Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Jim Mora’

Ali Jones rips right wing blogger a “new one” on Radio NZ’s “The Panel”

.

 

 

 

.

Unexpected fireworks erupted on Jim Mora’s ‘The Panel’ on Radio NZ on Tuesday 15 May when PR consultant and  former Christchurch City Councillor, Ali Jones, took on National Party apparatchik, pollster, wannabe Bond-villain, and right-wing blogger, David Farrar.

Farrar began by parroting the current National party propaganda line – at 1.51 – that “despite being nine years in opposition, the government hasn’t actually come in with a lot of detailed policy“.

Ali Jones responded – at 3.15 – taking umbrage at Farrar’s pro-National spin. She replied with a scathing critique of National’s poor track record for the last nine years. It is worth listening to;

.

.

National’s artificially manufactured reputation for “sound/prudent fiscal management” didn’t just take another hit from Ms Jones.  It got a swift, hard kick in the ‘goolies’ by a person unwilling to take any bullshit from one of National’s chief apologists.

Nicely aimed and delivered, Ms Jones.

.

.

.

References

Radio NZ: Labour accused of doing nothing but setting up committees (alt.link)

P & R Communications

The Press: Ali Jones not seeking second term on Christchurch City Council

Kiwiblog

Previous related blogposts

The Mendacities of Mr English – No, I wasn’t told – Yes, I was told

National’s housing spokesperson Michael Woodhouse – delusional or outright fibber?

The many mendacities of Mr Bridges – a few volts short of an EV

Newsflash: apparently our public hospital system is in crisis?!

National spins new “fake news” narrative: there is no health crisis

.

.

.

.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 16 May 2018.

.

.

= fs =

“Moral mandates”, “mass medication”, and Mayors vs Ministers

.

“Moral mandates”

.

Nats look to 2014 governing options

Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Nats look to 2014 governing options

.

What was that about “moral mandate”, Dear Leader?

Key said the largest party had the “moral mandate” to govern.

“If National was to go out there and poll 46 per cent or 47 per cent – very similar to the result in 2011 – and not form the Government I think there would be outrage in NZ.”

So Key now believes in large numbers and percentages?

Interesting.

Because he certainly paid no heed to the Will of the Electorate when the majority (up to 75% in some polls)  opposed partial privatisation of   State assets.

Nor did Key pay any attention to  the finer points of the results of the  2011 election.  The majority of Party Votes  went to  parties opposing  asset sales,

.

National , ACT, United Future Party Votes Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori Party, Mana, and Conservative Party votes

National – 1,058,636

Labour – 614,937

ACT – 23,889

Greens – 247,372

United Future – 13,443

NZ First – 147,544

Maori Party – 31,982

Mana – 24,168

Conservative Party* – 59,237

TOTAL – 1,095,968

Total – 1,125,240

.

So even though the Conservative gained no seats in Parliament (*because of the 5% threshold),  they gained over double the electoral-support for ACT. The Conservative Party, it should be noted, opposed asset sales.

It certainly did not matter to Dear Leader on the issue of public opposition to asset sales. He was more than willing to ignore the majority of New Zealanders who opposed his privatisation agenda.

Key’s claim that “morally” he should lead the next government post-2014 because National may be the largest Party  in Parliament – he should remember one thing;  size doesn’t always count.

Key’s assertion  on having a so-called “moral mandate” to govern post-2014, is  obviously a  message directed at  Winston Peters.

His message to Peters  is simple – ‘if we’re the biggest party, then we are the rightful government. And we will push this meme in the public consciousness which will make life difficult for you if you don’t co-operate’.

This is the kind of deviousness which National’s party strategist (taxpayer funded, no doubt) has come up with, to ensure a third term for John Key.

It now falls upon Peters to see if he’ll cave to pressure from the Nats.

Other Blogs

The Standard:  Moral mandates

The Pundit:   On coming first, yet losing

*

.

“Mass medication”

.

Radio NZ logo - Jim Mora's 4-5 Panel Edwards Boag

.

A curious event took place on Monday 1 July on Radio NZ’s Jim Mora’s panel…

His guests that afternon were left-wing, Labour supporter, Dr Brian Edwards and right wing, National supporter, Michelle Boag.

One of the topics of discussion was fluoridation of  urban water supplies. As is usual on issues like this, the debate became passionate.

But curiously, it was the position taken by each guest, Brian Edwards and Michelle Boag, that I found curious.

Usually, a left-winger will argue from a position of Collective action and responsibility. Like the issue of Food in Schools, the Lefts supports the stance that raising children, and ensuring their well-being, is a community responsibility.

The Right usually argues from a position of Individual choice  and responsibility. On the issue of Food in Schools, the Right reject any notion of collective responsibility and instead hold to  total parental responsibility as a default position.

I expected the same in the fluoridation debate between Brian and Michelle – only to find their positions reversed.

Brian was advocating from a Libertarian position of individual choice. He opposed flouridation.

Michelle was supporting the Collectivist position for a socialised benefit. She supported flouridation.

Their debate can be heard here:

Quicktime - Radio NZ - Jim Mora - 1 July 2013

Such complex creatures we humans are…

.

Mayors vs Ministers

.

Eqypt is not the only country wracked with coup d’états.

On  30th March 2010, National seized control of Environment Canterbury, postponing elections, and three weeks later appointing seven, un-elected Commissioners to run the body. The new Commissioners  were vested with new powers to  implement regional plans for Canterbury that could not appealed to the Environment Court (except to the High Court on points of law).

Roger Young, a trustee of the Water Rights Trust,  suggested one of the prime movers for central government seizing control of ECAN was the vexed problem of water rights in the Canterbury region,

After the commissioners’ own recommendations for a mixed member governance model at ECan post-2013 were ignored by the government, we see ECan now as simply a puppet to the bidding of a government which appears determined to increase irrigation and intensive farming in Canterbury despite the first order priorities in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

The slow pace of change behind the farm gate means that we will still have rising stocks of dirty water at a level that will haunt Cantabrians for decades.”

Acknowledgement: NBR – ECan ‘just a puppet to government bidding

The Canterbury Central Plains Water project is a half-billion dollar project, and National Ministers wanted to ensure that the money was spent according to their agenda. As we all know, farmers tend to vote National.

Three years later, and National has extended it’s power in the Canterbury region  “to oversee the Council’s consents department”. We are told that this was by invitation by the CCC.  I am reminded of puppet regimes that, once installed by a Super Power (former-USSR, US, China, etc) , duly “invited” their sponsor to send troops to help prop up the proxy government.

Was the Christchurch City Council “persuaded” by Gerry Brownlee to  “invite the Minister for Local Government, Chris Tremain, to put in place a Crown Manager to oversee the Council’s consents department“? Were there back-room dealings where Mayor Bob Parker was issued an ultimatum by Brownlee;

‘Invite us to take over; save face; and save your arse at the up-coming local body elections – or we’ll take over anyway; you have egg on your face; and Lianne Dalziel takes over as Mayor in October – Your call.’

Is that the discrete conversation that took place between Bob Parker and Gerry Brownlee?

I suspect so.

Central Government: 2

Local Government: nil

Another recent announcement had John Key confirming central government’s support for Auckland Council’s rail loop and other transport plans.

Len Brown was, understandably, ecstatic. Christmas has come early for the Auckland Mayor,

I am delighted the government has agreed to support this project

I want to acknowledge Aucklanders for being very clear in their support for this project.”

However, the Nats are not ones to offer something without expecting something else in return,

.

City's shares eyed for rail

Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – City’s shares eyed for rail

.

So central government will pay up a few billion bucks to upgrade Auckland’s transport system – but the Nats expect Auckland City to privatise their community owned assets?

Cheeky buggers.

Draw: 1 all

When it comes to Nanny State, National out-performs the previous Labour government in spades. Labour hardly ever engaged to this degree of interference in local government affairs.  Executive power under National is growing, and impacting more on our lives.

With National intending to increase the powers of the GCSB and force telecommunications companies to store and hand over data to police and the spy agencies, the state’s influence in our lives grows day by day.

By comparison, Labour was practically a hands-off, “libertarian” style government.

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 5 July 2013.

 

*

References

Sharechat.co.nz:  Environment Canterbury elections cancelled as commissioners appointed (30 Match 2010)

Fairfax Media: Environment Canterbury commissioners named (22 April 2010)

Ministry for Primary Industries:  Government funding for Central Plains Water Irrigation (18 Feb 2013)

NBR: ECan ‘just a puppet to government bidding’ (14 March 2013)

Interest.co.nz:  Auckland Mayor celebrates Government’s agreement to support rail loop (26 June 2013)

NZ Herald:  City’s shares eyed for rail (1 July 2013)

Interest.co.nz: PM Key says IANZ decision to strip Christchurch Council of consenting power is ‘unprecedented’ (1 July 2013)

Christchurch City Council:  Council to invite Crown Manager to oversee consenting  (3 July 2013)

.

