Pointless points of order

The Opposition risks losing credibility and effectiveness in Question Time by raising far too many pointless Points of Order. Not just barking at every car, but also barking at cars that don’t exists, are making a mess of the best opportunity for the Opposition to hold the Government to account in Parliament.

In Thursday’s Question Time Michael Woodhouse was first in Q1. Then in Q3:

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just on behalf of the Opposition, we just understand that they’ve had a bad week and they need to encourage themselves today with a bit of a handclap.

Mr SPEAKER: And Paula Bennett, that was not a point of order, and seeing we’re in question time, the National Party will lose two supplementary questions.

It didn’t end there:

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the answer to the previous supplementary question, the Minister himself raised these matters and—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and the fact that one member breaches the Standing Orders and I didn’t intervene is not a reason for someone else.

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s not going to—especially after the ruling that I’ve just given—dispute what I’m going to say.

Hon Steven Joyce: I just want to clarify if I could—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no.

Hon Steven Joyce: —in a general sense, if I could, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member can’t. I want to make absolutely clear that there is no such thing and no ability in our Standing Orders to have a point of clarification, or to do the sort of interrogation that I believe the member was going to start, as to what the Standing Orders are. When I have ruled, that is the end of the matter.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you now ruling that if a Minister introduces some new material into an answer, that cannot be used in a subsequent supplementary?

Mr SPEAKER: I want to apologise to the House for not stopping the Minister earlier and ruling it out. I should’ve; I didn’t, and I am ruling that irrelevant material introduced in either a supplementary question or in an answer does not give licence for further extension of things that are outside the relevance question for that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it his view and position that the coalition Government came to the view that an expanded, visionary, forward-looking economic programme was far more likely to deliver justice to the people of this country, rather than voting for something because there’s nothing else on offer?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I do. I mean—

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Peters has just raised the election campaign and voting again, which is the very thing you ruled out in my supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, he actually referred to the, the substance of his question was around the policy of the coalition Government.

This all detracted from a question originally aimed at making an important point about the scrapping of tax cuts.

Q5 – point of order from Judith Collins.

Q6 – two from Simon Bridges, one from Nathan Guy. Plus:

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ve only got a limited time for questions in this House. [Interruption] Sir, can I be heard in silence. It’s a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Absolutely, because all points of order are to be heard in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We’ve only got a limited time for questions in this House, and affording someone in this time to think up what he wants to ask next is not part of the procedure of this House.

Mr SPEAKER: My view is that there are a number of members who take a little time either preparing in their minds or getting the questions out. Frankly, I’d rather have thought-out questions than many of them that we get.

Q8 Points of Order:

  • Carmel Sepuloni – 1
  • Simon Bridges – 3
  • Gerry Brownlee – 3
  • Winston Peters – 1

Q9 Points of Order:

  • Brett Hudson – 2
  • Gerry Brownlee – 2
  • Nikki Kaye – 1
  • Chris Hipkins – 1

Q11 Points of Order:

  • Nick Smith – 4
  • Simon Bridges – 1
  • Gerry Brownlee – 1

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise the point of order—it’s highly unusual. The member’s calling for it, so we haven’t moved on. I’m just—I’m clearly seeking to understand what’s gone on here.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and to make it absolutely clear, the number of supplementary questions are entirely at my discretion. I have decided, because of the interjection from Dr Smith, I will not allow any further Government or Opposition supplementaries on this question. I’m not taking away—if the members want to use them on the next question, they can, but not on this one, because of Dr Smith’s behaviour.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there are some very important questions that should be asked in this. I’m sorry that you’ve taken this. One of the new pieces of information that the Minister managed to give the House was the new collaborative way that the Government wants to work with all sectors, to see if they can meet the target, and I think it would have been appropriate if there had been an opportunity to ask him if he’ll put out a list of suitable species for home gardeners to put on their list of tree plantings to help the Government with their target.

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry; as a result of that frivolous point of order, another one of the supplementary questions for the National Party has been lost.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a very reasonable request. When the Government’s most important flagship programme is around these billion trees—

Mr SPEAKER: No, Dr Nick Smith will resume his seat. He will resume his seat now. I have ruled that we are moving on to question 12 because of an inappropriate interjection by Dr Nick Smith when he had been called for a supplementary. If Dr Nick Smith intervenes again, on that question, it will result in further loss of supplementary questions to the National Party.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What was the comment that I made, that, as a consequence, has—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Q12 Points of Order:

  • Steven Joyce – 3
  • Simon Bridges – 6
  • Parmjeet Parmar – 1

Some of the Points of Order were reasonable, but many were frivolous or seemed pointless – in other words, a waste of time and an unnecessary and counter productive diversion.

Question Time concluded with:

Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, I was listening very carefully to that answer—before the gratuitous bit—and I’m sorry, but in a previous supplementary the Minister has been asked, “What proportion will be the Government—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I’ve ruled that it’s been addressed. In fact, I’ve stopped her for over-addressing it.

Hon Member: Supplementary question?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the National Party has run out of supplementary questions.

Trevor Mallard is making a real effort to allow an effective Question Time. The Opposition are running a real risk of blowing it.

Politics 101 – pick your battles wisely, and make sure they are battles you have a good chance of winning.

Leave a comment

53 Comments

  1. Government slammed for wasting time

    After Wednesday is it any wonder Nats are highlighting what is fast becoming a. Farcecif an government.

    “National says there’s no precedent for the way the Government deliberately wasted parliament’s time on Wednesday night.

    Labour MPs dragged out debate on government bills, called filibustering, and blocked the opposition’s attempts to get on with the agenda, according to Opposition.

    “Recent scenes in the House border on farce,” National’s Shadow Leader of the House Simon Bridges said on Thursday.

    “You have the government – including senior ministers – filibustering its own legislation because it has so little for parliament to debate and wants to avoid the embarrassment of the House being left with nothing to do.”

    Bridges said the Government’s behaviour was so extraordinary parliament’s library couldn’t find a precedent for it.

    “This leaves the House in the unacceptable position of wasting time on straight- forward legislation, all so the Government can ram through controversial legislation in the lead-up to Christmas under the cover of urgency.”

    The Government has given notice that parliament will be sitting under urgency from next Thursday.

    It will adjourn for the summer recess on December 21.”

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/politics/government-slammed-for-wasting-time/

    Reply
  2. duperez

     /  December 8, 2017

    Some of the Blues and Auckland rugby teams of years ago had confidence and control and went about what they did with authority.

    Some of their recent iterations have been been abject. That’s nothing to do with politics but that came to mind when trying to contextualise what’s happening in Parliament.

    Take Simon Bridges. Not saying he had class with the control and the bridges issue helped single-lane him, but has swagger ever turned to snivel so quickly?

    Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  December 8, 2017

      ” has swagger ever turned to snivel so quickly?”
      Elegant comment, duperez!

      Reply
  3. David

     /  December 8, 2017

    Perhaps if the minister would answer a straight question and the speaker enforce that it would help. The answers to written questions highlight the contempt the government has for parliament.
    Robertson is channeling Cullen and Mallard is apeing Wilson. Bloodyvsad really but what do you expext

    Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  December 8, 2017

      Your view on Trevor Mallard seems completely out of whack with almost everyone else’s, David. Bar the hordes at Kiwiblog; is that your natural home?

      Reply
      • A man who challenges another parliamentarian to a scrap and slugs it out in the beehive?

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  December 8, 2017

          “beehive”? I thought the slug-fest took place in the Beehive! I’ve just visited my beehive and the bees are swarming! Thanks for the heads-up, traveller!

          Reply
      • David

         /  December 8, 2017

        If he was a good speaker Guyton logically you would be putting the boot into him not me. Lockwood Smith upset many on the right by forcing Ministers to answer questions after the appalling rule of Margaret Wilson.
        Once again your logic is totally upside down.

        Reply
  4. High Flying Duck

     /  December 8, 2017

    It is interesting to see Mallard’s performance over points of order has led to the previous speaker raising a fairly critical point of order himself as to Mallard’s performance.

    Perhaps PG’s “pointless points of order” could also be interpreted as opposition frustration at the Speaker protecting inept ministers.:

    POINTS OF ORDER

    Speakers’ Rulings—Interpretation of Speaker’s Ruling 20/5

    Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to ask you to give serious consideration to a considered ruling to points that were raised at the start of question time around retrospectively raising points of order. I did not make that point at the time, because I considered that your patience was getting to a stage when it may have been dangerous to do so. But as you and I know, when we go back and look at Hansard, subsequent to question time, we often see pieces in that Hansard that we wish to question and raise with the Speaker.

    You and I both sat on the Standing Orders Committee and were both partly responsible for the inclusion of Speaker’s ruling 20/5 around the ability to raise issues retrospectively. You will remember, without doubt, the history of why that particular point was put into the report of the Standing Orders Committee and consequently into Speakers’ rulings. I think it is a very dangerous precedent that could be potentially made by your initial ruling today that, unless matters are raised instantly, they cannot be raised at all. I ask whether you would consider the points that I think were raised considerately by members at the start of question time, particularly by Opposition members, and have a look at Hansard again and perhaps come back to the House with a considered ruling and the ability for us to raise, retrospectively, points of order that we think are worthwhile raising.

    There was no discussion that I recall during the deliberations of the Standing Orders Committee about a stage by which such concerns were raised privately with the Speaker in his office. Members of Parliament—Opposition and Government—have rights to raise points of order and I ask you to reconsider very carefully your original initial ruling made at the start of question time today.

    Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

    Mr SPEAKER: No, no, I don’t want any assistance with this. I want to thank my right honourable predecessor for his intervention. I will seek further advice on this. Clearly, we have different memories of the reasoning behind this and the methodology to be used, and if it’s shown that his memory is better than mine, which I wouldn’t at all be surprised by, then I will come back to the House.

    Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  December 8, 2017

      “Mr SPEAKER: No, no, I don’t want any assistance with this. I want to thank my right honourable predecessor for his intervention. I will seek further advice on this. Clearly, we have different memories of the reasoning behind this and the methodology to be used, and if it’s shown that his memory is better than mine, which I wouldn’t at all be surprised by, then I will come back to the House.”
      That’s classy, Trevor. A more reasonable response could hardly be expected. Impressive.

      Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  December 8, 2017

        Yep, when you think Trevor Mallard, ‘classy’ is always the first word that springs to mind.

        Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  December 8, 2017

        I think, “robust”.

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  December 8, 2017

          Is that another word for “boof-head”?

          Reply
          • duperez

             /  December 8, 2017

            Refer to Speaker Carter of “The House is a place of robust debate,” fame.🙂

            Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  December 8, 2017

            Boof-head is two words, but yes.

            Reply
            • High Flying Duck

               /  December 8, 2017

              I never said it wasn’t…

            • robertguyton

               /  December 8, 2017

              You did though! “Another” refers to a single word, equivalent to the “single” word used. Agreed?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  December 8, 2017

              You’re the one not reading it Robert.
              A more complete sentence would read:
              “Is Robust another word for boof–head.”
              My suggestion stands alone with no implied single word limit.
              I could as easily said “is that another word for complete dick-head”
              Here ends one of the more inane discussions I have ever partaken in.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  December 8, 2017

            “Another” referred to the word you used, not the one I suggested…agreed?

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  December 8, 2017

              You’d have said, a word, rather than “another” word – I’m puzzled that you can’t sort this out, HFD – is it stubbornness or lack of finesse in your thinking?

      • A criminal nonetheless

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  December 8, 2017

          He was convicted of a crime?
          Chester Borrows wasn’t. Nor was Mike Sabin. Nor was Todd Barclay. Curious!

          Reply
          • No.. the evidence was clear for Mallard. A middle aged man giving someone the bash in front of witnesses. If you’re suggesting corruption in police and prosecution then I’d be very, very careful. It’s not like her when you can accuse posters with relative impunity, it requires proof and a prima facie case to eb established.

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  December 8, 2017

              “A middle aged man”? How is that significant?
              Accuse posters here… of assault? What a strange world-view you take, traveller!

            • “A middle aged man”? How is that significant?

              Are you serious? Senior member of parliament, in his mid fifties should know better comes to mind. On top of that the case as proven, so don’t understand your logic. (Not for first time)

        • Blazer

           /  December 8, 2017

          not in Sir’ Douglas Graham’s…league.

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  December 8, 2017

            You never got that concept did you – he was convicted due to his position – the buck stopped with him and the other directors. He DID nothing wrong, but was caught out by the actions of others under his watch.
            The Judge said as much.

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  December 8, 2017

              He did nothing wrong, but was convicted nonetheless? Stretching credibility there, Duck.

            • Blazer

               /  December 8, 2017

              he is a convicted felon…I understand that perfectly.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 8, 2017

              Failing to “DID” is a common…failing.

            • robertguyton

               /  December 8, 2017

              Felon! Eeeeew!

            • High Flying Duck

               /  December 8, 2017

              Not at all Robert. He was convicted, and rightfully so. Directors are responsible for the company and must face consequences when things are not done correctly, even when it was not their actions at fault.
              It is called strict liability – you get convicted even when there was no dishonesty or intent to offend.

              Justice Robert Dobson wrote, “I am satisfied that the accused genuinely believed in the accuracy and adequacy of the … documents”, but that the offences were ones of strict liability so there was no need for “any form of mental intent to distribute documents that were false or misleading”

              “In the relevant respects, the law has created criminal liability for what may be no more than a material misjudgement about the accuracy and adequacy of the description of the state of financial health of the company, as directors authorise it in offer documents”.

              Doug Graham and the other directors thought they had undertaken all necessary due diligence on the prospectuses in question, but never-the-less they were misleading and so were held liable.

              The materials were prepared by others – senior managers and accountants – and “authorised” by the directors.

              I’m not going to go round in circles on this. Subtlety and nuance go WAY over your heads and it is pointless carrying on.

            • They’ll never understand the position of a Director. They think he personally defrauded people. Not saying I agree that the understanding of the role is one is universally understood.

            • Blazer

               /  December 8, 2017

              yours is a specious argument relying on form…over substance ,a common malaise with those who’s integrity is …suss.I know this won’t go over your head..its way up in the…clouds,cloud cukoo land.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  December 8, 2017

              My argument that what actually happened is different from your warped rhetoric is still correct.

              It is you who refuse to let your opinions be moved by such mandanities as ‘facts’.

              As I said – it’s pointless going through this with you.

              There are none so blind as those who refuse to see…

      • David

         /  December 8, 2017

        “classy” seriously even you wouldnt buy that. Mallard was caught hook line and sinker and he knew it, he was caught making a daft ruling protecting his team and was rightly called on it.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  December 8, 2017

          Turns out you are completely wrong, David (see bel;ow) – no surprise at all – it’s hard to see binocularly when you have only the one eye.

          Reply
  5. Zedd

     /  December 8, 2017

    as with the 6000+ written questions.. the Natz in opposition are just acting childish, with pointless; points of order, designed to try make them, still seem relevant.
    Once they finally get over their stage of denial & finally accept they LOST the election, maybe they can start acting like responsible adults/MPs ?! :/

    Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  December 8, 2017

      What do you suggest the opposition do when the government do not answer the questions, raise a ridiculous point and request a new question?

      Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  December 8, 2017

      To: Jacinda Ardern
      From: Chris Hipkins
      The opposition continue to bombard us with dozens of written parliamentary questions requesting details of ministers’ daily meetings. We’ve hit back hard by requesting clarification about what they mean by “meeting”, and we intend to go back demanding elucidation on the definition of “details”, and “we” and “human soul”. The next tranche of responses will politely inquire, “I know you are but who am I?” Love governing, going great.

      (From Toby Manhire today)…

      Reply
      • duperez

         /  December 8, 2017

        How does it work? Is a ‘meeting’ when someone is bumped into in a lobby and they ask a question?
        And if that’s not listed on the disclosure (if any is forthcoming) is the Minister then lying, withholding information or not being open and transparent?
        Or is a meeting a formalised, organised, timetabled meeting?

        My confusion isn’t helped when a dinner with a number of people including foreign officials organised for months on an obviously an official agenda, can be described as an off the cuff, incidental, casual cup of tea. ☕️

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  December 8, 2017

          Cups of tea prior to the election are not any issue. If you have it after the election it becomes official information and should be disclosed on request.
          I assume meetings are those diarised as the minister’s days are generally manged pretty carefully.

          Reply
          • duperez

             /  December 8, 2017

            I was thinking China not Epsom.

            Reply
            • High Flying Duck

               /  December 8, 2017

              Ah yes the circuitous meeting “on the way to the airport”.
              Was that asked about and not disclosed?

  6. Gezza

     /  December 8, 2017

    High Flying Duck / December 8, 2017
    It is interesting to see Mallard’s performance over points of order has led to the previous speaker raising a fairly critical point of order himself as to Mallard’s performance.

    It’s interesting to see that, on Thursday, Trev had to remind Rt Hon David Carter that he was ruling on the raising of Points of Order retrospectively concerning Speaker’s Rulings on previous days in the manner actually agreed to by the Standing Orders Committee during said Member’s tenure as, & as practiced by, Rt Hon David Carter as Mr Speaker:

    “Retrospective Rulings—Interpretation of Speaker’s Ruling 20/5

    Mr SPEAKER: The second point: yesterday, the Rt Hon David Carter raised with me the issue of retrospective rulings on matters of order. I’ve reflected on that matter and on methods of disagreeing with a ruling of the Chair. Earlier this year the Standing Orders Committee considered the matter of retrospective rulings.

    An extract from the committee’s report appears as Speaker’s ruling 20/5. However, in light of the matters raised, it is worth referring to the full text of the report at page 14: “There is a well-established prohibition on raising points of order in the House about events that have passed. This helps ensure that points of order address matters that are relevant to the maintenance of order at that point in time and are not themselves used to disrupt the order of the House. This prohibition on retrospective points of order is appropriate and we encourage Speakers to continue not to entertain them. We consider, however, that the Speaker is able to deal retrospectively in the House with matters of order if the Speaker considers it is important and in the House’s interest to do so. The Speaker’s primary task is to preside over the effective conduct of proceedings. Where an incident may have a continued impact on the House’s ability to deal with its business, the Speaker can address the matter. Members should raise such issues privately with the Speaker, outside the House. This ensures that the prohibition on retrospective points of order remains undisturbed and members can discuss their concerns with the Speaker away from the charged atmosphere of the Chamber. There is still, of course, a strong presumption that points of order will be raised immediately. As always, rulings of the Speaker are final. A retrospective ruling on a matter of order does not reopen the matter for discussion.”

    The committee intended that the Speaker could, on his or her initiative, deal with retrospective matters of order. It did not empower members to raise such matters on the floor of the House and, in fact, required them to be raised privately with the Speaker. While the event that led to the change involved a comment that the Speaker had not heard, the report did not restrict members’ rights to raise a variety of matters relating to the order of the House and the rights of members. The presumption remains that a point of order must be raised once and cannot be raised by a member at a later time—Speakers’ rulings 20/3 and 20/4.

    Speakers from Guinness through to Carter have ruled that when a matter has been the subject of a decision by the Chair, that decision is final and comment on it is not allowed. Members have a right and a duty to raise points of order where they feel the House is outside its Standing Orders, but any attempt to bring into question the Chair’s decision is out of order and is in no way protected by the Standing Orders. To persist in doing so, despite warning, makes it a highly disorderly procedure—Speakers’ ruling 22/3. The only way to challenge the ruling of a Speaker is by a direct motion on notice—Speakers’ rulings 17/6 and 18/1.

    Points of order are not intended to ask questions or to seek clarification. They are to deal with matters of order at the time they are occurring in the House or to draw the Speaker’s attention to the fact that a member intends to exercise a right given by Standing Orders, such as making a personal explanation. I thank the Rt Hon David Carter for raising this matter. I will circulate this ruling immediately and I will be available in my office from 5 to 6 p.m. today and again next week, if members require further clarification.”

    Rt Hon David Carter was silent, thereafter, it appears – caught out bullshitting.

    Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  December 8, 2017

      Interesting. I’m no parliamentary expert, but agree that that seems to put Mr Carter well and truly back in his box.
      I thought Mallard was very poor on NS’s point of order, but in general has been far better than expected.

      There is no doubt the tradition of specific questions being asked and vague non-informative drivel being spouted in answer is well and truly alive though.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  December 8, 2017

        It will probably continue that way until Budget Day except for where, in the interim, legislation giving effect to particular policies is presented by this government. Given that the concessions agreed to to accommodate the other party in the coalition – NZF – & the support party – The Greens – will likely have a significant material impact on the policies Labour campaigned on, it is actually a legitimate tactic for the government to refuse to answer questions about their costs & details of policies before they have been properly worked thru, & costed, by relevant departments, put before Cabinet, and then presented to Parliament.

        The Opposition know this. They are grandstanding. Also trying to upset & unsettle the Speaker, & attempt to convince the public he is as biased as their man. This appears unlikely to suceed. He’s much smarter than his predecessor.

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  December 8, 2017

          He knows all the tricks, and probably invented some of them.
          Mallard is obviously relishing the role and importantly is taking it seriously. He could be the best in a long time. It’s an invidious role with bias accusations impossible to avoid.
          I’m giving Labour some slack for being the accidental government, but the extent of disorganization has been an eye opener.
          And they have been obfuscating on some pretty basic questions.
          As with any government you need at least a year before any genuine judgement can be made.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  December 8, 2017

            That’s pretty much how I see things too, HFD.

            Reply
            • I personally quite like Mallard, but I’m convinced this poacher turned gamekeeper’s erratic and intemperant nature will out in the FA.

              However, you two may be right. Time will tell. I find his taking off questions as punishment ridiculous.

            • Gezza

               /  December 9, 2017

              Well, it shuts Paula & a few other smart arse interjectors up on both sides of the Chamber. It doesn’t stop Judith & Phil Twyford from pulling faces & all but poking their tongues ou at each other though.

              One thing I do like about how Trev deals with offending children in QT is that he names the offender. If you were watching proceedings on the tv before, the cameras are focussed on the Speaker & the Member who is questionning or replying. You often had no idea who just copped an earful for misbehaviour.

              Trev is still allowing too much latitude for barracking imo. So did his predecessor, & all of them. Question Time has a serious & legitimate purpose. Under Carter it was like clowns at a circus. Under Mallard it’s more like an unruly class at Primary School. None of us would let a business meeting run like this.

  7. patupaiarehe

     /  December 8, 2017

    FFS! They carry on like this, yet wonder why the ‘missing million’ can’t be arsed voting. While these idiots (who are all on a six figure salary) debate sweet FA, those of us who are on a five figure wage, continue to do the work necessary, to build as many houses as fast as we can. A cynical man might even think, that the house he just built, will most likely be rented by an immigrant, who will work for less than he does…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s