General Debate 17 February 2012

February 17th, 2012 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel
Tags:

121 Responses to “General Debate 17 February 2012”

  1. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (346 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10785881

    For decades we have spent more than we earned as a nation and funded the difference by borrowing foreign money through our banks, or directly in the form of companies borrowing offshore or the government borrowing from foreign funds and banks. If we couldn’t borrow the money, we would sell assets, be it companies, land or state assets …

    But in our bones we knew we couldn’t, and it’s great to see Justice Miller at the High Court now tell us in this decision it has to stop, even if the government can’t or won’t do it.

    His ruling that any foreign buyer has to prove a bigger benefit to the nation than a local buyer sets a very high threshold.

    How long before this is applied to SOE partial sales?
    I guess it is tricky for Lazy Labour, Winston First or even the Inexperienced Greens to ask for an injunction or whatever – after all, Parliament itself is supposed to be the highest court in the land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    The minimum wage increase to $13.50 has been described as ‘tragic’.

    Tragic for who? Would $15 be tragic? For who?

    (It’s worth noting that ‘minimum’ is not complusory).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. immigant (950 comments) says:

    If the minimum wage is raised, does that mean that even if you are not on the minumum wage you pay goes up a little?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    immigant – there’s certainly pressure on wages above the new minimum to go up. And who were above the old minimum and end up on the new minimum.

    People on slightly higher wages don’t like to effectively be dragged back to the bottom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    I just heard a reasonable and sensible interview on NatRad with Charles Chauvel on proposed changes to legal aid. He accepts that Labour increased costas when the economy was better and that we need to look at how to trim costs – but the suggested changes are being criticised widely in legal circles.

    A revisit to the drawing board sounds like a good idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Keeping Stock (10,443 comments) says:

    So; who paid for the 43yo would-be prostitute to fly down to Wellington yesterday to do the media circuit? The Herald says “the Green Party” flew her down, but was any public money used for what was essentially a media stunt?

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/who-paid.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. wat dabney (3,814 comments) says:

    Jesus Christ, Hickey is an ignorant dolt. Why would anyone pay even 1c to buy such drivel?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    @Keeping Stock: So the Gweens have enough money to fund a publicity stunt and send a potential hooker to Wellington to watch the House from the Public Gallery, but not enough money to give Mojo Mathers the funding she (very publicly) demanded?

    Their sense of fiscal priorities is staggering…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    @Keeping Stock – do parties have public funds available to pay for non-MP and non-parliamentary employee travel?

    Maybe they paid for it out of their PR budgetseeing as it was a media trick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Oskar (34 comments) says:

    I see that Dr Russel Norman has got all upset at the involvement of Chinese officials meeting with the OIO and the NZ Embassy in Beijing confirming information provided by Shanghai Pengxin
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6431327/Greens-Crafar-approval-politically-motivated

    Putting aside the emotion around this particular deal what does Dr Russel Norman think is the role of Embassies overseas?
    It is not just to act as tour guides for visiting MP’s and their partners.

    All Embassies work to further the political, cultural and commercial interests of their country.
    Which is exactly what the NZ Embassy in Beijing would have been doing in verifying information and exactly what the Chinese officials would have been doing in seeking clarification of OIO rules.

    It may came as a surprise to Dr Russel Norman but this is exactly what NZ Embassy officials from the Ambassador down also do all the time in supporting NZ companies overseas. This can sometimes take the form of a direct approach on behalf a company to overseas authorities over some issue that affects that company. It can also involve meetings with overseas authorities to understand their requirements so the NZ company can not fall foul of the rules or can submit a proposal that contains all the required information. It can also involve lobbying a foreign government should they be proposing a change in regulations that is seen as not being in NZ’s interests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. immigant (950 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock

    Regarding that prostitute, I did not understand what the story was about. She earns almost as much average wage, doesn’t go to work, so presumably has a bit of free time, and a kid to care for. Needs a bit of extra cash and instead of running a small biz, or workign for cash – like babysitting or maybe a bit of data entry at home decides to sell herself. That’s her life choice, no one is holding her down and forcing her to play with penises. What the fuck was that news story about?!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Keeping Stock (10,443 comments) says:

    @ Elaycee; I wouldn’t disagree with that assessment in the slightest. Spending Other People’s Money seems to be like water off a duck’s back to the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. lilman (968 comments) says:

    Fuck Mallard is the worst sort of scumbag.
    Introduces a law to control scalping and ends up being a fucken scalper himself.
    Then has the gaul to say “Im not a scalper”.
    He is one hypocritical arsewipe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. wat dabney (3,814 comments) says:

    So, a complete fabrication then.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/15/notes-on-the-fake-heartland-document

    Let’s recap: emails leaked from the CRU revealed incompetence and corruption at the heart of the global warming scam, whilst emails leaked from the sceptical Heartland group were entirely innocuous but were used to try to give credibility to a crude forgery.

    As Griff said yesterday, “That is the extent that this propaganda machine will go to.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    @Keeping Stock – well, blow me over with a feather. The Gweens want to spend more of our money….Who’da thought?

    On a less charitable note, I take it this 43 yr old potential hooker is only looking at plying her trade for a short while and not trying to accumulate a retirement fund? I just can’t envisage a long queue of potential customers pounding on her door, somehow. After all, she’s facing some [ahem] stiff competition…. :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. wat dabney (3,814 comments) says:

    The equivalent of a $43,000 salary a year and 20 hours of free early childhood education. Plus interest-free student loans.

    Give me the money I want or I’ll prostitute myself.

    Go ahead love. They’ve got chocolate flavour condoms now. There’s a treat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    The ‘would be prostitute’ wants to train as a veterinary nurse – I hope she’s done her homework on likely outcomes.

    I know someone who trained as a veterinary nurse and found that ‘hen’s teeth’ was not part of her course, it referred to job prospects once she was qualified.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. KH (695 comments) says:

    Mallard should be ejected from being an MP. He does not have the character and presence to resign of his own initiative.
    1. For being a twerp and completely useless.
    2. For using his parlimentary office to sell stuff.
    3. For selling stuff, for personal gain, he has been given in his role as a minister. (Trevor – can you give us the detail please. Not the flim flam)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    What she wanted was a short-term investment in herself to get her off the DPB for the rest of her working life.

    It may be a risky ‘investment’ (for us, AKA giving her more money) if she can’t find a job afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. fatnuts (160 comments) says:

    Time for the Government to clean house at the CCC. Yesterday’s meeting results in delays with the suburban rebuild, particularly Edgeware and New Brighton. Where are our leaders? The Mayor is overseas on a jollie, and the CEO is on A/L playing golf.

    Utterly ridiculous. Total lack of commitment. We need expert managment and commited leadership.

    Whatever the cost to remove these people, it’s now worth the price to get back on track.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    “I just can’t envisage a long queue of potential customers pounding on her door, somehow. After all, she’s facing some [ahem] stiff competition”

    I dunno, Is Dime back in NZ yet??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Elaycee (2,174) Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 8:54 am

    @Keeping Stock: So the Gweens have enough money to fund a publicity stunt and send a potential hooker to Wellington to watch the House from the Public Gallery, but not enough money to give Mojo Mathers the funding she (very publicly) demanded?

    Putting aside the fact that we all know, and the Greens acknowledge, that they have enough money to fund the services Mojo Mathers requires, is a plane ticket to Wellington on the order of $30,000 nowadays?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Manolo (14,084 comments) says:

    How low have we sunk? http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/02/15/mother-of-fallen-marine-offended-by-half-mast-flag-for-houston/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    @Weihana – comprehension not your strong point, huh? Perhaps you should read it again.

    I’m ever so grateful you’re not involved in the education sector teaching our kids…..

    Oh, oh…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Manolo (14,084 comments) says:

    Bludgers of the world unite: http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/sole-mum-actually-receiving-43000.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Manolo (14,084 comments) says:

    For the warmists who worship at the feet of this crook: http://michellemalkin.com/2012/02/16/al-gore-sustainable-capitalism/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10786108


    In 2009 the allowance was restricted to courses at level 3 or below on the qualifications framework, not high-level courses such as hers.”

    So the incentive exists for beneficiaries to get qualifications not worth the paper they are printed on, but there exists no incentive to get qualifications that actually have value? This seems rather perverse.

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/Income/NZIncomeSurvey_HOTPJun11qtr.aspx


    Household income: Median weekly household income from all sources increased 4.3 percent,
    from $1,236 in the June 2010 quarter to $1,289 in the June 2011 quarter. The change was
    influenced by increases in household income from wages and salaries and government
    transfers.

    That’s about $67,000 per year.


    “I think most New Zealanders would find that an equivalent salary of $43,000 is sufficient, or at least reasonable,” Mr Borrows said.

    Seems debatable given the stats on household income. I suppose the woman could make do if she is determined, but I still don’t get why we would discourage people from “upskilling” which is often promoted as the way to get off the benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    # Elaycee (2,175) Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 10:11 am

    @Weihana – comprehension not your strong point, huh? Perhaps you should read it again.

    I have read it again. I still see you comparing a very small cost to a relatively much greater cost and questioning why they can’t afford the much greater cost in light of the fact that they spent a relatively much smaller amount of money. It’s like saying “I see you can’t afford the rent but you are able to buy milk”. One is an order of magnitude more expensive than the other.

    As for comprehension, I note you missed the part where the “Gweens” acknowledged they had enough money to fund the support Mathers requires. This would seem to undermine the premise of your question entirely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    God some people need their butt firmly kicked and re-parented well into their 30’s.

    http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2012/02/tania-wysocki.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    Jeez Weihana – do you need pictures?

    The Gweens have seen fit to readily fund one publicity stunt involving a potential hooker but the same Gweens don’t want to fund their other (current) publicity stunt via a one off expense for a member of their own herd.

    But no surprises that you come unstuck on understanding principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    Are private insurers able to copete with ACC or not?

    The Government plans to open ACC’s work account to competition from private insurers from October.

    ACC Futures Coalition spokeswoman Hazel Armstrong said today papers obtained under the Official Information Act showed former ACC minister Nick Smith was looking at making the Corporation charge a ”top up” on its premiums so private insurers could compete on a level playing field.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6436260/ACC-levy-hike-considered

    If this is accurate it’s bizarre.

    Isn’t it claimed that the market is so good that despite profit margins private business is better than public provision of services?

    Jacking up costs so private insurers can compete seems absurd. Why go private?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Cartoon for (is it of) Griff
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/josh_fakegate.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    The vet nurse trainee/greens media stuntess got a very sympathetic hearing from Jim Mora yesterday. I got the distinct impression that she’s not averse to going on the game at all. No one forcing her,what’s the fuss.?
    Labour and the Greens seem to think that it’s an occupation worth protecting ,so they should be encouraging her and I reckon she’s more chance of making money touting herself than she does of getting a job as a vet nurse.

    What a beat up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Viking2 (11,577 comments) says:

    Elaycee (2,176) Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 8:54 am

    @Keeping Stock: So the Gweens have enough money to fund a publicity stunt and send a potential hooker to Wellington to watch the House from the Public Gallery, but not enough money to give Mojo Mathers the funding she (very publicly) demanded?

    Their sense of fiscal priorities is staggering…..

    I was going to say that even dime might balk at that face. Longknives decided that dime was still hooked on yankee hookers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    wat dabney
    right now

    This is fake its not from heartland it was slipped in by the same evil bastard who stole the documents That we are not allowed to mention
    Dr. Wojick is a consultant with the Office of Scientific and Technical Information at the U.S. Department of Energy in the area of information and communication science. His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain- two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

    Who would write such a thing about the lovely people at heart land :twisted:

    and why would Anthony watts lie
    The new site will be promoted heavily at WattsUpwithThat.com.
    Heartland has agreed to help Anthony raise $88,000 for the project in 2011. The AnonymousDonor has already pledged $44,000″

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    # Elaycee (2,176) Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Jeez Weihana – do you need pictures?

    The Gweens have seen fit to readily fund one publicity stunt involving a potential hooker but the same Gweens don’t want to fund their other (current) publicity stunt via a one off expense for a member of their own herd.

    But no surprises that you come unstuck on understanding principles.

    While I agree that the Greens attempted to make political mileage out of Mojo Mathers, I disagree that being able to communicate in Parliament amounts to a “publicity stunt”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Griff, $88,000 might cover the hardware and software and a part time programmer for a year. Watts would be lucky if there was any left over to cover his time even at NZ’s minimum wage rate.