.

= fs =

Bolivia, New Zealand, and Tony Kokshoorn

.

.

As the economy continues to stagnatebusiness 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.”

See:  Govt confirms no mining Schedule 4, 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. “

See:  Mineral hunt in heritage areas

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.”

See:   Key: No mining in world heritage areas

.

.

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”.  “

See:  Mineral hunt in heritage areas

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 !

See:  How would outstanding  areas  be degraded by gold mining?

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”. “

See: Poll backing for more mineral searches cheers Key

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

As well,

”  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. “

See:  Balance of payments of Australia

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,

.

Bolivia

New Zealand

Population

10,629,000 [2]

4,416,000 [1]

Gross domestic product (2011)

US$24.604 billion [2]

US$161.851 billion [1]

Gross domestic product per capita (2011)

US$2,314.826 [2]

US$36,648.204 [1]

GDP Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) Total (2011)

$50.904 billion [2]

$122.193 billion [1]

GDP Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) per capita (2011)

$4,789.212 [2]

$27,668.367 [1]

Gini coefficient [3]

58.2 (high, 2009) [3]

36.2 (medium, 1997) [3]

Unemployment

5.5% (est.) [4]

6.5% (est.) [5]

Growth

5.1% (2011 est.) [4]

2% (2011 est.) [5]

Inflation

6.5% (2011 est.) [4]

4.5% (2011 est.) [5]

.

Sources

[1] Source IMF

[2] Source IMF

[3] 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) .

[4]CIA Factbook

[5] 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%).

See: Wikipedia Bolivia Economy

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.

See: Taxation and Royalties for Mining Companies

This Fairfax article is  illuminating,

.

Full story

.

Compare,

” Crown royalties from the mining industry returned just $6.5 million last year… “

With,

” 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.

See: Taxation and Royalties for Mining Companies

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.”

“More tax”?

Doubtful.

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. “

See: Key ‘no GST rise’ video emerges

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

See: Key Facts of New Zealand Mining

By comparison, the tourism sector plays a significant role in New Zealand’s economy,

Tourism Satellite Account 2011 Report [1 MB PDF]

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.

See:   Ministry of Economic Development – Tourism satellite account

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;

  1. Mining is not as beneficial to a modern economy as some insist.
  2. Bolivia is a mining nation and is lagging behind New Zealand in per capita income.
  3. Bolivia’s GDP is growing 2.5 times faster than ours – but so is their inflation, whilst incomes still lag behind ours.
  4. 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
  5. Australia is far too reliant on mining wealth; their economy is far too dependent on commodities; and they need to diversify.
  6. Crown Royalties are minimal – 1-5% .
  7. Big profits by foreign-owned mining companies leave New Zealand.
  8. Open cast mining creates a considerable impact on the environment, despite claims to contrary.
  9. Mining companies enjoy  a taxation regime that  “is generally regarded as concessionary”.
  10. 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.

See:  Poll backing for more mineral searches cheers Key

I know who I believe.

.

*

.

Additional

NZ Herald:  Optimism dips in struggling economy

NZ Herald:  Poll backing for more mineral searches cheers Key

Fairfax Media: NZ economic growth ‘unspectacular’

NZ Herald:  Unemployment rate lifts to 6.7pc

Crown Minerals Act 1991

.

.

= fs =

State Media Bans Dissident!

10 October 2011 13 comments


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 <rnz@radionz.co.nz>

feedback@radionz.co.nz

RNZ’s Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/RadioNewZealand

Other email addresses that might be useful:

Jim Mora <afternoons@radionz.co.nz>

The Press <letters@press.co.nz>

Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>

Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>

The Listener <letters@listener.co.nz>

NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>

.

Boycott!

.

Email!

.

Make Noise!

.

.

.

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,

from:    [email]
to:    feedback@radionz.co.nz
date:    Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM
subject:    Recent Events…

Sir/Madam,

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.

-Frank Macskasy

Today (Tuesday, 11 October), I received this response, from their Communications Manager, John Barr,

from:    Feedback feedback@radionz.co.nz
to:    [email]
date:    Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:40 PM
subject:    RE: Recent Events…

Hi Frank,

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.

John Barr
Communications Manager

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]

Ridiculous, eh?

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.

Postscript: Tuesday

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.

Postscript: Wednesday

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
to:         [email]
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.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Cavanagh
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.
– brianedwardsmedia.co.nz

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
– imperatorfish.com

.

.