Media watch – Friday

9 March 2018


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.

Previous Post


  1. sorethumb

     /  March 9, 2018

    Overwhelming response to Poverty Bay re-naming proposal
    Overwhelming? And what was the response?

    Peter Millar – 5 days ago
    Given the results of the “Public Consultation” previously published:
    “According to consultation, out of 1856 respondents, 49.46 percent opposed a dual name, 47.52 supported it and 3.02 percent were not sure.”
    I would have thought by the law of averages, councillor votes should have been closer to these percentages rather than 13 to 1??
    Obviously the public opinion meant zilch.

    Postmodernism – there is no objective truth
    PartisanZ / March 8, 2018
    Other than a few weeks spent cultivating ‘popularity’ for an election day, since when has public opinion had anything much to do with politics?

    And ‘popularity’ is a multi-faceted thing related to public opinion but certainly not the same.

    Politics is an ‘art’ rather like ‘leadership’ or ‘oratory’, and they say artists are always at the leading-edge of progress. They sense “the change” in advance, express it and rise to the challenge, where others cower and whinge before the inexorable …

    “Dual naming” and/or “renaming” is part-and-parcel of post-colonial redress. Really its got its old name back … Had it ‘returned’ … As inevitably as day follows night …

  2. sorethumb

     /  March 9, 2018

    Guyon Espiner thinks we must now have Auckland suburbs in Maori. People outside Auckland wont know where they are.
    No one is being told how many people object to this but Brian Edwards put forward a cogent objection and the retracted it. This is Animal Farm.

    • PartisanZ

       /  March 9, 2018

      On the contrary oh smarting pollex, this WAS PREVIOUSLY Animal Farm, when the European ‘animals’ usurped the place of the Indigenous ‘humans’ and gave almost everywhere a new animal name …

      Now we are returning these place’s their human names AND retaining the animal ones …

      It’s a Win/Win situation, driven as much or more by natural justice and international Human Rights and Indigenous Rights jurisprudence as by ‘public opinion’ …

      • sorethumb

         /  March 9, 2018

        Are you saying there is a majority support for Espiner?

  3. sorethumb

     /  March 9, 2018

    South African expat criticises farm confiscations
    From Morning Report, 8:24 am on 2 March 2018
    South Africa votes to confiscate land off white farmers
    From Morning Report, 6:45 am on 1 March 2018
    That’s it folks.
    Karthryn Ryan “cut her teeth” on racism in South Africa.

    • David

       /  March 9, 2018

      Apartheid returns to South Africa.

    • sorethumb

       /  March 9, 2018

      Trump asked to allow white South African farmers to emigrate to US after land confiscation vote
      more validity than Golridz

      • PartisanZ

         /  March 9, 2018

        @David – “Apartheid returns to South Africa.”

        No it doesn’t. Apartheid was a specific ‘terror’ regime of White Minority Rule entrenched in South African Law. Nothing else constitutes Apartheid.

        What’s happening now can certainly be described as something. Perhaps as ‘Apartheid-distorted Black Majority Rule’ or ‘Summary Post-Colonial Justice’ …?

        As previously, expect a ‘welcome invasion’ or desirable flood of White South African farmer “refugees” into Aotearoa New Zealand … only they won’t go to our Refugee Assimilation Centres (or whatever they’re called) because they’re already ‘assimilated’ …

  4. phantom snowflake

     /  March 9, 2018

    Finally our news media notice that Auckland Transport have gone rogue with their placement of CCTV cameras. I’m not sure how it came about that AT, who don’t answer to the ratepayers whose money they spend, are now in practice a division of the NZ Police. Apparently if the Police ask, Auckland Transport will provide them with CCTV cameras, and guess who pays for them?? We come closer to being a police/surveillance state every day.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  March 9, 2018

      If you don’t want to be watched, just stay off the streets, and out of taxis, and off any electronic device, stop watching smart TV’s, don’t use cell-phones or any social media, don’t go on buses, stay out of elevators and commercial buildings and never fill in any forms!

  5. Mefrostate

     /  March 9, 2018

    Damn good stuff from Robertson. The goverment absolutely should capture some of the private benefits that accrue to land owners as a result of public works. The land owners will scream blue murder though.

    • PDB

       /  March 10, 2018

      Terrible policy – who gets to decide what are benefits and what aren’t? If based on property value how will the govt be able to ascertain what portion of the rise is due to public works? Most importantly if value goes down will the govt give a tax rebate? If not, why not? Everytime the govt builds a noisey motorway/ a cycleway that takes away carparks etc will they cough up compensation? How will the tax be collected if based on hypothetical value?

      A good tax is a simple tax – this looks full of issues with no talk of what happens if house prices fall.

      • Mefrostate

         /  March 10, 2018

        “Terrible policy – who gets to decide what are benefits and what aren’t?”

        Property valuations should indeed do the trick, like they do currently.

        “If based on property value how will the govt be able to ascertain what portion of the rise is due to public works?”

        In urban areas, any increase in land value is almost always generated by the community rather than the property owner.

        “Most importantly if value goes down will the govt give a tax rebate? If not, why not? Everytime the govt builds a noisey motorway/ a cycleway that takes away carparks etc will they cough up compensation?”

        Sure, they already do under s60 of the PWA1985. If you believe compensation should be paid to properties disadvantaged by public works, then you should also believe in value capture.

        “A good tax is a simple tax – this looks full of issues”

        No, a good tax trades-off efficiency, simplicity, equity, and other principles. A very important one is that he who benefits, pays.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  March 10, 2018

          Another important tenet of tax in NZ is that you are taxed for the “fruits of the tree, not the tree itself”.

          You are taxed on income earning activities not on the capital used to earn the income.

          There are potential equity issues that can be argued, but the fact that capital gains taxes (of which this would be a bastardised version) are very complex, difficult to police, cannot be properly implemented without causing significant financial hardship on many and raise tiny amounts of revenue means the only real reason to introduce them is envy.

          The tax Robertson plans to introduce taxes a person/family on income not earned.

          It could quite conceivable result in a family being caught with an unaffordable tax bill in a rising market and then stuck with a lower value asset if property values subsequently fall.

          Valuations are not an accurate measure in many areas. Properties often sell for significantly different prices to RV’s. C.V.s are a joke.

          There is already a law taxing property owners who obtain additional value on sale due to re-zoning of property owned for under 10 years. I have never heard of it being enforced and the major reason for this is it is almost impossible to do so.

        • PDB

           /  March 10, 2018

          You’d also question why Robertson, and Cullen earlier are speaking out about their preferences before the tax working group has even started talking about tax. No chance this group will be unbiased – all just a cover for implementing more taxes so that Labour can cover their financial ‘hole’/ increased spending.