various, differing, viewpoints. This, then presents a “fair and balanced” debate.
No doubt Mr Barr and Radio NZ’s hierarchy is well aware of this salient point. I am guessing that Radio NZ’s management have simply hoped that the public are thick enough to swallow their line that “guests have to be fair and balanced”.
Do they really think so poorly of their listening audience?
It’s definitely “Amateur Hour” at Radio NZ at the moment.
Right-wing blogger and National Party activist, David Farrar, was today one of the two guests on Jim Mora’s Panel today (11 October).
Was Farrar instructed that he was “required to be fair and balanced” in his comments?
I truly suspect he was not.
Received today, a second response from Radio NZ. This time from the Chief Executive and Editor-in-Chief, Peter Cavanagh,
from: Peter Cavanagh Peter.Cavanagh@radionz.co.nz
date: Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:08 AM
subject: RE: Recent events
Dear Mr. Macskasy,
Thank you for your recent email.
I understand that you also contacted other staff at Radio New Zealand and have subsequently received a detailed response from our Communications Manager, John Barr.
I hope this information has clarified the issues raised.
Chief Executive and Editor-in-Chief
Has John Barr’s “detailed response” to me “clarified the issues”?
No, Mr Cavanagh, it has not.
Related Blog Stories
Defusing The Bomber
- Chris Trotter, Bowalley Road.blogspot.com
Banned from Radio NZ for criticizing the Government
- Martyn ‘Bomber’ Bradbury, Tumeke
Radio New Zealand needs to clarify position on Bomber ban
- Phoebe Fletcher, Tumeke
Dropping the Bomber
- Russell Brown, Publicaddress.net
On RNZ’s banning of Bomber Bradbury
- Gordonb Campbell, gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz
Censoring criticism of Key
- Anthony R0bins, The Standard
Let the courts decide
- the sprout, The Standard
Bomber Bradbury – a gutless reaction by Radio New Zealand that smacks of political hypersensitivity.
You have the right to free speech as long as you’re not dumb enough to actually try it
- Andrew Geddis, Pundit
And from the “Champions of Free Speech” *cough*
Radio NZ and Bradbury
- David Farrar, Kiwiblog
On The Bradbury Ban