    The project is to create a new Web site devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public.

    see that there – what he’s aiming to do ismake information from NOAA easier to access and understand.

    Griff – why do you think it’s wrong to make NOAA’s data more accessible? Why do you want it to be obscured?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. wat dabney (3,814 comments) says:

    She could combine her twin interests and dress up for a vetinary assistant fantasy and say things like “ooh, Mr Smith, can you hold my pussy for me” or “what a wonderful cock you have Mr Jones“, and finally “anal is $10 extra.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. dime (10,135 comments) says:

    The ugly hooker thing – are we meant to be outraged that because although we pay 43k a year to this chick, she will now have to get a legal, government approved part time job?

    are the greens saying that prostitution is bad and hookers should be looked down upon?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Viking2 (11,577 comments) says:

    ah so you are back unhooked then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Viking2 (11,577 comments) says:

    or wat.
    would you like it doggy or ride me like a horse or ram me, or would you like it billy goat buff
    Think we could have a days fun just thinking up new veterinary ways to promote sex with a subsidized prostitute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. wat dabney (3,814 comments) says:

    “Nice beaver!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    I thought you were in IT
    I am sure that DPF did not and does not spend $80,000 on this website

    DAMAGE CONTROL
    It was really funny watching the flurry of posts on Watts up no science needed last nite.
    You know strategy to stop the damage
    It is not about funding or the post above
    IT is about who is driving the attack on science

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    The equivalent of a $43,000 salary a year and 20 hours of free early childhood education. Plus interest-free student loans.

    $43k for not working???? No wonder some people see the benefit as a career option!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. wat dabney (3,814 comments) says:

    Griff,

    If you wish to recover even a shred of credibility you would simply admit the fact that you were yesterday crowing over a document which turned out to be a crude forgery.

    Everyone else knows it, it’s just a question of whether a little troll like you can bring yourself to admit it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. tom hunter (5,096 comments) says:

    I’ve seen two rather sad, if interesting, items of news from the US lately that appear to be separate, but are are of one piece.

    The first concerns the announcement from the Obama administration, that Catholic institutions that employ people must provide contraception and abortifacients drugs in their health insurance policies, even if that contradicts church teachings. This has created quite a firestorm in the US, unifying left-wing and right-wing Catholics and bringing in other religious denominations on their side. The storm has abated a little bit with a “compromise” proposal that the insurers carry the cost, not the Catholic groups who buy the insurance.

    However, the storm has raised many more important questions about 1st amendment rights and the overall right of a government to tell one what to do, especially in terms of violating one’s conscience. It’s also raised questions as to why Obama did it, when he could have avoided the fight. Paul Rahe explores the possible answers and settles on one:

    They wanted to show the bishops and the Catholic laity who is boss. They wanted to make those who think contraception wrong and abortion a species of murder complicit in both. They wanted to rub the noses of their opponents in it. They wanted to marginalize them. Humiliation was, in fact, their only aim, and malice, their motive.

    I was reminded of a long-ago UMR focus group in which I took part here in NZ. The main purpose of the group was to explore how people felt about paying taxes and what it supported – this was in the lead-up to the 2002 election when Labour was already feeling the heat about government expenditure. However, an oldish guy (mid-60’s?) beside me, during a tea break, informed me that he had been a union rep for decades and proudly supported Labour – right up until the civil-union law, after which he had “regretfully” wound up leaving Labour and supporting some Christian-based party (I can’t remember who). After this sad, wistful story I was very badly tempted to pat him on the back and explain that in the 1970’s and 80’s the left-wing had needed religious people like him to support their efforts, since they had numbers and “moral authority”, but that in an age of empty pews, public examples of immorality from various church leaders, and an apparent tipping point in youthful attitudes that indicated where the future lay, the left no longer had need of people like him and that it was all a bit late for people like him.

    In the end, I saw no need to rub salt into the wound. But what Rahe has to say about his fellow Catholics who support the Democrats is even more brutal:

    Last week, when, in response to the fierce resistance he had deliberately stirred up, the President offered the bishops what he called “an accommodation,” what he proffered was nothing more than a fig leaf. His maneuver was, in fact, a gesture of contempt, and I believe that it was Barack Obama’s final offer. From his perspective and from that of Sebelius and Pelosi, the genuine Catholics still within the Democratic coalition are no more than what Vladimir Lenin called “useful idiots,” and, now that the progressive project is near completion, they are expendable – for there is no longer any need to curry their favor.

    The driver over decades for Catholics and other mainstream Christian groups to support the projects of Social Democrats, has been improving the average good of the collective society. Unfortunately, right up to Obamacare, they apparently never saw or believed, that they would be subject to the same commands to sacrifice for the common good.

    And the next piece of news, though very minor in comparison, is a pitch-perfect example of this:

    RAEFORD — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

    The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.

    The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs – including in-home day care centers – to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

    When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

    The girl’s mother – who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation – said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

    That’s the same HHS that’s driving the contraception rulings – and will drive others in the years ahead. And if you think this is merely an example of one “inspector” getting the judgement wrong you need to see This article, which points to a hypothetical question that was asked of SCOTUS nominee, Elena Kagan, about whether it would be constitutional (if “dumb”) for the government to tell people what they can eat. As the article goes on to say:

    Such a law would actually be a smart law, in that it would make for a healthier populace. But it would be tyrannical. And as tyranny goes, the school-lunch incident is relatively petty, but it is tyranny nonetheless.

    I think the satirist Iowahawk also nails one aspect of this sort of left-wing insanity when he says:

    I guarantee you this: when this program – whatever the devil it is – was first proposed, someone said it will lead to inspectors demanding to see what’s in kid’s lunches, and insisting they eat something else instead of what mom sent. And the critic got a cold, withering look from the good people in charge. Really. I think that’s a little overboard.

    You could say: yank the kid! Private schools! But they’ll be next; there’s no possible argument left for letting some private institution wreak their havoc on juvenile constitutions, particularly if they partake of some governmental benefit, like “Streets” or “water” or perhaps clean air.

    Yes, I know. Really. I think that’s a little overboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. AlphaKiwi (683 comments) says:

    @ Wat Dabney

    “Thank you. I had it stuffed last week.” :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Cobolt (94 comments) says:

    Weihana (1,449) Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 11:13 am

    “While I agree that the Greens attempted to make political mileage out of Mojo Mathers, I disagree that being able to communicate in Parliament amounts to a “publicity stunt”.”

    It’s a publicity stunt when you make a statement that while technically true does not properly represent the case. The greens did this twice – backed by lazy, sensationalist journalists.

    The first is the requirement. An Electronic Note Taker or a note taker who uses and electronic device. It is not the electronic device she needs but the manpower to use it.

    The second is saying the Speaker WOULD not font with the money, the fact is the Speaker COULD not front with the money. An utterly different circumstance.

    Normally I would have agreed that Mojo should have the resources required for her to full take part without expense to herself or her party. BUT, the very first thing she does in parliament, even before her maiden speech, is shit stir and misrepresent the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6435385/Horsham-Downs-meditation-pyramid-planned


    A Morrinsville dentist hopes to build a 15m-high meditation pyramid and adjacent 400-seat auditorium on the outskirts of Hamilton despite opposition from city council staff.

    Neighbours at Horsham Downs also oppose the plans, with some wary that noise from traffic and gatherings at the centre will intrude on their peaceful rural properties.

    Neighbours sound like wowzers with unreasonable expectations. If low level chanting (within a gated compound no less) is too noisy how do rural people deal with cows mooing or the sound of trucks driving along rural highways?

    I wonder if there would be similar opposition if the building was for a Christian congregation. Or rather if it was for a white congregation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Sorry Griff, I mistook you for someone with a functioning mind. My mistake, as you were.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Cobolt (50) Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 11:50 am


    Normally I would have agreed that Mojo should have the resources required for her to full take part without expense to herself or her party. BUT, the very first thing she does in parliament, even before her maiden speech, is shit stir and misrepresent the facts.

    So MPs having the resources they need is dependent upon whether you agree with what they are saying?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6436129/Ten-snapped-up-in-Twizel-drug-sting


    Ten people have been arrested in a Twizel drug bust after a three-month police operation.

    The action has made a significant dent in the district’s cannabis supply, police said.

    Supply goes down, price goes up, incentive to increase supply goes up, someone meets that demand and everything goes back to the way it was. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    “So MPs having the resources they need is dependent upon whether you agree with what they are saying?”

    Yet another comprehension fail. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Yvette (2,854 comments) says:

    Weihana – So MPs having the resources they need is dependent upon whether you agree with what they are saying?

    It may depend how they go about requesting their needs be met.
    Apparently Mathers worked in Parliament for five years, so what was available to MPs should not have been a great surprize.
    And so when it was arranged she be placed on the Greens Party List, what was discussed?
    “Yes,” she signed, “that will be great!”
    “But even New Zealand First have noticed you are profoundly dead – should we approach the Speaker’s office to ask about what can be done about that?”
    “Yes, but wait a few months and then we can embarrass the shit of out him because he doesn’t have the funds to accommodate this sort of thing!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    Profoundly dead Yvette? Now that would be something….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    “Profoundly dead…” :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. dime (10,135 comments) says:

    yea back a couple of days ago!

    loved the US. hate their food. everything is covered in cheese. no wonder so many of them are fat fucks.

    some hot chicks though!

    i generally hate mexicans. not ashamed of my racism. but i gotta say, they have some cute little chicks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. minto57 (197 comments) says:

    Oskar provided that is all they did.
    Somehow the PRC seems to think they have a right to buy NZ
    where would they have formed that idea from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Bevan (3,676) Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 11:35 am


    $43k for not working???? No wonder some people see the benefit as a career option!

    Is it though? The 43k is not likely all discretionary spending and would include accomodation I presume. The DPB maximum rate according to the WINZ website is $288.47 per week net.

    Estimated living costs are $325 including food and other supermarket expenses, house maintenance, clothing, car WOF etc, telephone, electricity, small health costs. This estimate is for a “frugal” lifestyle including two adults and two children so a rough reduction by a third to account for one less adult would give us about $214. Not included in this estimate are things like Christmas, savings, any form of insurance, any sort of discretionary spending on children’s entertainment or small gifts etc.

    So it would seem that she can get by with very tight controls on what she spends. Yet if going to school costs an extra $100 then it would seem she would go below the ability to provide for the utmost basic of expenses.

    Do I have any figures wrong here or am I missing something else?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. immigant (950 comments) says:

    Weihana

    Stop defending the indefensible. Average wage of a callcentre operator is between 32 -38K. and they seem to do allright. Got a few single mothers working in the company that I’m at. And they don’t resort to prostitution. Not to mention spend 8+ hours a day on the phones, instead of at home having a cry about their hard life.

    Just to put a real world perspective on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Do I have any figures wrong here or am I missing something else?

    Yes, you are missing something. You miss that this lady is receiving a handout from the tax payer, she is on a benefit – it is not her ‘salary’. If this lady wants more discretionary income, she has the choice of finding a job.

    No one is forcing her to undertake study in a qualification that is outside her monetary capacity, or one that is not in high demand. She does have the option of investing her time and effort into learning a more in demand skill set, one where positions are not ‘as rare as hens teeth’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Paulus (2,672 comments) says:

    Regarding the Greens party woman proposing prostitution looking at her you would be past desperate.
    Her taxpayer “entitlement” of $43,000 is after tax – bloody good.
    Where are the men by whom she has already prostituted herself, and are they paying their share, or does she not know who they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. dime (10,135 comments) says:

    i suspect she would have to offer some special services to make a decent buck. the sorta weird shit we all love :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. tom hunter (5,096 comments) says:

    It’s been just over a year since Mubarak quit Egypt amidst the “Arab Spring”, but there seems to have been little in the news about the anniversary.

    As I recall I was at one of the vineyard concerts this time last year watching Neil Finn run through many of his favourites for all us old farts (as one of my friends explained to his tweenie son and daughter who had to be taken to the event). At one stage in the concert – probably as a shout-out to the really old-timers who rocked to global peace and unity in the 60’s and 70’s – Neil talked very briefly about how wonderful the Arab Spring was and wasn’t it great to see all those young people Facebooking and Tweeting their way to a better world. And, as much as I respect him as a musician and all-round decent guy, I thought to myself: What a completely ignorant schmuck. He doesn’t have a fucking clue.

    I can only think that the reason for a lack of anniversary news is that subsequent events have introduced a lot of sobriety into even the biggest airheads in the West. And of course things are now accelerating, as Barry Rubin explains:

    Sensing what’s happening and going to happen, those who can get out are getting out. They include dedicated liberals who dreamed of democracy, and talented professionals who see no future in their homelands. Sure, lots of people would have loved to migrate before, but now they are either packing up or dusting off the suitcases. And their goal isn’t just to get a better life materially, but to have a life at all.

    It’s personal too:

    Now if you are a real moderate in the Arabic-speaking world, Turkey, or Iran, you know that your future looks very dim. You don’t draw your interpretations from the Western media. You don’t tremble at being thought an Islamophobe, because you probably are a Muslim yourself. So what do you do?

    Another email has arrived in my box:

    Things are getting too tough for a secular-oriented person like me. Can you help find me a job in a place that still has academic freedom?

    I already have a collection of such messages and stories. There’s the engineer who found a teaching job in China; the journalist who is now in sub-Saharan Africa after being threatened with death; and the newly arrived Turkish Jews I’ve met in England, Canada, and the United States who have no illusions about the nature of the Ankara regime.

    Many “multi-culuralists” express a desire to gain people from around the world. Let’s hope that they really mean what they say – although I have my doubts. I found Rubin’s plea at the end to be very poignant:

    If you have the chance, do try to help these refugees who are fleeing Islamist tyranny by going to lands where saying there is such a thing as Islamist tyranny might be against the law. Because when these moderates, these women seeking to live modern lives, these Christians and Jews arrive in the lands of freedom, they will find no demonstrations in support of them by the locals, no university teach-ins, no concerned media, no awareness of their plight, little eagerness to hear their stories among the local people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. immigant (950 comments) says:

    I would love to hire her out for 8+ hours and sit her down in a callcentre so she remembers what work feel like, from all acounts you can be totaly worn out after just one day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    I have some relatives who work 40-50 hours a week and don’t earn anywhere near what this parasitic baby factory pulls in for sitting on her ass and watching TV. I couldn’t care less if she wants to shag a few desperados for some extra cash but how dare she complain that we (the taxpayer) arent paying her enough?
    Weihana- You are missing a whole lot! Have you ever actually visited planet earth?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Yvette (2,854 comments) says:

    Do I have any figures wrong here or am I missing something else?

    Something may be missing –
    According to a radio report this morning this woman, prior to being flown to Wellington by the Greens, said she in fact was not sure what her income actually was.
    I would think that if you are going to turn to prostitution to earn money, you would have some sure idea of your exact income before doing that.
    Someone doesn’t add up here …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    New Zealand First MP Brendan Horan sings the National Anthem in Maori while in the house.

    Former television weatherman turned NZ First MP Brendan Horan was so moved by the passage of Treaty settlements through Parliament, he broke into song.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6437487/MPs-deep-baritone-brings-down-the-house

    Maybe this is the start of a trend.

    What will be the songs sung by other MPs?

    It’s too late for ‘Brand New Key’ (2002), and for ‘Broken English’ (also 2002). ‘Ballad of Easy Rider’ has ridden off to the back benches (2011).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. KevinH (1,236 comments) says:

    The Wysocki story:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10786108.

    It transpires that this is another non story from the Labour/ Greens camp because they got the figures wrong. At the heart of the complaint was that Ms Wysocki was eligible for only 20 hours childcare allowance, however this has since been rebutted:

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/197953/mum-sells-sex-pay-studies

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    # immigant (770) Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Weihana

    Stop defending the indefensible. Average wage of a callcentre operator is between 32 -38K. and they seem to do allright. Got a few single mothers working in the company that I’m at. And they don’t resort to prostitution. Not to mention spend 8+ hours a day on the phones, instead of at home having a cry about their hard life.

    Just to put a real world perspective on this.

    I acknowledge that people earn less than 43k, but the point is that that 43k is not all discretionary. Her accomodation could account for a significant portion of that amount. She can’t substitute that money for childcare or transportation even if she obtained cheaper accomodation. We may be spending too much but at the same time the discretionary income for these people is only just enough to accomodate the bare essentials and asking them to forego another $100 in order to attend a training institution does not appear to create the right incentives.

    Moreover, the fact that people earn 32-38k does not necessarily mean it is sufficient to care for two children without any extra support. Indeed I presume the solo mothers you are referring to receive working for families which is fair and I don’t expect people on the benefit to receive such support given that they are not working. There should be an incentive to get off the benefit. But it appears in this case the incentives are backwards. The incentive is for her to stay on the benefit rather than to attend a training institution since the extra $100 in costs will significantly harm her ability to properly take care of her children (assuming I have the figures right).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Having now read some of the news articles about Tania Wysocki (thanks KevinH for the link to the ODT article) there is no question that working as a prostitute is her own personal choice to make a quick buck. Her reasons may be more altruistic than a crack whore’s, but it is still her choice.

    The bottom line is this quote from her: “”I’m sort of tossed up because I think at least with that [prostitution], if someone is available to look after the kids, I could run off and do one client and then I’ll be fine. I could still study and still spend time with my kids.”

    She is well aware there are other jobs to supplement her benefits, and is aware they likely return a lower hourly rate.

    I’ve known several women who did sex work to supplement their income while studying, a couple of them were solo mothers at the time. They chose to do it because it returned the highest hourly rate they could earn. Not because they were forced to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    # Bevan (3,677) Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Do I have any figures wrong here or am I missing something else?

    Yes, you are missing something. You miss that this lady is receiving a handout from the tax payer, she is on a benefit – it is not her ‘salary’. If this lady wants more discretionary income, she has the choice of finding a job.

    You are switching the goal posts. You referenced 43k to make the point that such a sum would entice people not to work and to use the benefit as a career choice. I’m putting it to you that the total amount paid isn’t able to be spent according to what the recipient wants. Yes 43k, if she received all of that, would be a more than fair amount to support two kids. But if most of that is going towards accomodation and she only receives $288 in discretionary spending then it’s not as though the money we spend provides a lavish lifestyle that would induce a reasonable person to forego a productive lifestyle by pure choice alone.


    No one is forcing her to undertake study in a qualification that is outside her monetary capacity, or one that is not in high demand. She does have the option of investing her time and effort into learning a more in demand skill set, one where positions are not ‘as rare as hens teeth’.

    You may be right that her particular career choice isn’t a wise one. I don’t know. I’m not concerned with defending this particular woman. I’m concerned with whether or not the system creates the right incentives. The government only provides an allowance for courses level 3 and below IIRC. That appears ridiculous to me as those qualifications are generally shite. We may as well not provide the allowance at all.

    But regardless of this woman’s particular choice in qualification, the basic point is that beneficiaries should have the incentive to get qualifications of value which are likely to give them a viable career path where they will no longer rely on the benefit. I don’t see the point in demonizing people on the benefit. People will act according to their nature and no amount of moral superiority will induce them to act as we want them to act. In order to do that the right incentives should be in place and it appears that the overall amount of tax money spent doesn’t appear to reflect the actual choices these people are faced with.

    Perhaps this woman could be given the allowance whilst also requiring her to find cheaper accomodation. Based on the 43k figure it appears this woman is getting about 680 in the hand each week. Does this mean her rent is $400? Trade me seems to have cheaper accomodation in Pukekohe around $280 per week which would seem suitable. So why not swap the money spent on accomodation in order to intice beneficiaries like this woman to go to school?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Weihana “The incentive is for her to stay on the benefit rather than to attend a training institution since the extra $100 in costs will significantly harm her ability to properly take care of her children’

    Not all incentives are monetary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. dime (10,135 comments) says:

    how about the incentive of personal pride..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. immigant (950 comments) says:

    Weihana

    Your argument just totaly made sense to me. Lets give her more money, more support and more hugs. Because those people who earn less the what she gets for free definatley have more ‘discretionary’ income. She is so hard done and needs our support. (Now that’s some good sarcasm)

    Truthfully – if living in NZ prostitution is the only thing you can think of to make money and you already have a house for free, food for free and some cash for free, the problem is not society the problem is YOU.

    The sooner people admit to this, and start having a hard look at themselves, the stronger we will be as a country.

    And you responsibilty as a citizen with a bit more then just half a brain, is to stop supporting those who just bitch and moan, and to point out to them, that God gelps those who help themselves. Instead of wrining your hands and sympathysing over something that is NOT a problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    We could pray that people get off the benefit? That seems about just as likely to work.

    The reason I asked if I had missed anything is because I have not been on the DPB so I don’t know what other support is received other than for accomodation. But while figures like 43k are put out the WINZ website seems to indicate the maximum rate is $288 per week net. This is the money which the beneficiary controls and gets to spend at their discretion. That is just enough to cover a very basic lifestyle it would seem going by the cost of living estimates I referenced earliar.

    It would seem money is being wasted somewhere if the true cost to the taxpayer is 43k. Perhaps we could look at where that money is being wasted and diverting it towards creating the right incentives rather than demonizing this lady. Pride is one thing, but if it is truely the case that going to school would mean her children go without the basics then I don’t see it as a realistic choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:


    Truthfully – if living in NZ prostitution is the only thing you can think of to make money and you already have a house for free, food for free and some cash for free, the problem is not society the problem is YOU.

    The prostitution thing is obviously the means by which to make headlines and nothing more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Weihana – I think you’re getting to the real issue:

    “but if it is truely the case that going to school would mean her children go without the basics…”

    It is not truly the case. It is a beat up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. immigant (950 comments) says:

    Weihana

    “We could pray that people get off the benefit” who are you having a stab at there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    You are switching the goal posts.

    No, it is all related.

    You referenced 43k to make the point that such a sum would entice people not to work and to use the benefit as a career choice. I’m putting it to you that the total amount paid isn’t able to be spent according to what the recipient wants.

    Diddums, its a benefit.

    But if most of that is going towards accomodation and she only receives $288 in discretionary spending then it’s not as though the money we spend provides a lavish lifestyle that would induce a reasonable person to forego a productive lifestyle by pure choice alone.

    And here highlights my problem with your thinking, the words benefit and ‘lavish lifestyle’ should never be used together for what ever reason. In this case its she can hardly afford a lavish lifestyle on the benefit – well yes you are right and that is how it should be!

    You may be right that her particular career choice isn’t a wise one. I don’t know. I’m not concerned with defending this particular woman. I’m concerned with whether or not the system creates the right incentives. The government only provides an allowance for courses level 3 and below IIRC. That appears ridiculous to me as those qualifications are generally shite. We may as well not provide the allowance at all.

    I do agree with you on this with the following rider, funding should only be available for in demand courses with appropriate incentives to ensure those undertaking the course do not rort the system and retake courses they have no plan on taking seriously.

    Mind you if this lady was serious about furthering her education, there are always Interest Free Student loans to assist, I guess her mentality may be to the point where she expects everything to be a hand out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    immigant,


    Your argument just totaly made sense to me. Lets give her more money,

    Except that is not my argument. My argument, or my suggestion at least, is that money which is perhaps spent on accomodation could rather be spent on a training subsidy and she could find cheaper accomodation. I agree 43k, if it were entirely discretionary, should be enough for her circumstances and her place of residence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Bevan,


    Mind you if this lady was serious about furthering her education, there are always Interest Free Student loans to assist, I guess her mentality may be to the point where she expects everything to be a hand out.

    My understanding is that people on the DPB are not entitled to the living costs portion of the student loan. If they are I take back everything I said because that would clearly assist her with the extra costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. immigant (950 comments) says:

    Weihana

    I think you’ll find that if you cut her accomodationand and make her move to a shittier suburb there will be an article along teh lines – “Mother has turns to prostitution so children don’t have to go to a desile 1 school, because WINZ will not give her enough money to live in decent subburb.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. wat dabney (3,814 comments) says:

    how about the incentive of personal pride

    We’re talking about a woman who humiliated and embarrassed her children by nationally proclaiming she was going to become a prostitute. They’re going to have a great time at (free) school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    # immigant (772) Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    Weihana

    “We could pray that people get off the benefit” who are you having a stab at there?

    Anyone who thinks that moral condemnation is enough to get people to do what’s right. I think incentives are key and it doesn’t appear the right incentives are in place when we give allowances to those studying for qualifications of level 3 or below, which generally aren’t worth much, and no allowance for those studying higher qualifications which may (but not necessarily) actually give the student a viable long term career and get that person off the benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. immigant (950 comments) says:

    Well looks like it’s a stab at me then, because i think 43K a year for free and moral condemnation is enough for anyone to have agood hard look at themselves and get of the benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    # immigant (773) Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Weihana

    I think you’ll find that if you cut her accomodationand and make her move to a shittier suburb there will be an article along teh lines – “Mother has turns to prostitution so children don’t have to go to a desile 1 school, because WINZ will not give her enough money to live in decent subburb.”

    Possibly, except trade me seems to list reasonable accomodation in Pukekohe for a solo parent and two children at prices as low as $280 per week. That plus $288 is only $29,536 per year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    RightNow,


    It is not truly the case. It is a beat up.

    In which case I wonder what other benefits she is entitled to. If she only has $288 per week in discretionary spending and the very basic living costs are as previously outlined then it would seem that her children would have to go without the basics if it cost her an extra $100 a week to attend school.

    It would be interesting if we could see a breakdown of the 43k figure to see where the money is going.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10785857

    “Ms Wysocki worked for 15 years in the horse stud industry before having her first child, Catherine, almost five years ago. She went on the DPB when she and her partner broke up three years ago.”

    Not quite the baby factory imagined. She had children in a relationship and after working for 15 years. My only question is, where is the father?

    “They live at Paerata to be near Catherine’s father, who helps with some childcare, but child support from the children’s fathers doesn’t help Ms Wysocki because it is kept by Inland Revenue to offset the cost of her benefit.”

    So really the 43k figure quoted by the Minister might in fact be a bit inaccurate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Pete George (23,688 comments) says:

    We’re talking about a woman who humiliated and embarrassed

    You’d also have to wonder about an MP or two and a party or two who would put someone up to this sort of exposure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Weihana – I think if you spent some time navigating various government websites you could figure out how it comes out to be $43k.

    I don’t really have the time to work it out, but a quick search returned this from an old news article about beneficiaries who get $1000+ per week
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10591226

    “What makes up the $1000-plus figure?

    Some or all of the following:

    Basic benefit (DPB is $272 a week) plus:

    Accommodation supplement (up to $225 a week).

    Family tax credit ($86 a week for first child, $60 for subsequent children; increases slightly with age).

    Disability allowances (up to $56 a week).

    Child disability allowance (up to $42 a week).

    Unsupported child or orphan’s benefits ($132 to $185 a week, age-dependent).

    Childcare subsidies (maximum $181.50 a week for preschoolers or in school holidays or $72 for after school, paid direct to childcare centre).”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Cobolt (94 comments) says:

    @Weihana
    The eldest is nearly 5, the younger is 20 months, 20 months + 9 = 29, so about 7 months after splitting from her partner she got pregnant again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    tom hunter says:- “Catholic institutions that employ people must provide contraception and abortifacients drugs in their health insurance policies”

    Quite right too. The government upholds the law, not the church. The Catholic Church, in refusing to supply contraception to their employees is restricting their employees’ freedom to choose whether or not to use lawful contraception.

    The government should never pander to superstition as did the Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. wat dabney (3,814 comments) says:

    The Catholic Church, in refusing to supply contraception to their employees is restricting their employees’ freedom to choose whether or not to use lawful contraception.

    Well clearly it isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    RightNow,


    Family tax credit ($86 a week for first child, $60 for subsequent children; increases slightly with age).

    Ok I must concede that is fairly generous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    # Cobolt (52) Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    @Weihana
    The eldest is nearly 5, the younger is 20 months, 20 months + 9 = 29, so about 7 months after splitting from her partner she got pregnant again.

    That’s pretty dumb. I also hadn’t considered the fact that she is free to move closer to her place of study but she chooses not to. So I must admit, she does deserve harsh criticism for her attitude.

    I still maintain though that keeping the training allowance for level 3 and under seems backwards but instead of having it for any courses I don’t think any courses should have it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Time to start with the funnies?

    Interviewer: So Mr Stanczewski, I understand that in 1943 you shot down five German aircraft in a single engagement. Could you tell us what happened?

    Polish Fighter Pilot: Well we were flying at 20,000 feet when we spotted five Fokkers flying along below us. So we dived down and I aimed at one of the Fokkers and fired a burst from my machine guns right into him and he exploded. Then I saw that one of the Fokkers was on my tail, so I pulled round in a loop and got behind him, and fired and he went down on fire. I looked around and saw two Fokkers attacking my squadron leader, so slipped in behind them, and fired, and that was another Fokker going down in flames. The other Fokker tried to get away from me, but I got right up behind him, and blasted him with my machine guns and turned over and exploded. There was only one of the Fokkers left now, and he was trying to get away, but I flew up behind him, shot – bang, bang, bang – and he blew up too!

    Interviewer: I should point out for the benefit of the viewers at home, that the Fokker was a type of German aircraft used in the war.

    Polish Fighter Pilot: No, no, no – these fokkers were Messerschmitts!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    My understanding is that people on the DPB are not entitled to the living costs portion of the student loan.

    Why do they need extra living costs? They get the DPB for living costs and can use the student loan for education expenses.

    Hell, when I went through uni it was Loan = education expenses, delivery pizza’s + minimal Student allowance = food and rent!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    Bevan,

    I concede they don’t. While a solo mum requires child care costs and transport, this woman is entitled to child care subsidies and I hadn’t considered that she could simply move closer to her place of study. I also hadn’t calculated her income properly which has since been pointed out to me. :)

    I agree she has enough and is simply looking to complain rather than find solutions based on the options available to her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    tom hunter,


    However, the storm has raised many more important questions about 1st amendment rights and the overall right of a government to tell one what to do, especially in terms of violating one’s conscience.

    Yet isn’t it still up to the individual to decide whether to make use of such services? Just as it is up to the individual to decide whether to use their income directly for contraception and abortion? So would they also say that if they pay an individual a salary and that individual uses that salary for contraception and abortion then they are complicit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    Jeez. 100 comments in GD so far and 21 from Weihana. The latest reincarnation of the blog know all.

    Tap tap tap…..

    I’ll be real happy when he has to go to bed. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    These bloody criminals were on a crime spree in a stolen car with a loaded gun in the back seat…yet the bloody lunatic Children’s Commissioner is crying because Police ‘frightened them’? I don’t give a shit how old they are- pull this kind of stunt just about any other country in the World and you’ll end up with a bullet between the eyes…

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6437716/Probe-into-police-conduct-in-youths-arrest

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. RightNow (7,013 comments) says:

    Longknives – my thoughts exactly. Old enough to do the crime, old enough to be apprehended with extreme prejudice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. RF (1,454 comments) says:

    Two armed burglars had a crime spree in the South Island several years ago. They were chased in their stolen jag to the Nelson area where armed Police had to road spike the vehicle. Those poor wee souls had glock pistols pointed at them when the car finally stopped and now according to Stuff the Children’s Commissioner has made a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority. FFS whats wrong with this country. I know one of their victims, an elderly widow and she still has nightmares.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    Longknives – you beat me to the punch

    Yeah – they probably thought they were king dicks while they were on their crime spree with a loaded weapon , no regard for other people or thier property.

    Hopefully the poor wee things were so “frightened” they never carry out that sort of crap again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    I see this ‘bleeding-hearts’ article has been updated to include ‘heartwrenching’ comment from the little scumbag’s mother (No doubt a DPB sucking parasite..)….For a bit of balance perhaps this journalist might have interviewed the aformentioned elderly victim??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    I agree she has enough and is simply looking to complain rather than find solutions based on the options available to her.

    I think that assessment is accurate, and unfortunately common among those in society with their hand always extended. Its lamentable that many in NZ resort to the ‘its too hard therefore I can’t succeed’ meme, instead of trying to think how they can make it work for themselves. It seems some society just want others to take their horse to the water for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. wreck1080 (3,972 comments) says:

    As I expected, bollard purposefully pushed up the Kiwi dollar today with his disgraceful speech.

    I just don’t get why he did this, if anything we want the dollar to decline from the record highs it is currently pushing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Don the Kiwi (1,794 comments) says:

    Scott Chris.
    3.35 pm.
    You need to get to know what you are talking about – you obviously haven’t got a bloody clue.

    Its not only the Catholic church, but most protestant churches, evagelicals, jews and muslims.

    Its a direct assualt on the American constitution relating to individual citizens rights.

    Check it out, and then apologise for your stupidity.

    And besides, contraception and abortion is a lifestyle choice, not a health issue.

    Get a life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Manolo (14,084 comments) says:

    The whanau will say these two savages are “good boys”: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10785984

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    If this government was serious about saving tax payers money, reducing deficits etc it would be getting rid of commissioners who can only bag white folk and/or defend young criminals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Viking2 (11,577 comments) says:

    I was puzled by the choice of words this “prostitue” lady used.
    “I’m sort of tossed up because I think at least with that [prostitution], if someone is available to look after the kids, I could run off and do one client and then I’ll be fine.

    the phrase and the use of the words indicates to me that this is nothing new but something done before and indeed may well be current.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. nasska (11,822 comments) says:

    How a Government Department Works

    Once upon a time the government decided to scrap all the
    obsolete useless equipment they had bought over the years
    & assembled it somewhere in South Auckland. Cabinet said
    “Someone may steal some of it at night.” So they created a
    night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

    Then Cabinet said, “How does the guard do his job without
    instruction?” So they created a planning department and hired two
    people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to
    do time studies.

    Then Cabinet said, “How will we know the guard
    is doing the tasks correctly?” So they created a Quality Control
    department and hired two people. One to do the studies and
    one to write the reports.

    Then Cabinet said, “How are these people going to get paid?”
    So they created the following positions, a timekeeper, and a
    payroll officer, then hired two people.

    Then Cabinet said, “Who will be accountable for all of these
    people?” So they created an administrative section and hired
    three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative
    Officer, and a Human Resources Manager.

    Then Cabinet said, “We have had this command in operation for
    one year and we are $418,000 over budget, we must cut back
    overall cost.”

    So they laid off the night security guard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Yvette (2,854 comments) says:

    After Onan’s brother Er died, his father Judah told Onan to fulfill his duty as a brother-in-law to Tamar, by giving her offspring. However, when Onan had sex with Tamar, he disregarded a principle of Levirate marriage and he withdrew before climax, “spilling his seed on the ground”, since any child born would not legally be considered his heir. This he did several times, disregarding the principle of a Levirate union, and was accordingly sentenced to death by Yahweh for this wickedness. – Genesis 38:8-10

    Spilling seed was collateral, the means to the end sin of selfishness or lack of compassion, but the mis-read text became central to the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception and masturbation, or any sexual act for non-procreational purposes.

    In this the Catholic Church itself [and others] commit the same sin as Onan – a lack of compassion, but have extended it to plague untold millions.
    SNAFU !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Tauhei Notts (1,749 comments) says:

    Yvette,
    In a pub quiz several years ago a team called themselves the “Omniscient Onanists”
    Know all wankers, the quiz master announced!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. nasska (11,822 comments) says:

    …”central to the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception and masturbation, or any sexual act for non-procreational purposes.”……

    I’m glad you cleared that up for us. As a young Catholic lad, Andrei went shopping. He bought some tissues & a tube of lube then started thinking to himself……

    If, according to Catholics, masturbation is murder does buying tissues make it pre-meditated?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Tauhei Notts (1,749 comments) says:

    Nasska,
    On that subject, and as this is General Debate I can mention it, there is a very good movie on Channel 25 tomorrow at 11.30 p.m. It is named “Room In Rome” and if Kiwibloggers dislike my taste in foreign movies I will never ever put another recommendation on this blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. nasska (11,822 comments) says:

    Tauhei Notts

    I’ll get someone in town to “tape” it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Yvette (2,854 comments) says:

    Harry Potter on spilling seed –

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. nasska (11,822 comments) says:

    Yvette

    Great link.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Scott Chris (6,177 comments) says:

    Don the Kiwi

    On the contrary. Religious institutions are not exempt from secular law. Catholic hospitals employ over 800,000 people in the United States, most of whom are not Catholic, and it is in their interests that this legislation is being implemented. Of course other religions object to this, but tom hunter brought up Catholics specifically and they are the most prominent challengers of this law.

    What you don’t seem to understand is that providing insurance cover for contraception is a matter of public health, as 98% of American citizens will use contraception at one time or another and contraceptives, especially condoms are effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and transmission of STDs.

    This issue is no different from ensuring 12 year old girls receive the HPV vaccine which many a negligent parent is opposed to to the detriment of their child’s well being.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote