John Key says “NO” to GST because National wants to cut taxes not raise taxes:
Oh, wait, that was when he was trying to get our votes. Not now, when National get to determine how much tax voters pay.
Bernard Hickey has been scathing to pretty much any media that will have him:
[John Key] decided not to challenge a generation of voters who are now rich because of the property boom and don’t want to give it up. He is cementing in place the biggest transfer of wealth between generations in New Zealand’s history.
He is saying to a generation unlucky enough not to own property in 2002 that they can give up on the dream of family home ownership in the main cities unless they can pry the money out of their parents. He is saying to all those too poor to own a home now will never be able to own their own home. He is accepting the poverty and the hopelessness that often is attached to the working poor in rental accommodation. He is saying tough. My backers own property. We won. You lost. Eat that.
The Treaty Resource Centre has been publishing Pakeha State of the Nation speeches online annually on Waitangi Day for the last few years. It’s a great idea – invite Pakeha with an interest in just and fair negotiations with tangata whenua about how we share this land to share their views – but it doesn’t get much coverage or interest from most of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Previous years have featured commentary from historian Robert Consedine, academic Ingrid Huygens and journalists like Carol Archie and Rod Oram.
This year’s speech was from Green Party Co-Convenor Moea Armstrong. It probably worked well oratorically – repetition of key idea, that Maori did not cede sovereignty in Te Tiriti, and that this fundamental misreading is an insulting transgression as difficult to recover from as any overt taking of land or trampling of culture.
But it’s substance, as a speech about Pakeha state of nationhood, feels all wrong to me. There are bits which feel right:
Everyone has their own penny-dropping moment when it comes to understanding the injustices of colonisation. The popularity of the new film Avatar will hopefully have pennies dropping like the Jaffas in theatres of earlier times ‐ the Na’vi do not cede their sovereignty.
This bit feels right because it is about acknowledging today’s cultural influences on how Pakeha might think about the world and our place in it. Avatar is astonishing for a mainstream film – and the pennies were certainly dropping for me when the Na’vi’s home tree was being destroyed by the business colonisers seeking Unobtainium – all I could think about was Parihaka being invaded and people sitting down peacefully, on their own land, being arrested and imprisoned by the state without trial for years.
I’m not saying I want Pakeha State of the Nation speeches to be movie reviews of the latest big thing from Hollywood. But if this year’s one leaves me cold – and let’s face it, is there more of a target audience than anti-racist lefty liberal feminists? Well, if it leaves me cold because essentially it’s explaining Maori concepts and ideas to me without developing Pakeha responses or engagements – without developing a Pakeha place to stand – then how on earth will it hope to influence majority Pakeha viewpoints?
Maybe that’s not what this speech is for. Maybe it was about letting Nga Puhi know they had been heard. I just felt disappointed in the lack of new thinking in one of the few reliable places I go to regularly for progressive anti-racist Pakeha thought.
The name suppression discussions raging around the internet and mainstream media on the back of Whale Oil’s campaign to single-handedly bring justice to the justice sector have pulled in comments from all directions.
Cheerleading from DomPo editorials and Michael Laws:
Blogger Slater is challenging such legal shibboleths and all power to him. His tilt, and those of his fellow internet communicators, will likely have more political effect than the recent and arid tome of the Law Commission. Because Slater is refining an aged principle in the newest medium. And because the current law so obviously deviates from any objective for justice.
Concerns raised at the Hand Mirror and from media law expert Steven Price.
Generally speaking, I agree with Whale Oil’s point that suppression orders are social engineering. Only about 730 criminal cases of a possible 150,000 get name suppression each year. No crime for Mr Pakeha Middle Class business man. No crime for Mr Politician, or Mr High Level Sportsman.
But if the focus is narrowed to suppression in sexual violence, it’s far from simple. After conviction, those who commit sexual violence should be able to be named, provided it does not identify their victim(s). When their victim(s) are happy themselves to be named, and so name suppression of the offender is only to protect him/her, then they should be able to be named. This would happen more often than people think.
But there are many cases where it would not happen, including child abuse cases. And why should victims of sexual violence be subjected to the trial by media that, let’s be honest, we know would happen?
Or what about a case like this? Man using child porn, name protected at least partly because of his wife and children. What if his children are adults, and don’t feel they need protection? I have to say, if my father was convicted of using child pornography I would not be interested in pretending he was innocent. I would tell people, and I would fight him getting name suppression.
This is a harsh call, because my father, to my knowledge, and believe me we discuss these things fairly frequently, is most unlikely to use child pornography or sexual violate women or children.
My point is simply that I believe victims of sexual violence (in the criminal case sense) should have some say over blanket name suppression, and that where naming the offender does not necessarily identify the victim, the offender should be named. I also believe that if name suppression is to “protect” other people, they should be consulted before suppression is granted.
Essentially, why on earth shouldn’t your reputation and ability to earn money, respect etc be dented by your actions? The arguments that stop poor wife-beating All Blacks being named, or sexually offending entertainers do not seem to me very compelling. 
While of course it’s true that the media isn’t going to be interested in reporting on the same crimes committed by less well-known people, this shouldn’t protect the famous or rich from consequences.
But back to the media – are they so keen on this issue because they want to break down stereotypes of who commits crime? I’ll remind you again of how the DomPo responded to my suggestion of writing a story about Parihaka – not without Police raids, baby.
But perhaps other media are less sure of who criminals are.
Or is there an analogy to media reporting on suicide? The NZ media champ at the bit to break suicide reporting guidelines due to their committment to – well, judge this cover page story for yourself.
All of which makes the issue of suppression much more complex than a knee jerk reaction.
From an open letter to John Key yesterday about the changes to ACC funding of therapy for survivors of sexual violence, currently under review. The letter was sent by Marion Williams, a psychologist with 7 years experience of working with children recovering from sexual abuse:
The way that ACC is treating the survivors of sexual abuse crimes since early 2009 is not just hideous but can be seen to be a re abuse by ACC of these people.
If those that have changed the criteria for claim acceptance and are involved in the process understand the dynamics of sexual abuse and the injuries it causes they are knowingly re abusing the victims of these crimes.
What she has to say about the effects on her clients:
Straight forward claims suddenly began to be turned down for no clear reason. In my own case as a counsellor I had previously only had two claims turned down in seven years, suddenly all were being turned down.
And this – warning, these cases are sad and difficult to read about, let alone experience:
Another person, who as a child was frequently raped by a family member, was made to undergo a second assessment, this time a psychiatric assessment. The first disclosure had already placed the person in a frightened, vulnerable and painful state. They waited months, highly stressed, for the second assessment to be done by this male stranger, and are now still waiting months while their highly sensitive information is bouncing around the ACC offices seemingly from person to person, while they fight to live. (Today they tell me their claim has been turned down as ACC believe they do not have a mental injury ie. a DSMIV diagnosis).
Another, a child who was drugged and raped on many occasions and is fighting, literally, to survive with their injuries, has had their claim turned down because it seems they also don’t have a mental illness connected to the abuses. This was decided not by the counsellor that the child decided they trusted to make the first assessment, or by the child’s doctor that referred them to a sensitive claims counsellor, but appears to be by someone in the Sensitive Claims office after a diagnostic assessment. This child had decided they had had enough assessing: they wanted help!
Yet another person had the courage to approach a counsellor after many years of turmoil to ask for help for deep emotional and spiritual injuries sustained because of a parent who raped them with violence as a habit throughout their childhood, but for an unknown reason (they were also not mentally ill). They were struggling to managing an ongoing severe injury without appropriate knowledge or help. Their claim was also turned down.
Yes Minister, the needs of the victim are clearly paramount.
The largest protest I’ve ever attended was on 15 February 2003. Between 1 and 2 million protestors, depending on who you believe, took over central London for the day and brought it to a standstill. The crowd of diverse people, stretching for hours and hours, had one objective in mind.
We did not want to see Britain support an invasion of Iraq.
Think of it, two million people. Half of New Zealand. But just one of that day’s protests in 800 cities around the world against a vengeful West killing innocent civilians because they could.
Tony Blair’s fronting up to the inquiry in the UK to explain his decision to invade Iraq is nothing if not in keeping with his usual ability to spin his actions as God fearin’, hell God ordained, righteousness.
“This isn’t about a lie, or a conspiracy, or a deceit, or a deception, this is a decision,” said Blair, who initially looked nervous but grew more confident as the hearing went on.
Blissful mendacity, prize-winning journalist Robert Fisk calls it. Composing and recomposing the historical record to prove himself right.
Adam Price MP got it right. “We’ll never get an apology from this man,” he said. We can’t, of course. Because Lord Blair was talking about judgement, about being “frank”, “absolutely and completely” honest and “absolutely clear”. We had “to stick in there and see it out”. So that’s what all the dead and the wounded and the bombs and the shredded bodies and the rape and Abu Ghraib torture was all about.
Is there anything more terrifying than someone who can justify anything they do, regardless of its horrific consequences?
Apparently being bisexual is in fashion. Again. I know because US magazine The Advocate says so, and even shows off 20 pretty people who say they like women and men.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard that being bi is trendy. Probably about as many times as I’ve heard bisexuality doesn’t exist.
These 20 are kinda interesting though, for the range of identities they describe. From “if I need a label” via ”equal opportunity lech” to “I think I was born bisexual” we have several options.
Bi musicians too have celebrated a range of ways of describing their attractions to men and women, like Ani Difranco, with more than one membership to more than one club:
Or David Bowie, managing his complicated love-life:
Peaches, not having to make a choice, because she likes girls and she likes boys:
The delicious Damon Albarn from Blur tempting monosexuals who haven’t found men appealing until now by describing hedonistic summer fun:
Ben Harper – an honorary addition to this list - celebrating mothers moving into woman loving:
The Killers with their not confidential potential:
Living Colour being loved by everyone:
Or Jill Sobule kissing a girl long before Katy Perry ever felt worried about whether her boyfriend would like it:
One of my absolute faves, though is Aoteoroa’s own Hinemoana Baker, who describes “Free” as her very own bisexual anthem. We need more.
I love this. In a kind of, peering back over my shoulder at the blog postings kinda way 
This sentence contains a provocative statement that attracts the readers’ attention, but really only has very little to do with the topic of the blog post. This sentence claims to follow logically from the first sentence, though the connection is actually rather tenuous. This sentence claims that very few people are willing to admit the obvious inference of the last two sentences, with an implication that the reader is not one of those very few people. This sentence expresses the unwillingness of the writer to be silenced despite going against the popular wisdom. This sentence is a sort of drum roll, preparing the reader for the shocking truth to be contained in the next sentence.
This sentence contains the thesis of the blog post, a trite and obvious statement cast as a dazzling and controversial insight.
The National Council of Women are putting on a wee shin dig in Wellie to look at:
See some of you there 
So the female athlete of the year wins the 2010 Australian Open – congrats are due to Serena Williams for beating Justine Henin in three sets.
Especially since the history between the two players is so ugly, with Henin the beneficiary of racist crowd support on at least one memorable occasion between the two tennis superstars.
When Serena Williams was beaten by Justine Henin-Hardenne in the French Open semi-final, she was booed every time she questioned a decision – even when she was clearly in the right. And, towards the end of the match, every first serve she missed was greeted with loud cheers.
The return of Henin provides even more depth to women’s tennis, one of the very few sports with anything like pay equity between women and men. Not that we should take that for granted, with many now calling for women to be paid less at Grand Slams because they play fewer games.
Leaving aside Billy Harris’s delightful observation, which tells athletic female tennis players where he’s at:
It’s about what the people want to see, how many people want to see it, and what they’ll pay to see it.
If Penelope Cruz played Scarlett Johansson in their nighties for 20 minutes, and the whole world tuned in to watch, then they would deserve to be well paid. Economics.
Women have been asking for decades to play the same number of sets as male tennis players. The reasons they haven’t been allowed – because women are too fragile apparently – are the same reasons women used to be told some kinds of paid work were inappropriate. Absolute nonsense in other words, and designed to shore up inequality.
Let’s leave it to Martina, she might know a thing or two about this after all:
Women’s tennis always was as entertaining as men’s, it’s just taken time for people to catch up. We were always happy to play five sets but we weren’t allowed.
The Tax Working Group are concerned about the lack of “integrity and fairness” in our tax system, and their report discovered something which should shock all of us – that at least half of rich people don’t pay the taxes they should.
These taxpayers are not necessarily doing anything wrong but are merely taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the current system to shelter income from higher rates.
But after admitting rich people hide away money from the taxman, the Tax Working Group recommend raising GST and cutting the top tax rate, since rich people don’t pay it anyway. And who pays for this? Nearly everyone in New Zealand.
The Standard have put together this graphic, which shows who wins and loses under the new proposals:
As you can see these proposals are no good at all for anyone earning under $75,000, then quite sharply improve until they are making you an extra salary by the time you earn over $500,000.
Since just 1% of New Zealanders earn more than that, and only 6% earn over $80,000 that means, you guessed it, only people as rich as John Key have the pain of the recession eased for them by the new proposals.
I think the Tax Working Group might need to review the words “integrity” and “fairness”.
