Gordon Campbell writes:

To state the bleedingly obvious: the blogosphere does not have the resources to compensate for the reduction in competition (and the loss of journalistic resources) that will be the inevitable outcome of this merger.

Why not? Sure, online startups are lively, thriving and multiplying : there’sScoop, The Spinoff, the Daily Blog, Kiwiblog, the Hard News stable, No Right Turn, The Standard, Pundit, the Dim-Post, Eric Crampton’s Offsetting Behaviour,Paul Buchanan’s 36th Parallel….to name just a few. Theoretically, the merger opens up a market opportunity for them. In reality, all of them will be damaged by the merger.

How come? Well for starters – and as this RNZ report explains here – and also here the blogosphere is poorly positioned to pick up the slack. It is run on a shoestring. It has few resources – or no resources at all, in most cases – to do news gathering. Its strength lies in its analysis and commentary; an essential role that the mainstream media has carried out timidly, or not at all. In other words, a genuine symbiotic relationship currently exists between the blogosphere and the traditional media. We rely on their news gathering and increasingly, they rely on our analysis and commentary. So… if there’s a decline in news gathering capacity, this will damage the ability of the blogosphere to carry out its valuable contribution to the public discourse.

I don’t disagree with what Gordon has said, and I’m not keen on the merger. But change can create opportunities.

The main media websites do very well at reporting news, and other sites do very well at analysis. Not just blogs, but NBR is very good at that, and I regard the best political analysis in NZ (by a wide margin) to be Richard Harman’s Politik newsletter.

But I have been thinking about what I would do if Stuff and NZ Herald combine and go behind a paywall. The initial impact would be a hassle. Rather than quote stories from their sites, and comment on them, I’d might have to use other sites such as Radio NZ or Newshub. But they have far fewer stories.

But the other thing I can do is start reporting the news more directly. 80% of stories seem to originate for PRs. I know this as I now get all the PRs. They tend to go into a folder I check once a day or so (if I have time). It is rare I’ll do a story based on a PR, as easier to quote a media story already summarising it.

But if two million NZers get blocked from most content on the Herald and Stuff sites, they’ll look elsewhere for it. I doubt many will pay for it.

I could hire someone to write a few news stories a day on interesting NZ issues. I already have good sources for overseas news.

I could also hire someone to cover parliamentary news and try and get them accredited to the press gallery. The gallery may not like it, but if they are going to hire most of their content behind paywalls, they’ll look bloody awful if they try to block a site willing to publish it freely from being able to access Parliament.

I’m not going to rush into anything, but if the merger goes ahead and the two main media websites combined and go behind a paywall, I will seriously look at whether I can grab a reasonable portion of their two million readers.

Stuff reports:

More city councillors will be allowed to decide how Wellington’s $9.4 million economic fund is spent, but they won’t be able to tell ratepayers.

Councillors voted on Wednesday to increase the size of the panel that oversees its Wellington Economic Initiatives Development (WEID) Fund from four to nine members.

But they will be required sign a confidentiality agreement before they can join.

They are spending ratepayers money. There should be no secrecy around this. Sometimes there is a need for commercial confidentiality, if for example negotiating a supply agreement with competitors.

But this is giving away ratepayers money to businesses. If any business says “We’ll only take your money if you keep the amount secret”, then fine – don’t give any to them.

Before I attempt to answer this question, I need to disclose my personal views. I was a Rubio supporter but voted for Cruz in the Arizona primary as Rubio has dropped out of the race by then. I was, and am now, not a fan of Trump…however I will hold my nose and vote for him in the General Election over Hillary Clinton.

The 2016 Presidential election will likely be remembered as one of the most exciting, chaotic, unpredictable and nasty campaigns in history. The presumptive nomination of Donald Trump to be the Republican Party’s standard bearer is the first time a major party has nominated a candidate with no prior elected office experience since businessman Wendell Willkie was the Republican nominee for the 1940 election. Yes, it is true that the GOP nominated Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 but he had served in the US Army for all his professional life with some years in major high profile leadership roles such that most would argue he had served his country in a highly public and successful capacity as Allied Supreme Commander in Europe during World War 2.

Democratic race

Before I look at the pluses and minuses that Trump brings to the campaign, it is instructive to look at the state of the Democrat nomination race. On paper, Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee. The only mathematical chance that Bernie Sanders has of overhauling Clinton’s almost 300 pledged delegate lead is to overwhelmingly win the remainder of the Democrat primaries AND to then persuade over 250 of the super delegates pledged to Hillary to switch camps. All of the Democrat delegates from primaries and caucuses are awarded proportionately unlike some key winner-take-all Republican primaries (such as Indiana where Trump easily beat Cruz to knock him out of the race). For instance, whilst it is true that Sanders has won the majority of more recent races, Clinton has managed to amass still more delegates in each lost race and, having won the large states that count, Sanders can only chip away at her delegate lead with low single digit delegate margins between him and her. With that said, Clinton is proving to be a remarkably weak front runner. Normally at this stage in a race with a front running presumptive nominee, momentum builds and the victories over the remaining candidate get wider and more decisive. Clinton did fight a rearguard action against Obama in 2008 but really only had a handful of victories during that resurgence and then fell away. It seems that despite the inevitability of the delegate count, Sanders is remaining defiant and is ramping up his attacks and remains capable of beating Clinton if only in smaller state contests. This is significant because whilst Trump is now unchallenged and can concentrate his fire on Clinton, she must still fight Sanders off to her left flank. He has dragged her to the left by virtue of both his socialist roots and his solidly progressive grassroots, populist campaign and so the usual pivot to the centre that a candidate undertakes in a general election campaign (no longer needing to appeal to the more ideological extremes of the party’s base) has been delayed for Clinton. Clinton has faced withering fire from Sanders over her vote for the Iraq war, her support for her husband’s popular tough anti-crime laws and welfare reforms in the 90’s and seems to be adopting knee jerk harder left positions such as the lifting the Federal minimum wage, anti-fracking/anti-oil sentiments and sounding tougher on Wall Street than Hillary would normally be considering her strong ties there.

The big question mark over Clinton still remains that of her fate arising from the FBI investigation into her non authorized email server and the dissemination of classified emails through this unsecure channel thus breaching strict intelligence secrecy laws. All recent reporting suggests the following:

• The man hired by Clinton to set up the homebrew server (Bryan Pagliano) has been granted immunity from prosecution and has spoken freely and frankly to the FBI;
• Clinton’s entire inner circle has now been interviewed by the FBI and Clinton has been advised that she will be next and last. This is the standard pattern of federal agents targeting a key person;
• FBI Director James Comey has gone on the record effectively dismissing the Clinton spin reaffirming that this is an investigation not a “security review” and that he and his agents will not be deterred by her rank and status;
• Various former Federal prosecutors have weighed to remind us that Clinton’s intent (innocent or otherwise) will be irrelevant – if top secret material is proven to be transmitted over non secure and non authorised channels, she (and her aides) will have committed the various felonies outlined in various relevant statutes.

Clinton’s fate lies in the hands of the Department of Justice and its top official, Obama appointee Attorney General Loretta Lynch. If the FBI find a prima facie case of breach and recommend indictment, it will be her and her deputy Attorneys General who will make the decision to file formal charges. The likelihood of stalling to after the election by the DOJ and White House or even a non-indictment decision is, in my opinion, high. However, Clinton (and the Democrat party) runs the risk of not only high level leaks from the career professional investigators (Comey has over 150 agents on the case including several top counter espionage and cyber security experts) but also the prospect of Comey’s own resignation over a non-indictment if the evidence is particularly compelling.

If there is no indictment, Clinton will tough it out and rely on a sympathetic pro Democrat media to shield her somewhat from the FBI leaks. If she is indicted, she’s toast as a candidate. Sanders is hanging around hoping for an indictment and will argue at the Convention in Philadelphia that he’s the next highest delegate winner and so the ‘next in line’. Despite polls showing Sanders getting a wider winning margin over Trump than Clinton, look for the Democrats to parachute Vice President Joe Biden in as the nominee as a Hail Mary to save the election.  This analysis is then premised on Clinton facing Trump in the autumn general election campaign.

Trump’s chances

Anyone who thinks they know what is going to happen on November 8 is likely to be wrong. Trump has upended almost every establishment political prognostication on both sides of the political aisle. He has defied conventional wisdom every step of the way. He has made a stream of gaffes that would’ve ended normal politicians’ runs, he has ignored media narratives and robustly combatted media opposition and yet still earned twice the media coverage of all of his GOP AND Democrat rivals COMBINED, he has eschewed a delegate winning ground game and what little money he has spent so far has largely been his own money. No one has ever managed to do this and succeed in the modern political era. He has relied more on his natural instincts concerning issues that are driving voters rather than carefully measured, polled and focus group tested sound bites like Clinton and his GOP opponents. Trump says things no one else has dared say especially about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Predictions of Trump’s fate, even from more centrist establishment Republicans, are that he is staring down the barrel of a landslide defeat. And yet others look at his remarkable string of victories against all prognostications, the record turnout of GOP primary voters and his ability to defy all the rules of normal politics as evidence that he will ride a wave of voter anti-establishment disgust all the way to a massive win over Clinton. The trouble with these predictions, as you will see as I detail the pros and cons of Trump’s candidacy, is that both sides of this argument seem to have compelling reasons to back up their assertions.

Trump’s negatives that militate against him winning

 1. Dis-unified party.

Most primary races leave wounds and scars amongst the defeated candidates and their followers but generally voters, supporters and surrogates for the defeated candidates get over it and unify behind the nominee. This process has not happened as much or as quickly with Trump. There has been a discernable and visible division amongst centre-right commentators, media, blogs and talk show hosts between those that support Trump and those that opposed him. This has been characterised by the so-called Never Trump movement. Whilst there has been somewhat more of a coalescing around Trump in recent days, the high profile reluctance of House Speaker Paul Ryan to endorse Trump is somewhat unprecedented. Likewise, is the hostile reception of party leaders like Mitt Romney who is alleged to have sounded out high profile Trump opponents like Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska and even Governor Kasich. This divide is clearly evident with invective and criticism of each other from right wing media with angry outbursts from Trump supporters like Fox News hosts and commentators Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter clashing with anti-Trump commentators like talk show host Mark Levin, Blaze TV front man Glenn Beck and a host of National Review editors and writers. Some like popular talk show hosts Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt have tried to remain largely neutral but the warfare inside the conservative movement over Trump, his candidacy, policies and personality is unprecedented and will make it harder for Trump to unify the party. Trump of course doesn’t help matters with his uncompromising rhetoric and his clashes with right media personalities such as Megyn Kelly.

2. Poor ground game

Unlike Ted Cruz who was known for his excellent on-the-ground GOTV efforts, data driven voter turnout models and canny delegate wooing tactics, Trump has been slow to embrace this crucial part of winning elections partly because he has relied so much on earned media. Trump seems to be far less interested in this aspect of electioneering than is wise. Clinton has managed to snare some of the same team that drove Obama’s highly successful voter targeting and GOTV operation and she has been investing heavily in a good ground game in key battleground states. It is a fact that the Republican National Committee has spent the last 2 election cycles playing electronic and data mining catchup with the Democrats and it is said that the RNC’s current GOTV operation is the best it’s ever been and at least equal with the Democrats. Trump’s slowness in this regard may be compensated for by the party’s own machinery that will swing in behind Trump. Obama proved that it was possible to get out his unique coalition twice in a row and Clinton will be banking on managing a three-peat.

3. Very high negative polling

Any analysis of polling data comparing past campaigns and candidates reveals that we face a quite unique situation with the two main candidates in 2016 in that both feature unusually high unfavourable polling figures. This is the ratio between those who favourably view a candidate and those who are unfavourable. The latest Gallup Favourable/Unfavourable ratio for Trump is a staggering 33/61 and Clinton is better but still poor at 41/54. To have two such unpopular candidates opposing each other is unprecedented and it remains to be seen as to what will happen to these figures as the campaign moves to a general election footing as each candidate showers media with a wall of negative ads designed to define their opponent.

4. Media portrayal of misogyny sticking

The main stream media have been quick to portray Trump as a misogynist women hater and certainly his comments about Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina gives some backbone to these claims. Will Trump’s very high negatives with women improve and if not, will Clinton’s negatives with men be enough to outweigh them? Right now Clinton is on the winning side of that statistical battle.

5. Competing against the first woman President candidacy theme of Clinton

Clinton has, and will continue to aggressively play, the woman card. Just as Obama was campaigning to end centuries of oppression of blacks by being the first black President, so Clinton wants to break a remaining glass ceiling and be the first woman President. To women voters in particular it is a powerful and simple campaign theme. Whether Clinton can overcome her considerable baggage to realise that goal remains to be seen but it is a real headwind that Trump is running against.

6. Poor head to head polling v Clinton

Up until very recently, the head to head polls, both at the national and swing state level, were devastating for Trump and his GOP opponents hammered him relentlessly on that. This more than anything else has fueled much of the negative prediction commentary about Trump from his right wing opponents and this has been seized upon with glee by Democrats, the MSM and left leaning commentators. Polls would be trumpeted showing Clinton barely behind in heavily Republican states like Georgia, winning Arizona (which has voted Democrat only twice since WW2 – 1948 and 1996) and Clinton leading in national polls by double digits. Electability in the fall in the past has been a powerful electioneering tool for primary candidates but in this cycle, once again a seeming cardinal rule has again been broken. Head to head polls showed in this order: Kasich, Rubio, Cruz then Trump from doing the best to the worse against Clinton (or Sanders) and yet the success of each major GOP candidate has been in inverse proportion to their supposed electability. Part of the reason for this is the truism that head to head polls this far out are meaningless and Trump’s surrogates have pointed this out for months and in recent weeks, these polls have tightened considerably with reputable polls putting Trump essentially level pegging in key states like Florida and Ohio and close to the margin error behind Clinton in national polls.

7. Leftist policy provisions and his bombastic personality causing the conservative base to stay at home

The knee jerk reaction of a number of more solidly conservative friends of mine is to refuse to vote for Trump. Some talk up a conservative third party candidate, others say they’ll vote Libertarian whereas most say they cannot bring themselves to vote for Trump seeing him as an unauthentic conservative, a closet Democrat and a crass populist and a few flirt with voting for Hillary. These assessments are not far off the mark but increasingly, many are coming to see Hillary and the extent to which Sanders has dragged her so far to the left, as a far greater existential threat to the Republic that many more are doing what I am doing and holding their noses and voting for Trump. The extent to which the conservative base stays home in protest or disgust at Trump’s excesses and policy quirkiness may have a large bearing on his success or otherwise in November. A third party candidate is highly unlikely. No one remotely electable has stepped up and in any event, the deadline has passed in most states to even get on the ballot – a task that is complex, time consuming and costly.

8. Trump’s caustic management style may see key staff burnt off

Stories abound of Trump’s abrasive and take no prisoners style. Will this extend to his campaign to such an extent that key staff abandon him? It’s hard to say. Trump has outwitted and outlasted armies of the GOP consultant establishment and utterly defied their collective wisdom by turning it on its head and proving them all wrong. That said, some mechanics of a campaign must be adhered to. Could Trump be so arrogant as to ignore even the practical and good election campaign advice rationalising his behaviour because he so dominated the primary race that the consultants have nothing to teach him? The truth is likely somewhere in the middle – some of their advice is relevant but most of their instincts have been to line their own pockets with fees. If Trump is wise he will attract the best players and listen to the good tactics they have to offer and yet stay true to his instincts that have seen him win so convincingly.

Trump’s assets that might see him win

1. Massive earned media

This graph tells the story far better than words. http://clashdaily.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/qmeme_1458400097167_447.jpg This, more than anything else, explains Trump’s success. He sucked the media oxygen from the air of almost all his rivals’ campaigns. Media obsession about all things Trump meant Jeb Bush could spend $150 million and have almost nothing to show for it. Despite the media realising that Trump has been their creation, he remains a ratings dream for networks and cable shows and excellent click bait for on line political news outfits like Politico, the Hill, the Washington Examiner and blogs. This is not going to change in the foreseeable future. Trump will still say outrageous things that will leave media and commentators buzzing and obsessing and now it will be Hillary Clinton who will be overshadowed. Obama got excellent earned media coverage because of his unique persona. Clinton is not unique – she is extremely well known and a rather dour campaigner. Faced with Trump’s endless stream of consciousness, provocative tweets and interviews, clashes with media and opponents and his sheer utter unpredictability, he will remain ratings gold as the campaign progresses ensuring his message reaches all corners of the electorate.

2. Record GOP turnout in the primaries translates into larger than usual general election turnout

The increase in Republican primary turnout in this cycle compared to 2012 has been a staggering 60%. As at the end of the New York primary on April 19^th, this amounted to an additional 9 million voters! Note that Obama only beat Romney by 5 million votes in the 2012 election. Whilst it is true that in some primaries allowed independents and registered Democrats to vote in GOP primaries meaning some of the higher turnout could be put down to cross over voting, turnout has been massively up even in states with closed primaries (limited only to registered Republicans). The best analysis of this is found at http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/25/exclusive-data-analysis-gop-primary-turnout-8-7-million-votes-60-percent-2016-versus-2012/. This trend bodes well for Trump.

3. Lower Democrat turnout

The flip side of point 2 is the significantly lower turnout for Democrat primaries and caucuses and this is in spite of the resurgent and seemingly popular grassroots campaign of Bernie Sanders. Democrats, aside from Sanders’ supporters, appear to relatively less enthusiastic about their presumptive nominee. This was the reverse in 2008 when Democrat primary turnout was hugely up on the back of Obama’s popular campaign. This difference does not bode well for Clinton.

4. Any negative news event in the immigration or terrorism sphere plays into Trumps hands

Any high profile murder by an illegal immigrant (especially one previously deported) will play into Trump’s anti-illegal immigration message. Even the ongoing wave of refugees into Europe plays subtly into Trumps hands as it shows the negative cultural impact of uncontrolled immigration. Even more potent would be the indirect electoral benefit to Trump of another global terrorist event. Another Paris or Brussels attack by Muslim extremists makes Trump’s policy of pausing on Muslim immigration to the US look reasonable and practical. A terrorist incident like the San Bernardino massacre, especially if close to the election, will guarantee Trump a strong bounce over Clinton as Trump will unsubtly make the Benghazi contrast. Anything more serious than San Bernardino would be game over for Clinton as Trump would ride a wave of almost 911 style voter fear.

5. The party is gradually, albeit slowly, coalescing around Trump

Paul Ryan, after his much publicized ‘summit’ with Trump, has moved from Never Trump to Probably Trump (but not yet). More Senators (even those who opposed him) are coming on board. Cruz and Rubio will likely hold their noses and eventually endorse. The Bush clan will stay silent and Romney will continue to oppose but likely will temper his attacks. It won’t be across the board or full throated but it could be enough to send a sufficient signal to other wavering GOP voters to hold their noses and vote for Trump.

6. Hillary is a lousy campaigner

She is wooden, inauthentic, focus group driven, uninspiring and somewhat prone to gaffes. Her handling of controversies such as the email scandal has been woeful. She is afraid to be interviewed by anyone except a handful of pro-Democrat flunkies who don’t really press her hard. Whilst she has handled Sanders reasonably well in their debates, she has not faced the wall of hostile questioning the GOP candidates faced in most of their debates and nor has she had to face Bernie Sanders more recent harder edged criticism as his attacks have ramped up since their debates. Trump, on the other hand, went through a large number of debates where he was the primary target of attacks and he acquitted himself adequately. He is not the purist debater in the Cruz mold nor the compelling story teller like Rubio but he can and will attack and vigourously defend himself. He will not conform to normal debate structures and approaches and will be unpredictable and feisty against Clinton and will not hesitate to bring up a host of negative issues like her email server, her poor record at State, Benghazi and the murky funding of the Clinton Foundation. Clinton has not faced any hard edged opposition in a public forum on any of these matters. I’m picking that she may refuse to debate Trump such will be the political risks that he will wipe the floor with her.

7. Clinton is burdened by a sluggish economy and Obama’s weak foreign policy – fighting off the Obama’s 3^rd term meme.

Whilst Obama’s popularity has staged a minor recovery, the economy (on Main Street versus the more buoyant Wall Street) has seen very anemic growth. The Obama recovery is the weakest of the all the post-Depression recoveries. The extremely low labour participation rate is a major unseen economic drag. It is down to only 63% from a high of 68% in 2000 and explains why the unemployment rate is seemingly so low at 5%. It is because approximately 11 million Americans have dropped out of the workforce altogether and are no longer seeking work and so are not counted in the unemployment stats. If they (and those forced to work part time) are added in, the true unemployment rate is 9.6% http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate . This is the first administration since the Depression to preside over a slight decline in net real wages AND net wealth of the vital middle class. Many voters feel they are not any better off despite the stock market recovery.  Add to this a string of foreign policy failures or stagnations, Clinton will be seen as an 3^rd Obama term and a third term in office for the same party has only happened once since the 22^nd Amendment restricted Presidents to two terms (Bush 41 wining in 1988 after the two Reagan terms).

8. Trump benefits from the strong anti-insider establishment sentiment and appeals to Reagan Democrats

This is the greatest unknown and possibly the one thing above all else that could win Trump the Presidency. Frustration at the establishment of both parties is running at record levels. It is palpable and crops up constantly in political discussion across communities. GOP control of the House (2010) and the Senate (2014) has actually made the sentiment worse because the GOP won two large wave elections giving them unprecedented majorities in both houses of Congress to block Obama as voters intended and yet time after time, the Republican leadership caved on key conservative issues to the disgust of the Republican base. This more than anything else explains Trump’s success in the primaries. This disgust, anxiety and frustration is bi-partisan. Many many voters of all persuasions see inaction on the border and blame stagnant wage growth and un/under employment on illegal immigration. Trump unashamedly taps a huge vein of fear and discontent especially amongst blue collar workers who were once a key demographic cohort for the Democrats. Lately this group have stayed home from the polls demoralised by the inaction by the party elites of both parties. Trump’s promises to make America great and to build a wall may bring record numbers of recent nonvoters to the polls to vote for a successful, confident outsider beholden to no one promising to get things done. The same is true for foreign policy and the rise of Islamic extremism. Middle America is tired of political correctness and waning American power and the seeming impotence of Obama’s so-called ‘smart power’ diplomacy. Trump’s promise to make America great again has to the power to plough through all his many negatives and bring dormant general election voters of both parties, long disgusted by business as usual in Washington, to the polls in droves to install the anti-politician who has built a successful business empire.

9. The Teflon factor

Trump has defied political gravity continuously. Normal rules don’t apply. Revelations of sordid earlier affairs, drug fueled parties in the 80’s, eminent domain abuses, fraudulent claims of Trump University, threats to investigate his political enemies if he wins – all negatives that the media will gleefully report from Clinton’s oppo research files, will slide off Trump. Almost all of this is baked into the cake. Voters know Trump is flawed, quixotic, not really a policy expert and often all over the page on some issues. They don’t care – they believe on the big issues (immigration, Islamic extremism, American jobs and US strength and power abroad) that Trump will face down his critics, ignore the media and Washington commentatiat and just hunker down and finally do the things that Americans have been begging to have done for decades. When faced with a choice between more of the same from Clinton (with the added spice of a rerun of Clinton scandals like the 90s) and the fresh but flawed broom that Trump promises to sweep, it may end up being a no brainer for enough voters in places like Florida, Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania to get him to 270 electoral votes.

As I said, both sides’ arguments are compelling, All I know is that US voters are in going to be in for the wildest campaign ride possibly in over a hundred years!

Anton van Heldon from Forest & Bird writes:

The fishing industry has a laughable case for compensation in the Kermadecs – and the Government shouldn’t pay, says Anton van Helden.

The fishing industry recently lodged a legal case against the Government’s proposal to establish the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary.

The case does not appear to be about the law, nor even about fish.  It’s about extracting corporate welfare from the taxpayer and blocking future efforts at marine protection. Most of the fish they are seeking compensation for are not found in the Kermadecs and the industry’s interpretation of the law of the sea is laughable.

Strong words.

The fishing industry’s assertion that the New Zealand Government does not have the right to create marine protection in the EEZ is clearly laughable. 

Yet the fishing industry case also argues for compensation for 66 species that they claim a Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary will deny them access to.

One would imagine that the fishing industry knows a thing or two about fish. However, from Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) data, 34 of the species they have listed do not even occur in the region, a further 10 are listed as “unknown” for the region, six don’t show up in the Ministry’s own database, and of the 16 species left, six occur only in the existing marine reserve that covers the territorial seas immediately around the Kermadec Islands.

The preferred method of fishing for at least four of the remaining few species is bottom trawling, which is prohibited by the industry’s own designation of the Kermadec region as a Benthic Protected Area. Three species have previously had experimental fisheries in the region that came to nothing.  Unsurprisingly there has been almost no fishing in the Kermadec EEZ for the last 10 years.

So with such thin arguments, and so little chance of winning, why is the industry going to court over the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary proposal?

A good question.

Part of the answer can be understood from the makeup of the industry group taking the case.  It is telling that one is an investment company involved almost exclusively with aquaculture and inshore fishing, neither of which can happen in the Kermadec region.

The industry is not really concerned about the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary.  Their strategy appears to be to pressure the Government into avoiding the significant cost of a court case by settling for a small compensation payment over the Kermadecs.  

While such a solution might be politically attractive in the short term, the long-term consequences for sustainably managing our marine environment would be enormous.

The fishing industry is after a precedent which they can then wield to block any attempt to establish genuine marine protection measures in the rest of our EEZ by demanding massive “compensation” for any new protection proposal. Such demands could then be made against marine protection proposals in the coastal territorial seas.

The Government must resist the industry’s stand-over tactics and avoid any quick and dirty out-of-court deals. 

The industry’s case provides the perfect opportunity for the courts to establish, once and for all, that the international agreement that established our right to sustainably manage our EEZ came with an equal obligation to preserve and protect our marine environment.

I agree with Forest & Bird.

The Herald reports:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership legislation has passed its first hurdle with support from National, Act, United Future – and one Labour MP.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill will now be considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee, after passing its first reading 62 to 59.

It was opposed by Labour, the Green Party, New Zealand First and the Maori Party. However, Labour MP Phil Goff voted for the TPP.

In January, Labour leader Andrew Little gave Mr Goff special dispensation to do so, because during Mr Goff’s time as trade minister he started the negotiations for the agreement’s predecessor.

Fellow Labour MP David Shearer had told the Herald he personally supported the TPP, but later said he would be voting along party lines.

Well done Phil Goff for voting for what you know to be in NZ’s best interests.

The last four Labour Party leaders before David Cunliffe all support TPP – David Shearer, Phil Goff, Helen Clark and Mike Moore. They lead the Labour Party for 21 years between them.

Breitbart reports:

The Remain campaign is “contaminating” Britain’s democratic process by relying on “outside money” and foreign interests to tell Brits how to vote, the former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has said.

Speaking at Westminster, Winston Peters, who also served as his country’s Foreign Minister and Treasurer, mocked suggestions Britain would suffer outside the European Union (EU) and said the UK would be welcomed by the Commonwealth.

“The British people are standing on the cusp of a truly exciting future,” he said. “It will not be easy to achieve that future but if there’s one nation that can do it, it is the British.”

Good God. I may be on the same side as Winston on an issue.

Not that I’m totally decided (and of course I don’t vote) but the campaign for Bremain has been pretty awful and failed to portray any positives from membership – just a scare campaign against leaving.

However there is no doubt a Brexit would have significant negative consequences for the UK in the short term. It would hit the economy as there would be two years of uncertainty and businesses won’t invest when the environment is uncertain.

But in the medium to long term those consequences would fade, and there will be advantages of independence.

If the EU was more democratic, I’d be more keen to see the UK remain. But the EU structure is fundamentally flawed and I am not sure if it fixable.

Duncan Storrar appeared on the Australian Q+A programme and asked a question attacking the Government’s announced tax cuts as they were providing nothing for low income earners like himself. He said more help for families like him would mean he could tell his little girls they can go to the movies this weekend as Daddy isn’t broke.

He became a hero to the Australian left and Australian liberal media. He was the perfect symbol of an out of touch Government. They didn’t just fete him as the face of the ordinary Australian whom the coalition doesn’t care about, but they raised A$60,000 for him. The Twitter hashtag #duncanforpm started trending.

Then the truth about Storrar started to come out. And remember now that he decided to go on Q+A and to ask his question. Storrar put himself in the media spotlight, no-one else.

Then Storrar’s son spoke out, saying how at age 17 he went to live with him and got addicted to drugs due to him. He urged people to donate to charities, rather than giving to a someone “undeserving of the money”.

And then it came out that Storrar is a recidivist criminal with a list of convictions 20 pages long – including three spells in prison. So those blaming the Government for his situation start to look stupid, let alone those who raised $60,000 for him and proclaimed he should be Prime Minister.

His convictions include threatening to kill, unlawful assault and repeatedly breaching intervention orders.

We see this in NZ often too. Media rush in to fete someone who puts themselves forward as a victim without doing any due diligence on them.

The Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key said Inland Revenue staff have trawled through the Panama Papers and found fewer than 200 foreign trusts registered in New Zealand had links to Mossack Fonseca and all had been disclosed.

The Inland Revenue ‘crack squad’ was charged with looking through the files released early this morning to ensure no New Zealanders were dodging their tax obligations and that foreign trusts in New Zealand were within their legal obligations.

A gleeful Mr Key reported their findings this afternoon after facing days of questioning about whether the papers proved New Zealand was effectively a tax haven targeted by Mossack Fonseca.

He said of 500,000 entities and organisations Mossack Fonseca had a link to, fewer than 200 were trusts with any link to New Zealand. All of those were disclosed, which Mr Key said meant they were subject to information sharing requests from other countries and Inland Revenue.

So what is the wrong doing here?

Chris Trotter writes:

BRINGING DOWN JOHN KEY has become an abiding obsession of the New Zealand Left. As if all of New Zealand’s problems have their origins in the actions of a single individual. As if the Prime Minister hasn’t been shaped by the people he governs every bit as much as they have been shaped by him. As if Key’s uncanny ability to extricate himself from scandal after scandal hasn’t been made possible by the electorate’s willingness to look the other way while he does it.

All of which suggests that the Left’s obsession with bringing down Key isn’t about the National Party Leader at all, but about its own inability to attract and hold the same level of popular support that keeps him in power. All of which raises the possibility that the Left’s real problem isn’t with Key at all – but with the democratic process itself.

If I was a Labour supporter I’d be more worried about the fact that the 2014 NZ Election Survey found only 35% of NZers even like Labour (58% liked National). That is an effective cap on your support.

Over the past fortnight, for example, the Left has been outraged by revelations contained in the so-called “Panama Papers”. These have been seized upon as conclusive proof of John Key’s determination to transform New Zealand into a tax haven.

That the New Zealand-related documents contained in the Panama Papers might be interpreted as the legal firm at the centre of the controversy, Mossack Fonseca’s,  back-handed tribute to this country’s reputation for honesty and fair-dealing does not appear to have occurred to the implacable prosecutors of the Left.

Similarly failing to register with them is the indisputable fact that the formation of trusts (both foreign and domestic) is a perfectly legal activity engaged in not only by dubious South American businessmen, but also by thousands of ordinary New Zealand families. The purposes of these legal instruments is much the same in both instances: to shield the assets of their beneficiaries from the fiscal and/or administrative exactions of the state.

Well said, yet Andrew Little thinks they should all be banned.

The New Zealand Left’s animosity towards John Key is, thus, curiously reminiscent of the early Christian Church’s animosity towards the Roman Emperor, Nero. In both cases we are presented with a minority utterly convinced of its moral righteousness, and absolutely unwilling to compromise its principles. Unsurprisingly, such stiff-necked insistence on their own rectitude, asserted aggressively in the midst of an avaricious and morally undemanding society, not only got these groups offside with their neighbours, but also with the authorities. Finding themselves under political pressure, it is hard to blame either Nero, or John Key, for making scapegoats of their unpopular critics.

Not that John Key has gone so far as to transform his left-wing opponents into human torches! Like Nero, however, he has boosted his own popularity at their expense – and they hate him for it.

The Early Christians worked Nero’s name into their identification of the Beast of the Book of Revelation: “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.”

The New Zealand Left is equally obsessed with numbers – even if, in the case of John Key, they are the numbers hidden in the spreadsheets of the Panama Papers.

Heh.

Jonathan Coleman announced:

Health Minister Jonathan Coleman is encouraging people to use a new online map to see whether their GP offers a patient portal.

“A growing number of general practices are introducing patient portals. These secure online sites are the health equivalent to online banking,” says Dr Coleman.

“Portals enable patients to book appointments, order repeat prescriptions and view lab test results online.

“You can have secure conversations with your GP via email, and in some cases, patients can also view their notes online.

“Portals are convenient, secure and real time savers for both the patient and staff at their general practice.

“A new interactive map launched today makes it easy for patients to check which general practices are offering portals. Patient portals are a great step towards enabling New Zealanders to manage more of their own healthcare.”

Over 330 general practices are now offering patient portals, with nearly 136,000 New Zealanders registered to use one.

The map is here.

You can quickly see which medical centres in Wellington City have a patient portal. They are:

• Island Bay Medical Centre
• Peninsula Medical Centre
• Newtown Medical Centre
• Newtown Union Health Service
• Brooklyn Central Health
• Brooklyn Medical Centre
• Karori Medical Centre
• Capital Care Medical Centre
• Evolve Wellington
• City GPs
• Kelburn Medical Centre
• The Terrace Medical Centre
• Onslow Medical Centre
• Johnsonville Medical Centre
• Newlands Medical Centre

I’ve been using Manage My Health for a couple of years and find it great. The main attraction is being able to see which doctors are free when, and book yourself in. But lots of other good features also:

• Can see your vaccination history and recalls
• Blood Type
• All test results
• Previous prescriptions
• Secure e-mail with doctors

Stuff reports:

What do you get when you give a man six months and NZ$2400 (US$1500)? A single sandwich.

But it’s not just any sandwich, of course.

Andy George, host of YouTube series How To Make Everything, attempts to make everyday things from scratch, gathering and growing the raw ingredients before assembling the final product.

This is a good lesson about the value of trade.

Some people think trade is a zero sum game. Exports are good and imports are bad.

Trade is about relative value. You could spend six months of your time making a sandwich from scratch, or you can trade with other people who allow you to purchase a sandwich for $5 instead of $2,400.

As I’ve said before, there is a challenge with not just jihadists, but also what I call extreme views among a minority of Muslims. The example I use is support for the death penalty for apostates. That is a view incompatible with a free society. You should not face any criminal penalty for changing your religion, let alone death.

A survey was done of views among Muslims in the UK. The full results are here. Now there has been some criticism of the survey methodology such as possible over-sampling in areas with a high Muslim population (which is more likely to foster radical views). So these findings should be taken as approximate. Maybe 38% is only 30% for example. And you have sample margin of errors. But nevertheless the high level of support for some views is a concern, and something that needs to be confronted.

There is also good news in the survey – most Muslims strongly feel they belong to Britain, and only 1% was separate Islamic areas.

• 86% strongly feel they belong to Britain (which is good)
• However only 63% in the North East strongly feel they belong
• Only 3% think they are treated worse than other religions by their local doctor or schools
• However 17% think treated worse by Police
• 22% of Muslims think religious harassment of Muslims is a big problem and 73% not a problem
• 17% have personally experience harassment while 82% have not
• 36% mix socially in their home with non-Muslims at least weekly, 39% infrequently and 22% never
• 39% want to fully integrate with non-Muslims, 29% mainly integrate, 17% some integration and only 1% want seperate Islamic areas with sharia law and government
• 33% think boys and girls should be taught separately and 46% disagree
• Only 28% think it is acceptable for a homosexual to be a teacher and 47% say unacceptable
• 31% say a British Muslim should be able to have more than one wife and 46% disagree
• 39% say a wife should always obey their husband and 32% disagree
• Only 18% think homosexuality should be legal and 52% disagree
• 23% support sharia law in some ares of UK, and 43% opposed
• 88% say UK is a good place for Muslims to live and only 3% a bad place
• Negative feelings towards other religious groups are Catholics 12%, Atheists 23%, Buddhists 20%, Jews 25%, Protestants 13%, Hindus 17%
• Only 1% think the Holocaust is a myth
• 4% support and 83% condemn terrorist acts
• 5% support stoning for adultery and 79% condemn
• 18% support violence against those mocking the Prophet and 64% condemn
• Only 4% believe publications should be able to publish depictions of the Prophet and 78% say not okay
• 7% support objective of Islamic State (but not methods) and 675 oppose
• 3% support actions of Islamic State and 73% oppose

Overall some of the results are very encouraging, with very low levels of support for Islamic State, stoning for adultery etc, Holocuast denial. However other findings such as criminalising homosexuality and prohibiting publications showing Muhammad are more challenging.

The Herald editorial:

Let us not soften the language we use about a man who hits a woman. It has been called domestic violence or partner violence. Our in-depth examination of the problem today and through next week is labelled “family violence” because an entire family suffers when a parent resorts to violence to control a partner or children. But at its most serious level, this problem is men. Not all men, not even most men, and, as some men always point out, not just men. Women can, and do, resort to violence too.

But this subject is too important to be blurred and broadened for the sake of gender neutrality. New Zealand has one of the worst family violence rates in the world and it is a fair bet women are not responsible for most of it, and certainly not the worst of it.

Why guess? we have a very robust and reliable survey of crime in New Zealand.

The 2014 NZ Crime and Safety Survey found:

• 6% of women and 4% of men were victims of a violent interpersonal offence in 2013
• 26% of women and 14% of men were victims of partner violence at some stage in their life

So yes most domestic violence is by men (and certainly the worst domestic violence is), but in the latest year 40% of victims were men which is a very significant minority. A 60/40 split is very different to say a 90/10 split.

We should not listen to claims of provocation, verbal or physical. If we are going to eradicate this disgrace on our society the truth needs to be implanted in every male mind that there is never an excuse for a man to hit a woman.

I agree. I abhor such violence.

People wonder why I prefer Hillary Clinton to Trump. Trump is far more anti free trade than her, and how he is saying lets increase taxes and the minimum wage:

United States Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump yesterday said he was open to raising taxes on the rich, backing off his prior proposal to reduce taxes on all Americans and breaking with one of his party’s core policies dating back to the 1990s.

“I am willing to pay more, and you know what, the wealthy are willing to pay more,” Trump told ABC’s This Week. After effectively sealing the Republican nomination for the November 8 presidential election last week, Trump has used speeches and interviews to offer more details on his policy positions.

The billionaire real estate tycoon has said he would like to see an increase in the minimum wage, although he told NBC’s Meet the Press yesterday he would prefer to see states take the lead on that front instead of the federal Government.

“I don’t know how people make it on US$7.25 ($10.63) an hour,” Trump said of the current federal minimum wage.

“I would like to see an increase of some magnitude.

Trump is not a conservative, a classical liberal, a fiscal conservative or anything but a nationalist and populist. His fiscal policies would see a huge increase in debt.

Stuff reports:

Finance spokesman Grant Robertson mental health funding  was one of the “yawning gaps” in the health system. 

Labour figures showed his party increased health spending by an average of 8.1 per cent, while National had increased it by 3.4 per cent, he said.

“In the real world, that means people are not getting the surgeries they need, they’re not getting access to the mental health system, they’re not getting primary health care they need.” 

Health spokesman Annette King said Labour would fund health properly.

This sums up pretty much everything that is wrong with Labour. They think that what matters most is spending more money – rather than what that money actually achieves.

According to Labour, if DHBs manage to reduce their property costs by say $200 million, then that is bad as that is $200 million less spending. If DHBs save $100 million on accountants and increase spending on doctors by $50 million then Labour thinks this is bad because that is overall less spending.

I’m not sure Labour will ever get that what matters is results, not spending. Of course you need spending to achieve some things, but claiming an 8% annual increase in health spending is better than a 4% increase is focused on the wrong thing.

The reality is that almost every significant health indicator is better now than in 2008. A few are:

• Youth smoking rates halved
• Youth hazardous drinking rates halved
• 100% of cancer patients now getting timely treatment, compared to 65% under Labour
• 94% of patients being seen within six hours at ED, up from 70%
• A 42% increase in the number of elective surgeries
• An 18% increase in nurses and 27% increase in doctors
• Immunisation rates up from 76% to 94%

Now if you go back to what Labour achieved despite their massive spending increases, well the answer will be not much. In fact the number of elective surgeries declined from 2000 to 2006.

Here’s the challenge for Labour. Don’t come up with a policy of simply promising more spending. Make a commitment on some outcomes.

John Palino has released a detailed 97 page book outlining what he sees as wrong with the Auckland Council, and what he wants to do to fix it.

It’s superb to see a Mayoral candidate offer so many specific policies. I hope all the other Mayoral candidates will do the same. Too many campaigns are about style not substance.

A summary of what John Palino is proposing includes:

• Reduce rates by 10% over the first term
• An Auckland Ratepayers Bill of Rights that will hold Council responsible for meeting and managing within budgets limiting future rates increases to no more than inflation and population growth
• Any project with spending of over $1 billion to go to a referendum
• Make Council spending transparent to Ratepayers so they can judge whether or not their money is being spent sensibly with all spending to be placed monthly on the Internet
• To provide a long term city plan that reduces traffic congestion by creating an environment that encourages and allows businesses to develop in locations and provide employment opportunities near where people want to live
• Remove the Metropolitan Urban Limit
• To abandon the current council ideology that increasing housing density in existing suburbs will solve traffic congestion problems and provide affordable housing
• Change zoning to allow intensification of housing, commercial and industrial greenfield sites near existing major transport routes in order to support and develop satellite CBDs. .
• To provide an Iwi consultation process for resource consents that is limited to genuine cultural issues, that is speedy and cost certain
• To hold council officers to account for poor or tardy decisions by establishing a Citizens Decision Review Panel, including relevant external experts, that ratepayers can appeal to
• Will make the 10% rates reduction a KPI indicator for the CEO
• Have all consenting decisions made within half the statutory deadline
• Support tolling for new roads

Stuff reports:

Finance Minister Bill English has outlined a Budget plan that promises cake today but gruel tomorrow – and marries the justifiable with the downright perverse.

The justified part is his decision to spend more this year and put on ice plans for a 2017 tax cut.

Population growth, especially from migration, is putting real pressure particularly on health and education that the existing $1 billion allowance for new spending simply cannot meet. A significant hike can be expected to both when Bill English stands to deliver his eighth Budget on May 26.

The Government’s “investment approach” to social issues, that favours a dollar spent now to save two dollars later, will also demand extra resources.

That will be funded by dismembering his 2017 election year war chest of $2.5b – of which $1.5b was earmarked for tax cuts.

They are now off the agenda, pending a significant improvement in the economic and fiscal situation, though English insists they are still a priority.

I think this is pretty appalling. If the Government can’t deliver any tax relief in next year’s Budget, then I don’t think they ever will. Due to fiscal drag, most New Zealanders end up every year paying a slightly higher proportion of their income in tax than the year before. I want a Government that slows or reduces the proportion of income people pay in tax – not one that allows it to keep increasing.

The Government has done a good job keeping spending under control, and the exceptional circumstances of the Global Financial Crisis and the Canterbury Earthquakes have meant that tax cuts prior to now were fiscally difficult. But patience will run out, if there are no tax cuts announced in 2017.

I was thrilled this week to meet Hyeonseo Lee.

I got a call from Melissa Lee last week telling me that she is hosting a dinner at Parliament with the National Unification Advisory Council and the guest speaker is a defector from North Korea. She thought I might be interested as I had blogged on North Korea.

A few months ago I had read an amazing book about North Korea by a defector, Hyeonseo Lee. It is called The Girl with Seven Names. I had raved about the book to friends and family and even lent it out to them.

So I asked Melissa ho the defector was, not expecting it would be a name I had heard of. When Melissa said it is a young women who wrote the book “The Girl With Seven Names” I excitedly exclaimed to her how I had not just heard of her, but read her book and been talking about it for months. So I was very excited to get to meet Hyeonseo in person.

She spoke on her life story to around 100 MPs, diplomats, members of the National Unification Advisory Council and some of the NZ veterans of the Korean War. Earlier that day Melissa had moved in Parliament a resolution:

That this House condemn the human rights record of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which is detailed in the United Nations 2014 commission of inquiry into both systematic abuse and repression, and that this House call on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to give access to human rights bodies and international agencies to improve the lives of the North Korean people.

This passed without dissent.

There are two major themes to Hyeonseo’s book that resonated with me – her personal story, and the insight into what life is really like in North Korea.

Her personal story is quite amazing. She was basically an accidental defector. She lived on the border with China and the day before her 18th birthday, she decided to cross the border just to see what life was like in China. Her intention was to return, and as she was not yet an adult, there would be lesser consequences for her if she got caught – would be a youthful prank. Her family were not enemies of the state, they were fairly well off middle class (for North Korea).

However the security police got wind that she had gone missing and may have crossed the border, and her family warned her that if she came back then the whole family might be arrested and sent to a camp. So she had to stay in China.

She then spent around seven years in China living undercover. Chinese authorities will send back North Koreans to North Korea so she had to pretend to be Chinese. This involved assuming a number of identities (hence the title of the book, The Girl With Seven Names) and years of living in fear that at any point she may be discovered and deported.

She eventually made her way out of China and with fake papers managed to fly to South Korea. She was petrified that they would not welcome her, but when she declared she was a defector, their first words were “Welcome home”. However it then turned bad as her fake Chinese papers were so convincing that they decided she was Chinese and might deport her back to China (and then North Korea). After a couple of weeks thought she convinced them that she was in fact North Korean, and she got to live in South Korea.

Her story did not end there, as she later went back to get her mother and family out. They came close to disaster many times, were blackmailed and betrayed and eventually arrested in Laos. Then a good samaritan struck, as an random Australian businessman who was in the building paid a huge sum to authorities to get her family released, and they got back to South Korea. The generosity of strangers can be staggering.

So her personal story is an adventure that would be amazing even as fiction, let alone as a true story.

But her depiction of life in North Korea is also powerful. She writes of the weekly inspection of their houses to check their photos of the Great Leader are straight. They can be punished if one of the photos are crooked. They are forced to effectively worship the Kims and schools are basically state run brainwashing camps.

And the brainwashing works. Until she ended up in China, she had no idea that it was all lies.  The control of the people by the state is so total, you have an entire population enslaved.

I actually got angry reading her book, recalling a certain prominent New Zealander who visited North Korea and declared how wonderful it seemed to be, and how happy the people are that they met – seemingly unaware that all they saw was propaganda put on by the Government.

If there is any one book you should read about North Korea, this is the one. It’s not written by an enemy of the state. It’s just the life of a normal 17 year old girl who crossed a river and ended up being hunted for the best part of a decade.

On a personal level was great to meet the author of a book which I had found so compelling. I had so many questions for her, that Melissa finally had to take her away around the room, as I was hogging her time 🙂

A while back I got an invitation from Float Culture to try out their flotation pools where you lie in a super-saturated Epsom-salt solution.

As I finally had a spare day in Auckland last week, I headed along to them to try them out.

You fill in a quick medical form and they take you into one of their five rooms which consist of a bathroom and another room with the pool.

In the bathroom you shower and clean, remove any piercings (not an issue for me!), and put ear plugs into your ear (to block out the water).

Then you enter the pool room.

The pool has around 30 cm of water in it. It’s heated to 35.5 degrees and as there is so much salt in it, you easily float on it. The temperature means you can’t tell what parts of you are under water and on top.

You then close the door and turn out the light, and the room goes pitch black.

For the first ten minutes they play soft music, and then it stops so you have near total sensory deprivation with no light, sound or feeling for the next fifty minutes.

The aim is to remove all stimulation from you so you destress and muscles relax.

So how did it got for me?

Some people can’t handle it and freak out. That definitely wasn’t me. Enjoyed the sensory deprivation.

It took me a fairly long time to relax though. That is more due to me. Ask anyone who has ever shared a bed with me, and you’ll hear complaints about how I twist and turn and roll over. I’m not good at not moving – even when asleep!

So by the time the music ended I was still not entirely relaxed. I was enjoying it, but still fidgeting a bit. And the movement would sometimes have me brush against a wall and then you lose the effect.

But after I guess 20 or 30 minutes or so, I got there and was just not moving or thinking but totally relaxed on the water. I know this, because suddenly the music started up again which meant the hour was up.

So overall a very pleasant experience. I’m someone who actually really enjoys sensory deprivation, so loved that aspect of it. Once I fully relaxed, ended up nicely in my own little world and was sad when the time was up. Would definitely do it again at some stage.

Stuff reports:

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff bowed out defiantly on Thursday (Friday NZ Time), suspended from office after the Senate voted to put her on trial for breaking budget laws in a historic decision brought on by a deep recession and a corruption scandal.

Rousseff, in office since 2011, will be replaced by Vice President Michel Temer, for the duration of a Senate trial that could take up to six months.

Rousseff, speaking shortly before she left Brasilia’s Planalto presidential palace, said was notified of her suspension on Thursday morning.

Her suspension came hours after the Senate voted 55-22 to put her on trial, a decision that ended more than 13 years of rule by the left-wing Workers Party.

That vote suggests she may well be convicted and permanently removed as they need a two thirds majority.

Her wonderfully enlightened socialist policies have seen GDP decrease for two years in a row by around 4%. That is not just a recession but on the verge of an outright economic depression.

The budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is around 11%. Interest rates are around 14% and inflation close to 10%.

Unemployment is at 8% and expected to hit 10% then. Real wage rates have fallen by 10% or so.

This is what happens when you can’t control spending.