Ardern fails to muzzle Shane Jones

Shane Jones ripped into Air NZ for stopping flying unprofitable routes to provincial towns, he told the Air NZ to resign and keep out of politics,Jacinda Ardern told him off for ‘stepping over a line’, Jones sort of conceded he shouldn’t have gone that far but didn’t really, Winston Peters supported Jones, leaving the coalition Government looking rocked by a bunch of NZ First cowboys out of control.

Jones says he will still attend an Air NZ sponsored dinner featuring Barack Obama tonight. So baubles aren’t affected by his bombastic barrage.

And it has pointed out that Jones was trying to bully Air NZ into breaking the law.

Andrew Geddis at The Spinoff:  Does Shane Jones want Air New Zealand to break the law?

Yesterday morning, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones went on RNZ’s Morning Report to double down on his earlier claims that Air New Zealand was failing provincial New Zealand. The chair and board of the organisation, Jones said, needed to realise there was a new government in place and it was going to ensure that Air New Zealand properly served the country as a whole.

Air New Zealand is a company, governed by the Companies Act 1993. Despite the Crown’s bare majority shareholding, Air New Zealand is not a SOE or even a MOM. As such, the board of Air New Zealand – its directors – have legal duties under the Companies Act. Primary amongst these are that “when exercising powers or performing duties, [they] must act in good faith and in what the director believes to be the best interests of the company.”

Note that their duty is to the best interests of the company. Not to the nation. Not to the provinces. Not even to the shareholders directly – even where the majority shareholder is an elected minister of the Crown. (Just to be clear, however – Air New Zealand’s shareholding minister is the minister of finance, Grant Robertson. It isn’t Shane Jones.)

So, if the directors of Air New Zealand are of the opinion that the company’s best interests are served by closing particular routes and opening others, then that’s what they legally are required to do.

In fact, if they were to say that, then they’d potentially be committing an offence that is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $200,000. Not that I think they’d be prosecuted for making one such route decision, but the existence of this offence provision shows just how important these fundamental director’s duties are.

Legal requirements haven’t deterred this NZ First attention seeking diversion.

But Jones’ attack on Air New Zealand seems to go beyond this activism. He’s effectively arguing that the company should put nation building or community servicing objectives ahead of its commercial interests. That’s a call to change the basic nature of what Air New Zealand is as an entity.

Maybe there are good arguments for doing so (see my earlier reference to how important the Dunedin-Wellington-Auckland route is for my family dynamics!) But if it is going to be done, it should be done openly and following debate in parliament. Put up legislation to transform Air New Zealand into a SOE and then direct the board to include “nation building” in its statement of corporate intent.

That would be the proper democratic way to do things, but NZ First only promote democratic processes when it suits them, and they ignore them when it doesn’t.

Of course, the problem with this course of action is that Air New Zealand does not just belong to the Crown. It is 48% owned by private shareholders, the large majority of whom live offshore. If Shane Jones wants to renationalise the company, they will have to be bought out – which will cost the taxpayer over $1 billion.

Furthermore, any action that the New Zealand government takes that affects the value of these private shareholdings may constitute a breach of investor rights under our various free trade agreements.

So legally and democratically it is a poorly thought through stunt by Jones. NZ First have strong stances policies on democratic processes but that only seems to apply when it suits them. Peters opposed the flag referendums because he didn’t want change, and didn’t seem to care about giving people the choice. And they are trying to get the democratically dubious waka jumping bill through Parliament despite their promotion of referendums on constitutional matters.

But it has put him in the media and Parliament spotlight, which may be all he really cared about.

Given he has $1 billion to dish out for regional development a year an obvious option is for him to give hand outs to regional air services, but this time he chose to bully the Air NZ board.

 

And what did Ardern say about all  this? RNZ: Jones’ Air NZ comments ‘a step too far’ – PM

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has reined in New Zealand First minister Shane Jones after he called for the chairman of Air New Zealand to be sacked.

Ms Ardern said as a major shareholder in New Zealand, the government had to ensure it did not overstep the mark.

“I’ve certainly explained to him that he is absolutely entitled to an opinion that he has shared, but suggesting anyone from the Board should go, is a step too far.”

It was not a sacking offence for anyone involved, Ms Ardern said.

“Not for any Air New Zealand board member, not for Shane, he’s expressed an opinion, one that I know that some New Zealanders will share some sympathy for, particularly those in the regions but suggesting someone should be sacked is too far.”

Ms Ardern said Mr Jones had listened to her, and “acknowledged” what she was saying.

That’s a very soft reprimand, and it has been virtually ignored by Jones.

Mr Jones is unapologetic over his scathing comments, but he does accept he has no authority to remove any member of the Board.

When asked if he still wanted Air New Zealand chair Tony Carter to resign, Mr Jones said he was aware Mr Carter was “reportedly upset” by his remarks.

“And he’s a powerful man, he’s a director on Fletcher Building… after their $1 billion loss, I accept Tony will take not an ounce of notice of what I say.”

But he accepted what he had been told by the Prime Minister.

“That I don’t have the authority to bring into being the disappearance of the chairman or anyone on the Board.

“But if anyone on that Board believes they are going to muzzle me as a champion for the provinces, then they are sadly mistaken.”

He may as have said that if Ardern believes she is going to muzzle him she is sadly mistaken.

Ardern looks increasingly waffly, and weak.

65 Comments

    • David

       /  March 22, 2018

      Domestic investors have the same drivers as foreign ones and they will chose to invest in safer places too. These guys crap on about us investing too much in houses and we should invest in other areas, we should join Kiwisaver and then you have this economic vandal.

  1. Pickled Possum

     /  March 22, 2018

    Jonzee eh! Doing his own thing again 😎
    Colour me Surprised!
    ANZ are on Warning!
    Shane is coming for you!
    Love it.

    • Gezza

       /  March 22, 2018

      The problem with Jonesy is that some people think he’s simply a pompous self-promoting waffling windbag wanker whose principal motivation is self-interest & but I’ve never met him personally so I don’t like to judge.

      • Ray

         /  March 22, 2018

        Gezza that is so creepy, you can add mind reading to your accomplishments !

      • Pickled Possum

         /  March 22, 2018

        Here comes the Judge! Courts in Action!!!
        Well every bunch of bananas has to have one that is going OFF! you knw Gez bro
        It’s the PSPWWW’s of this world that gets things moving along,
        Jonzee is working for his money.
        He’s has a lot to prove to his people and to his Party if he is the party favourite then
        he has to be seen as a ‘leader’ of issues not a follower.
        Jonzee has to let that Harvard education kick in now.

        Don’t the NZ government own 51% of Air New Zealand
        Doesn’t that make Jonzee … Chris Luxon … Boss.

        Is Jonzee a tweeter like Trumpy? Gez

        nah just had a look at his twitter it says …
        “The beauty queen and billion tree Minister off to Raro Pacific nuptials.
        60 guests on flite Air NZ 46, take off now!” Jan 2
        Finger down mouth!! just vomit inducing. Really!!

        • Traveller

           /  March 22, 2018

          Sorry but this is utter madness. I could say a lot about the dangerous thug of a man Jones is, but this quite unseemly, unnecessary attack on a profitable airline with an international reputation for innovation and service, as well as being a proud flag bearer, is beyond unacceptable.

          Mike Hosking, whatever you think of him nailed this today.

          “But did Air New Zealand cancel any route because they were bored, vindictive or stupid? No. They cancelled them because they don’t make money.

          I say the same thing today that I said yesterday. If you want loss-making businesses paid for, who pays for them? How big are the loses you’re prepared to take, who covers the difference, and how widely through the company do you want the losses to filtrate?

          How low does the share price have to go, and shall we just sack the board and get Shane and Jacinda to run the lot, or maybe, just maybe, they can let people who actually know what they’re doing, get on with it.”

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12017702

          • PartisanZ

             /  March 22, 2018

            If its just a company driven purely by profit motive, how can it be a proud flag bearer for a nation?

            Nations are more than profit motive …

            Jonesy has handled the necessary idiotically IMHO …

            There isn’t any reason AirNZ couldn’t succeed again as a nationalized airline … just as Fletchers and Fonterra appear to be failing as ‘corporatized’ entities …

            • Kimbo

               /  March 22, 2018

              If it is a company driven by the profit motive, it will more likely make a profit – on which tax is paid to fund social services.

              Furthermore, it will likely be a long term venture, hiring new Zealanders, who will also pay taxes to fund social services.

              A company, unlike a person or incorporated society exists for the purpose of making a profit. Interfere with that, and you undermine its purpose, and affect the social wellbeing that companies and other profit-making ventures serve in our system.

            • You SIr, added the word “just” which decontextualised the position.

          • Gezza

             /  March 22, 2018

            I could say a lot about the dangerous thug of a man Jones is
            Probably a post Open Forum if it’s really long. but brief summary here would be good? Sounds very interesting.

    • Corky

       /  March 22, 2018

      Here’s a brief summary: all grist for the mill.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  March 22, 2018

        Meaningless without specifying whose mill and what the grist is.

      • Gezza

         /  March 22, 2018

        Helmets anyone?

      • Corky

         /  March 22, 2018

        ”Meaningless without specifying whose mill and what the grist is.”

        You got the ‘meaningless’ part right. Get a helmet; ride off into the sunset.

    • Pickled Possum

       /  March 22, 2018

      Fat Cats of the Corporate World Unite.
      Economically Air NZ cannot absorb the cost of having flights that don’t profit.
      I don’t know why they are so surprised.
      Air NZ’s loyalty is to the share holders not the Provencal town that cannot fill a plane … much.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  March 22, 2018

        They don’t go to Provence, which is in France. But I agree that if people don’t use the service, it can’t keep running at a loss. A plane seat is the most perishable commodity of all.

        • Pickled Possum

           /  March 22, 2018

          Thanks Miss for that correction.
          Oh Provence … I hear you call
          with lavender fields for miles
          Vineyards for Africa … Côtes de Provence AOC
          Herbs and health a organic must … Herbes de Provence
          Crystal clear water and the best Mediterranean food you can eat.
          Eh! then they went and spoilt it all …
          NZ’s first terrorists?

    • PartisanZ

       /  March 22, 2018

      The ‘Investment Analyst’ lobby were quick on the trigger with this one, I’ve gotta say …

      Jonesy, it seems, could single-handedly upset the whole neoliberal applecart? There’ll be a bunch of ‘Think Tanks’ doing some super-quick ‘thinking’ right now, I betcha!

      Wise people would wait-a-while to see how things played out …

      Scared people lock, load and fire at shadows!

      So the subject of corporate social responsibility, the tension between market vs social ethics, the place of money in human life scares the shit out of ‘investors’? Are we homo-sapiens or homo-squandians*?

      * 152

      • Gezza

         /  March 22, 2018

        No I think what they’re worried about in AirNZ going under like what happened before when government appointees ran it & when the government had to bail it out & partially privatise it to enable it to survive seeing we couldn’t do without a national airline as we didn’t want to be a banana republic. At least this way they get a dividend & taxes from it.

        • Gezza

           /  March 22, 2018

          Oo – I was just checking their history on Wiki. I got that wrong. This is what comes of listening to Mike Hosking.

          “Air New Zealand originated in 1940 as Tasman Empire Airways Limited (TEAL), a company operating trans-Tasman flights between New Zealand and Australia. TEAL became wholly owned by the New Zealand government in 1965, whereupon it was renamed Air New Zealand. The airline served international routes until 1978, when the government merged it and the domestic New Zealand National Airways Corporation (NAC) into a single airline under the Air New Zealand name. Air New Zealand was privatised in 1989, but returned to majority government ownership in 2001 after near bankruptcy due to a failed tie up with Australian carrier Ansett Australia.”

          So, businesspeople really buggered it up.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  March 22, 2018

            Well they had offers to buy it and recapitalise, but were stymied by Helen Clark refusing to allow it:

            The larger very successful airlines Qantas and SIA both made offers to buy the Air New Zealand group but needed regulatory approval to lift the 25% foreign ownership rule. The Clark government refused to make a decision. Deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton said “the idea of selling our national airline to anyone would be an anathema”, even though Air New Zealand was at that time already 49.9% foreign-owned: 25% by Singapore Airlines, and 24.9% by Brierley Investments, which was originally a New Zealand-based concern but had relocated to Singapore in 2000, and circumvented the foreign ownership restrictions by using a New Zealand-based trust to hold its Air New Zealand shares.

            So the re-nationalisation was in large part caused by the Government not allowing other options.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  March 22, 2018

            But no argument on the buggering up part – bit off WAY more than they could chew…

            • PartisanZ

               /  March 22, 2018

              That’s largely how I remember it Gezza & HFD, thanks for the info.

              The great ‘privatization’ experiment, more ideological than practical.

              A 25% foreign ownership rule was both meritorious and ambitious … Brierley had already weaseled their way around it I see …

              I doubt it exists any longer? One day it’ll hopefully be included as part of ‘Fiscal Responsibility’ *sarc*? Though I suspect it’s way too late …

              In 2016 foreigners owned 53.3% of Total NZ Capital Stock, down from a 53.4% high in 2009 and relatively stable for the last 15 years …

              In other words throughout the ‘management on behalf’ of both Labour & National … which Labour-led is clearly intent on continuing … and which NZFirst (NZFist) just can’t keep their ‘populist’ traps shut about …

              After all, foreign investment is part of the FIIRE economy ‘package deal’ from which all of the advantages and benefits we ALL enjoy today are derived.

              https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/86577/we-look-data-how-much-new-zealand-owned-foreigners-it-turns-out-current-levels-have

              Economists like Gareth Vaughn in the article above are keen to offset foreign investment with NZ investment overseas, but I wonder whether there are differences? Theirs may be freehold ownership of NZ soil whereas ours may be stocks and bonds? Our assets may be *goneburger*?

  2. PDB

     /  March 22, 2018

    PG: “Ardern looks increasingly waffly, and weak.”

    Yes, but she is pregnant so we should just forgive all her failings.

    No doubt one of the really attractive things for Winston when choosing Labour to govern with was how his party would be able to just run all over their disorganised rabble.

    • It’s got nothing to do with being pregnant, that shouldn’t be brought into it.

      NZ First is looking like the disorganised rabble. Ardern looks like a virtual spectator. Unless she makes a strong stand her leadership is likely to be undermined more and more.

      • PartisanZ

         /  March 22, 2018

        I agree Pete. While I think the issue of wider corporate ‘social responsibility’ needs to be aired, investigated, discussed and hopefully altered, what I sense Jonesy is doing is he’s trying to score political points by creating ‘enemies’ – in this case ‘corporate enemies’ – in a vain attempt to claw back the voters NZFirst lost by making their coalition deal and reneging on their election promises … in other words, The Right Brigade … evidently about 3 – 4% of their voter base … GONE!

        He’s ‘electioneering’ …

        Now that he’s a Minister of the Crown acting in an ‘early term’ coalition government HE and HIS LEADER AGREED TO BE IN, he just looks like a stupid, maverick, bully-boy, ignoramus *DICK* throwing his weight around willy-nilly … (and having seen him on TV one morning talking about PGF and forestry I actually think he’s quite intelligent … which makes the behaviour all the more despicable)

        NZFirst have LOST The Right Brigade. I dunno why they can’t see that. It’s whinging old members are still writing to provincial newspapers telling him so!

        NZFirst needs to modernize and appeal to new, younger voter brackets … They’re in a ‘progressive’ coalition FFS! What is it about that Jonesy doesn’t understand?

        The Labour-led coalition needs to find the right forum or issue to discuss social responsibility and all its implications … and do it civilly … The Provincial Growth Fund is one such policy area where market ethics and social ethics interface … So I hope Jonesy hasn’t spoiled any chance of this intrinsic ‘tension’ in our current social contract being discussed at high levels in the future …

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  March 22, 2018

          She knew that she was pregnant, and if she can’t cope with being that and being PM, she should resign. The country can’t be put on hold for her.

          • PartisanZ

             /  March 22, 2018

            That’s not the issue Miss Kitty …

            Frankly, Jonesy is acting more like your typical stereotyped ‘irrational’ pregnant woman than Jacinda is …

            Perhaps she made a deal with him?

            JACINDA: “Jonesy, I need the heat taken off the Labour Youth Camp debacle … Look, I’ll let you off your leash on ‘The Provinces’ if you can create some breathing space for me … and for the little one …”

            JONES: “I want this muzzle off too”

            JACINDA: “Orhh, Jonesy, that’s a big ask mate …”

            JONES: “Don’t call me ‘mate’ … and I’m not trading PGF funds for medicinal cannabis growing operations. That’s off the table! Bad enough agreeing to get into bed with you lot and have a Cannabis referendum instead of an Abolish the damn Maori Seats referendum. And I’m telling you that as a Maori.”

            (Pregnant Pause)

            JACINDA: “Oh, all right … But you only get ONE DAY … There, off you go … Go Jonesy! Go get ’em boy! (Pause … Her expression suddenly changes) … Wait Jonesy! Wait! No! No! Jonesy … not him … Oh NO! Not the AirNZ bosses … Get in behind Jonesy! Heel! Orhhh … shit!”

  3. PartisanZ

     /  March 22, 2018

    ” … what the director believes to be the best interests of the company.”

    Note that their duty is to the best interests of the company. Not to the nation. Not to the provinces. Not even to the shareholders directly – even where the majority shareholder is an elected minister of the Crown.”

    And there you have it in a nutshell … The Disconnect … “The Best Interests of THE COMPANY” …

    If the company isn’t “the shareholders”, the provinces or the nation (a marvellous journalistic conflation that one) … Who exactly is THE COMPANY? The Board? The Executives? All the employees?

    Seems strange that THE COMPANY doesn’t have some ‘duty’ to its customers?

    Clearly, during an era when that ‘disconnect’ was less, when markets & society – social responsibility – were more ‘connected’ – early ‘market socialism’ – it led almost irrevocably to the formation of National Airlines in many countries.

    The idea that an airline has no ‘brief’ outside being profitable is patently absurd …

    If we applied that principle to food production we’d have COMPANIES selling poison off as nourishing ‘food’ … Whooops!

    • David

       /  March 22, 2018

      Sorry but you make absolutely no sense, if the company followed your logic it would not have enough money for new planes or to open new international routes that bring in tourists who then wouldnt spend money here. Eventually after Jetstar steal all of AirNZs customers on the main routes the only way Airnz could continue to operate would be with taxpayers funding a regional air service instead of say solving child poverty, cancer care etc etc.
      A listed companies only duty is to make money for ALL its shareholders. Your last sentence is even more odd, if a food company poisoned its customers because it was more profitable is not sustainable.

      • PartisanZ

         /  March 22, 2018

        Shit … I better get my shares out of Coca Cola then!

        If food, housing and air transport (as examples) are ONLY ‘markets’ then we arrive at exactly where we are today … Much processed food is making people sick, ie causing the very cancer we then need to ‘cure’ pharmaceutically … Housing is unavailable &/or unaffordable … and transport to-and-from the provinces that generate much of the nations wealth is ‘Closed due to Unprofitability’ …

        This only makes sense to a Balance-Sheet-Brain … and Balance-Sheet-Brains have to be created … indoctrinated … ‘educated’ … We humans are not born with them …

        • Gezza

           /  March 22, 2018

          Pretty disappointed you have shares in Coca-Cola. Seems at odds with your principles.

          But getting back to the AirNZ/Jones/Ardern shambles the point is this looks like a coalition that could fall apart once Winston takes over if this is the sort of posturing nonsense that’s going put cabinet ministers publicly at odds with each over a pretty simple reality that it hasn’t got any money to subsidise AirNZ to run unprofitable routes & the number of large airlines Jones & Peters have successfully run appears to be none.

          • PartisanZ

             /  March 22, 2018

            I’m a Market Socialist Gezza … a la J.S.Mills … my Coca Cola shares, gifted to me in 1959 by my dear old Grandma, are a component of or “a stakeholding in” the ‘Market’ component of me …

            Nah … just Keying ya!

            Essentially I agree with you … except maybe the government (taxpayer) should subsidize smaller airlines to operate the provincial routes … at least until they become profitable if that’s feasible …?

            I don’t agree it’s “a pretty simple reality” except to ‘Market Brain’ people … who, like ‘Pavlov’s Lobster’ see the world as a simple Maslow’s level 1 & 2 ‘Satisfaction Game’ … Plaint-by-Numbers …

            • Gezza

               /  March 22, 2018

              It’s fundamentally question of how much tax people want to pay & what it’s spent on. If the goverment were to subsidize smaller airlines until they become profitable the money has to come from somewhere else. They haven’t got any more money. Maybe when they’ve figured out who they’re going to tax extra they can do this, but they have to survive a full term & another election which is looking uncertain.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  March 22, 2018

      A company is its own distinct entity.
      A company cannot act against its own interests to benefit individual shareholders specific wants – even majority shareholders.
      An example of this is where shareholders might want big cash dividends, whereas the company may need to retain earnings for capital investment.
      Basically, a company must act to pursue its own interests in order to meet its obligations. The shareholders benefit from the success of the company acting in its own best interests.
      Many a business has gone under trying to serve outside needs.

      • Blazer

         /  March 22, 2018

        thats the theory but not the practice.Many companies devote their time to the interests of a or a few major shareholders.A compliant board with ‘independent’ directors on song and policy is dictated as to dividends and reinvestment.Many,many examples exist.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  March 22, 2018

          Hence my last sentence – it is when companies do not look after their own interests that problems arise.
          There are many dividend stripped finance companies that could attest to that.
          There are many successful companies that have managed to abide by the companies act.

          • PartisanZ

             /  March 22, 2018

            Problems also arise because a “company’s own interest” may be at odds with the interests of their own customers, the populace of the society in which they operate or a cohort of it … an example being *shit food* for children … *shit food* for adults for that matter … addictive substances, including some ‘food’ … ‘killer’ pharmaceuticals … environmentally degrading packaging … the list goes on and on …

            Any company’s activity consequences, but especially those of larger corporations, radiate out into the society in which they operate …

            Hence has arisen the peculiar idea of business having multiple ‘bottom lines’, financial, social and environmental …

            Social is a big one because it encompasses ‘cultural’ …

            To operate ethical social responsibility long-term, an adapted form of ‘currency’ will be required IMHO … operating in an adapted form of ‘economy’ …

  4. David

     /  March 22, 2018

    Billy English must be strolling round his Dipton farm quietly chuckling and looking to the heavens with a nod of thanks.

  5. artcroft

     /  March 22, 2018

    Its in Air NZ best interest to co-operate with Jones. He and his colleagues in NZF run the country and have few scruples. Do the maths! Its pays to keep NZF happy. Get those planes in the air. Kaitaia here we come.

    • Gezza

       /  March 22, 2018

      Have you got shares in Jetstar?

    • High Flying Duck

       /  March 22, 2018

      You think AirNZ would do well to join the horse racing & fishing industries in the “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” world of NZ First?
      Better to be in the club than out?

  6. Air NZ just refuse to carry him as he is a disruptive influence on pax and crew.
    And make noises about other members of the peters party..

  7. Alan Wilkinson

     /  March 22, 2018

    The Kapiti coast is hardly an impoverished provincial area. If there is not enough demand to fill planes why on earth run services there? There are big airports at Wn & PN.

  8. Patzcuaro

     /  March 22, 2018

    My ten cents worth is that if the government wants to maintain air services to provincial areas it should be done by way of government incentives or subsidies rather than trying to strong arm Air NZ.

    Smaller regional airlines may be able to do it better than a large corporate. The government could use some of the dividends it gets a from Air NZ to fund it.

  9. duperez

     /  March 22, 2018

    Lots of knickers twisted, lots of tits tangled but that’s the way of politics. Why have rationality and calmness and putting into context when the rush of hysteria and to judgement are so much more fun?

    Jones does what politicians do, Jones grandstands like he does, and today we have him a “dangerous thug of a man.”

    • Gezza

       /  March 22, 2018

      Crikey! Which outlet reported him as “a dangerous thug of a man?”
      Got a link?

      • Blazer

         /  March 22, 2018

        Read travellers daily rants about the…co alition.

      • Gezza

         /  March 22, 2018

        Oh, never mind – I see above now that it’s this one.
        Hopefully trav will elaborate.

    • David

       /  March 22, 2018

      Not sure if anyone objects to Jones giving Air NZ a bit of a serve over withdrawing a provincial service probably least of all AIr NZ but Jones literally went after the chairman and ceo personally and then carried on as if he was running Venezuela.

      • PartisanZ

         /  March 22, 2018

        My second-favourite South American nation has nothing to do with this!

    • High Flying Duck

       /  March 22, 2018

      The coverage of this is due to the fact Jones outburst is completely outside of what politicians should say.
      His completely unethical statements coupled with Jacinda’s little Greenpeace moment casually threatening a multi-billion dollar sector of the economy before slowly walking it all back again are helping form an impression of a kneejerk government with a decidedly non-business friendly outlook.
      The repercussions on the economy could be huge if they keep up this sort of rhetoric while offering no clarity on the policy front.

  10. Kabull

     /  March 22, 2018

    Air Chathams has successfully stepped into the gap in Whakatane and Whanganui, and is interested in doing so out of Kapiti. It makes sense for second level airlines operating smaller and therefore more economic and viable aircraft to service smaller areas. If we (the public) want AirNZ to keep doing it we need to recognise that they will need subsidising by the taxpayer. And they will need to enlarge their fleet with a range of suitably sized planes.

    AirNZ currently services 21 regional airports (Blenheim, Gisborne, Hamilton, Hokitika, Invercargill, Parapaumu, Kerikeri, Napier, Nelson, New Plymouth, Palmerston North, Rotorua, Taupo, Tauranga, Timaru, and Whangarei). That looks like a pretty good spread to me. Do we (the taxpayers) want AirNZ to service other centres, such as Ashburton, Kaikoura or Taumarunui – even if there is insufficient demand to make it economic!

    • PartisanZ

       /  March 22, 2018

      Not necessarily AirNZ … but I would be happy for the taxpayer to subsidize smaller airlines to operate services to those other places …

  11. Gezza

     /  March 22, 2018

    Times have sure changed from the Speech From The Throne days

  12. duperez

     /  March 22, 2018

    “Jones literally went after the chairman and ceo personally and then carried on as if he was running Venezuela. …
    Jones outburst is completely outside of what politicians should say.”

    What he said and the manner of saying it might well be outside the traditional, the conventional, the usual style, but so what?

    Don’t we like new approaches? Don’t we like styles not hide-bound by tradition? Have we not had other politicians who have been praised for being outside the norm, done it ‘their way’, flagrantly ignored precedents?

    Politicians should say what they need to say. We don’t like it, we vote them out. If opprobrium that has enough intellectual and moral basis is heaped on them they might modify their approaches before it gets to voting time.

    • PartisanZ

       /  March 22, 2018

      Perhaps there’s a difference duperez? The others didn’t challenge the Corporate-Capitalist Ruling Elite’s economic orthodoxy?

      John Key was a prime example of one of them. Someone who did nothing but trade in money.

      This reaction may be what it was like for Muldoonists when Rogered Douglas challenged their prevailing orthodoxy?

      Foolishly, I’m inclined to say: “Well Righties, now you know how they felt”

      To be blunt about it, Markets are not going to intervene in themselves for the common good: Only governments can do that.

      ‘The Adjustment’ is going to be a really tough time for ‘Market Brains’ …

      • PartisanZ

         /  March 22, 2018

        Jonesy, in an uncouth and politically idiotic sort of way, is heralding ‘The Adjustment’ …

    • David

       /  March 22, 2018

      If he was trying something new, doing something different and innovative then sure but it was just an unhinged and personal rant from someone who sounded like they had the emotional maturity of a 13 year old girl.
      Jones has also managed to make Ardern look weak and ineffectual and 2nd string to Peters, he was awful when with Labour and he still is and like most of NZ First just around for the entertainment factor and somewhere for the bewildered to park their vote.

      • PartisanZ

         /  March 22, 2018

        Excellent summation! However, you might be being generous with the 13 year old EQ …!?

        Seriously though, I’ve seed the Yale University mind of Shane Jones in action on TV, level-pegging or better in intelligent company …

        So maybe, just maybe, Jonesy has thought this through …?

        If the general public of Aotearoa New Zealand are going to discuss the ‘Market Ethics: Social Ethics Tension’ – rather than academic, intellectual, business and ‘expert’ elites – what language is it best articulated in …?

        This AirNZ discussion is a very ‘grass roots’, ‘everyman’, parochial (and slightly oblique) way for the nation to address this issue …

        • PartisanZ

           /  March 22, 2018

          I’ve seen … seen …

          • PartisanZ

             /  March 22, 2018

            Mind you, I’d hate for Jonesy to take courage from what I say …

            I still reckon he’s behaved idiotically even if he does want to promote ‘The Adjustment’ conversation …

            This thread represents the sort of *CRAP* we’re gonna get involved in during this term of government … and probably defines what kinda *CRAP* will decide the next election …

            Another 3 years lost to Constitutional, Cannabis and Evidence-based Law reform …

  1. Ardern fails to muzzle Shane Jones — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition