Media watch – Friday

19 May 2017


Media Watch is a focus on New Zealand media, blogs and social media. You can post any items of interested related to media.

A primary aim here is to hold media to account in the political arena. A credible and questioning media is an essential part of a healthy democracy.

A general guideline – post opinion on or excerpts from and links to blog posts or comments of interest, whether they are praise, criticism, pointing out issues or sharing useful information.


  1. Missy

     /  May 19, 2017

  2. Blazer

     /  May 19, 2017

    some common sense,that the govt won’t…like..

    • High Flying Duck

       /  May 19, 2017

      It is common sense. I have no issue with ring fencing losses from investment property, as long as they are available when the property becomes profitable.

      I also don’t see too much wrong with a 5 year bright line. 2 years is too short, but that is how these laws always work – come in light and then push out in future years. National would never have got away with a 5 year BL at introduction.

      The big problem with little is this quote from the article:

      “shorn of its emotive language about speculators and loopholes, what Little was saying is…”

      That emotive language is incredibly unhelpful and inaccurate.

      Speculators already pay tax on their gains. And the tax law is, as the article also notes consistent tax policy not a loophole.

      As an aside the article also says investors get the benefits of gearing as if it is a one way street. People lose big time on leveraged losses and that seems to be ignored.

      If Labour could put some coherency in its messaging and add a few more decent policies they may have a shot at the Government benches.

      At the moment they are releasing scattergun policies and are hamstrung by the barking mad hangers-on who want to print money to get out of debt they need to appease if they get in to power. 🙂

  3. Persistent reports that the corporation charged with managing & operating the Manus Island detention centre are actively making conditions there as difficult as possible for detainees, resulting in frequent assaults among staff and ‘prisoners’ – refugees – sexual assault and rape allegations, self-harm and suicide attempts.

    “Reports of assaults on refugees by staff and vice-versa are common, including details of detainees being beaten and racially abused while restrained. The papers also reveal a drug trade within the centre, where a staff member is alleged to have been dealing drugs while another was accused of being high at work.”

    The corporate entity in question is, of course, none other than our very own BroadSpectrum … now owned by Ferrovial …

    • High Flying Duck

       /  May 19, 2017

      Australia are damned if they do and damned if they don’t with the illegal immigration problem.

      When they take a hard line the immigration issue slows to a trickle so there is less of a problem – but you end up with these abuses and some horrific stories from the detention centers.

      When they ease up and offer more humane treatment the floodgates open and suddenly they have thousands upon thousands of “refugees” queue jumping and trying to sneak into Australia causing more problems.

      I’m not sure where the solution lies, but there needs to be be more oversight on treatment of the detainees.

      It does need to be said that these detainees have the choice of settling in Papua New Guinea or going back to their country of origin whenever they want, so it is not as if Australia is keeping them in captivity – the detainees just do not like the options they have.

      • Yeah, I bet they’d be EVEN MORE WELCOME in Papua New Guinea!?

        Ultimately people have got to live in actual communities in any society. For Australia to offer them “go home or go Papua” only reflects even worse on Australia IMHO …

        Is Australia inflicting unnecessary suffering …?

        By the same token, continuing from our discussion about Victor Frankl yesterday, the prevalence of self-harm and suicide doesn’t reflect very well on the detainees either … to say nothing of the staff … leastwise not the ones we hear about …

        No doubt there are stories of heroism and spiritual transcendence … but they ain’t NEWS …

        And no doubt Australia (as a nation) could and probably wants to do better … but that ain’t POLITICS …?

        • High Flying Duck

           /  May 19, 2017

          Australia has a refugee policy and take in the numbers they see fit as it their right as a nation.
          The people in these camps are trying to queue jump and have been told in no uncertain terms not to come.
          So I’m not sure how it is Australia’s fault for enforcing its borders?
          If a homeless person came to your house and barged in would you let them stay?
          What if 5 did, or 10?

          • I see there being a larger ethical question here, an international and universal ‘problem’, which is presently exacerbated by phenomena like world-wide travel, communications, ‘globalisation’ of markets and, frankly, economics [as we know it] and money itself … in the sense that both ‘real estate’ and illegal immigration can become ‘markets’ …

            Frank Warner puts it thus in ‘Future of Man’ …

            “No State has any moral right to withhold from settlement by others, who are without sufficient land, areas which it does not and will not in the early future need for itself. The ‘latifundia’, the holding of large estates, that marked evil of Roman and later times, are not made more moral by being practised by peoples instead of individuals.

            Conversely, every people, every race, every group has the same right to live, to the life of a community. This implies that every group of human beings has the natural right to live on its own soil as a free, self-governing community. A people without land is not only contrary to nature; it is the most grievous of wrongs to shut off a community from the soil which belongs to all”

            If that doesn’t make me decidedly unpopular, IMH & Considered Opinion, this dilemma can ultimately only be resolved by some form of ‘limited’ world government or ‘Federation’ of States …

            • Population pressure both nationally within States and globally is another factor exacerbating this dilemma …

            • Gezza

               /  May 19, 2017

              That might work when there is no religion, a universal language, a universal culture, a universal wage, a universal job, a universal currency, a universal disarmament, a universal free transport & communications system, and another planet for everyone to start it off on.

            • Fair enough Gezza …

              Or it might work if enough people believed in it …?

              It might work if you believed in it?

              Less seriously though, human & IT resources take care of most of those technical things already … translation, currency equivalences etc … which only leaves the BIG issues …

              We’re very liberal with the word “free”, aren’t we? And in your case “universal”. Was our electricity free when it was universally provided by the State? Conversely, is it “universal” now that its provided by private enterprise or SOE?

              It’s not a matter of “free” or “universal” IMHO … Its a matter of the most ethical, convenient and frankly sensible provision of it and how it’s valued?

              Like, if a modest but livable “universal wage” was provided to everyone, and those who wanted to do so could make a committment to do say 20 – 30 hours work in their community each week, rather than find “gainful employment” in the public/private sector, would the resulting individual/community products and outcomes really be “free”?

              Transport & communications will never be free because their provision requires work. So its ultimately about how we value work?

              I’m tempted to say we don’t require another planet … What we need is a different race of humans to occupy this one.

              But I wouldn’t really believe it. I believe we need mankind to re-locate our humanity instead … to find our humanity again …

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 19, 2017

              There is always a limit to charity. You can argue where the line is drawn, but in the end there is always a line.
              Each nation is sovereign and entitled to determine the rules for living there.
              Gezza’s point is very pertinent.
              By disallowing the ability to screen people from entering you lose culture and your way of life.
              NZ is very lucky that it is too far away to experience the problems of unchecked immigration.
              The US is sorting it out one way or another – either through building a wall, or through having a president no one wants to live under (depending your POV).
              Europe is reaping the social and cultural backlash of unfettered immigration now – increased crime, social disharmony, clashes of value systems.

              Remember these people are not “without a land”. They choose to leave their land in the hope of betterment.

              Your argument seems to be that there are no nations and people should be free to move at will.

              That would create a very homogeneous world and severely inhibit the maintenance of different cultures.

              Look to the affect of immigration on Maori, the Aborigines, the American Indians…

              Immigration has a cost if not tempered to ensure integration.

            • Gezza

               /  May 19, 2017

              In my opinion PZ, take any group of, say,500 people, give them all a basic wage for doing nothing & the tools & equipment to house & feed themselves & a consultative assembly to manage their affairs. Before very long one or more natural leaders with ideas & energy will emerge & be the ones who actually get things decided and moving, some people will work with & follow them, others will just want do their own thing, still others will want to bitch about the leaders because they’re negative or jealous or just want to always argue they have a better plan. And a small number will want to sit on their arse & do as little as possible as often as possible, and they’ll piss off everybody else who’s working hard.

  4. Blazer

     /  May 19, 2017

    any comment on this..HFD..