Public, Greens and Labour favour action on cannabis law

Duncan Garner has been asking his listeners and Kevin Hague and Andrew Little about addressing cannabis law.

Should we legalise cannabis? Greens and Labour say let’s think about it

We should do more than think about it, we should be doing something about it.

More than 1000 people voted in his poll, with, at the time of writing, 86% of people saying New Zealand should follow the likes of Colorado, Uruguay, the Netherlands and North Korea and legalise cannabis.

Majority public support (albeit an self selecting online poll).

Green Party drugs policy spokesperson Kevin Hague said evidence shows legalisation leads to reduced harm from cannabis.

“We need to go to legalisation with regulation, which is pretty much the approach we take with alcohol, which is New Zealand’s most popular drug,” Hague said.


Labour Party leader Andrew Little said New Zealand should see what the experience is in US states where cannabis has been legalised but “proceed with caution”.

There’s increasing change to loosening cannabis laws around the world, it’s past time we should look at similar here.

RadioLive interviews with Hague and Little at the link, Should we legalise cannabis? Greens and Labour say let’s think about it.


Do ISIS have a Kiwi journalist hostage?

On RadioLive this morning Bill Ralston talked about a rumour that ISIS have a “a Kiwi journalist in their hands”.


From about 12:44

Ralston: Sort of running parallel to this and when you talk about encouraging ISIS to strike here in New Zealand, I mean that’s entirely possible, but I do continually hear a rumour that there is a New Zealand journalist in ISIS hands, that presumably the Government is not saying anything about that if that is the case, um for um um security reasons um so…

Sainsbury: What? For how long?

Ralston: Well I’ve been hearing this has been going on for some weeks, there is a Kiwi journalist in their hands. That’s entirely possible, New Zealand journalists run all over the world, particularly into hot spots.

If so that complicates the current issue and is likely to entrench opposiong views on deploying trrops in Iraq.

Siasnbury: And of course see the problem with these things isn’t it is that it could also be something that started and these things sort of feed off itself, but if that’s a, jeepers if that is true that means that the you know the implications  of the decision are even more serious.

Ralston: Keep an eye on YouTube I suppose….things could get very ugly. And I don’t know how New Zealand would react to something like that, if in fact they decided to um….

There would be range of strong reactions.

It would be given as a good reason why we shouldn’t get involved in the Middle East. And as a good reason why we have to be involved, because we’ll get drawn into it anyway.

It will make a difference if the journalist was captured before the decision to go to Iraq was made.

Slater with Garner – a bit of a bully goat

Duncan Garner talked to Cameron Slater yesterday on his ‘The Hour of Power’ on Radio Live.

Garner: One of the more controversial players this year, and I’ve put him in my top five because he has impact. You may not like him, you may despise him actually and you may think he plays a pretty rough game, but this guy you cannot ignore him. Cameron Slater, Whale Oil, Cam good afternoon to you.

Slater: Good afternoon Duncan.

Garner: Do you like the fact that, well I’ll be pretty blunt here, that um a lot of people hate you?

Slater: I don’t care. I literally don’t care if they hate me or despise me, um, that says more about them and their thought processes that they allow themselves to be consumed by hate, because I literally don’t hate anybody um in this country and certainly not anybody involved in the beautiful game of politics.

Garner: Yeah although you do run some pretty um, some pretty aggressive attacks with a hate lines. you say you don’t hate anybody but one look at your blog and um you might think that you do.

Slater: When was the last time you read my blog Duncan?

Garner: Ah about an hour ago actually before I came on air.

Slater: And where’s the hate in there? There’s thirty odd posts there today, thirty yesterday or so, there’s not a word of hate there anywhere.

Garner: Yeah it wouldn’t be hard to find.

Slater: I don’t think people are a little bit subjective and a little bit soft and just don’t like the robust confronting that I do and that’s too bad ’cause I’m going to keep on doing it.

Garner: Let me just quote you one thing though mate, you said you play politics or blog like the Fijians play rugby”I’ll smash your face into the ground”, that’s pretty aggressive.

Slater: Oh it is pretty aggressive, but you know this is politics not tiddly winks. You know people want to, you take David Parker today, he stood up in the house again, smeared everybody, not a shred of evidence, he’s too gutless to say it outside of the house.

I say things in my own name, I say it on radio, on my blog, in public, and I’m not afraid of confronting the truth, but these gutless little wimps in Parliament are too cowardly to say anything outside of the house, and it’s my role in society to deal with that.

Slater has chosen that role.

He isn’t afraid of ‘confronting the truth’, bluntly (what is true is often disputed). He does it under his own name publicly. No problem with that.

He has fearlessly pushed boundaries and led the bleeding edge of blogging in New Zealand politics.

But he can be gutless as well. His blog blocks, censors and bans people confronting him with truth. That’s as gutless as any politician.

But he isn’t good at being confronted. He’s a bully who often over-reacts vindictively if someone annoys him.

Slater uses a sledgehammer and through his draconian blog moderation he takes the tiddlywinks off people who have tried to tell opinions or truths he doesn’t want competing with his own attack lines.

He may not hate anyone but his comments, his posts, his attacks can often appear as hateful.

Some of his attacks on David Parker recently gone further than aggresiveness, they have been unnecessarily nasty and spiteful. It’s possible to confront the truth aggressively without playing the dirty card.

Slater has a well worn pack of dirty cards. That diminishes his impact and effect because it’s easy to dismiss his over the top attacks as just hate and dirt.

It’s unlikely he will change his approach, which is an extreme mix of guts and gutless.

He’s a bit of a bully goat.

Hoax Collins resignation

Duncan Garner at Radio Live has posted what appears to be a hoax resignation letter from Judith Collins. Colins has tweeted:

Screen shots:

Collins resignation hoax


Collins hoax resignation letter

 RadioLive has now updated the headline: Judith Collins resignation, written by Duncan Garner

Collins resignation hoax new headline

 Very poorly done by Garner and by RadioLive.

It’s called satire, Judith. Not dirt.

Very borderline.

Russel Norman transcript with Duncan Garner

Duncan Garner interviewed Russel Norman this afternoon on RadioLive and asked him about his Dotcom visits-

Russel Norman on his two meetings at Kim Dotcom’s mansion – Audio

Garner: Winston Peters won’t say if he’s been to the Dotcom mansion and seen Kim Dotcom and what they talked about but the Greens have admitted, Russel Norman has admitted that’s he’s been out there and had a chat to Kim Dotcom. He joins me now. Mt Norman, good afternoon to you.

Norman: Gidday Duncan, how’re going?

Garner: Very good. When did you go?

Norman: Ah, on the first and the twenty ninth of November last year.

Garner: You went twice.

Norman: That’s right.

Garner: Why?

Norman: to talk about policy issue because we’re pretty interested in the Internet economy stuff, ah, so and digital freeedom. All of those issues that obviously Kim Dotcom and the GCSB have highlighted, and also to talk about he was proposing this Internet Party, which he did end up establishing and I wanted to talk to him about it.

Garner: Did you try and stop him, did you try and stop him going ahead with the political party because that could take votes away from you?

Norman: Well, I didn’t try to stop him but I certainly did suggest to him that I thought it wasn’t a great idea, because potentially it could help John Key get elected, so the potential is that you know he gets less than 5% of the vote and those votes don’t represent, don’t get anyone elected into Parliament and the effect is you get more John Key elected, so I tried to talk him out of it…

Garner: Who instigated the meetings? Did you ring him or did he ring you?

Norman: I certainly was responsible for contacting him, I mean who rang who first I don’t have a record of that, but certainly I wanted to talk to him about his Internet Party.

Garner: So you instigated it?

Norman: I’m, I, well, whether he called me first or me called him first, I don’t have a record of it, but certainly I did want to talk to him about it so I take responsibility for it.

Garner: Because you were concerned about it.

Norman: Yeah that’s right.

Garner: Did you talk about his extradition case?

Norman: We talked about a number of his court cases cause he’s you know more ?? on the go. We didn’t talk at any particular length about his extradition, um, particularly in relation to the issue about whether the change of Government would we um block the extradition, that didn’t come up at all.

Garner: Did you give your view on the way he’d been treated the spies, by this Government?

Norman: Yeah, which I’ve given many times publicly over many many months, all through last year I was very vocal in my opinion about the way that the GCSB’s been behaving. Let’s remember they intercepted his communications illegally, they illegally raided his mansion, they deleted the information that’s supposed to be in the court case and they illegally gave information to the US Government so obviously I’ve expressed my views about that pretty firmly.

Garner: Would you stop him being extradited if you were in Government?

Norman: Well it’s a two step process, so there’s a judicial process, so that’s what’ll be happening I guess this year. And then there’s the decision has to be made by Minister, so you might call that the political process.

Garner: But you don’t think he should be extradited Russel?

Norman: Well, based on the evidence that we have at the moment, and we haven’t had the court cases yet but based on what I know and all the illegal activities of the New Zealand Government, um, I don’t support extradition but we’ll see what comes out in the court case.

Garner: You see ’cause it looks like, um and I want to be quite up front here, it looks like a slimy deal where you’ve gone to the Dotcom mansion, you’ve scratched his back, he’ll scratch yours by dropping out as a party, and it doesn’t look good.

Norman: Well, I mean all I can do is, you know, tell the truth, and the truth is that there is no such deal, um, there never has been…

Garner: There doesn’t have to be does there, it just has to be a bit of an understanding, wink wink nudge nudge.

Norman: Well, there was none of that…so from my point of view I’ve been extremely upfront all through last year about my views about the GCSB and the extradition, all of that stuff, so it’s just a matter of public record that I’ve been extremely critical of what’s been going on.

Garner: Interesting, I appreciate your time on the programme, Dr Russel Norman, Green’s co-leader.

Garner: It is fascinating. This is messy I think for some of these parties. At least I suppose Russel Norman has been upfront in that he went out and met Kim Dotcom  Twice. Winston Peters, it’s been alleged this afternoon he went three times and he won’t admit that. Apparently it’s all the journalists fault and problem for asking the question. You see, nothing has changed. Imagine Peters in Government, you’d get another three years of it.

This expands on some things and covers a bit more ground.

Norman has expressed valid concerns about the way the NZ Police and Government and GCSB have handled the Dotcom case. I’m not aware of Norman expressing any concern about what Dotcom has been doing to attract the attention of the US authorities

But there are still questions unanswered, including:

  1. What did Norman offer Dotcom in return for dropping the Internet Party plan?
  2. Were any donations discussed in any way? Norman: “No money was sought or offered” (Twitter)
    So were there any discussions about dealing with donations in any other way?
  3. Has Norman met Dotcom anywhere other than at Dotcom’s mansion?
  4. What other contact has Norman had with Dotcom?
  5. When did they last meet or talk?
  6. Have any other Green Party representatives met with or been in contact with Dotcom?

It’s difficult to believe that Norman would visit Dotcom not once but twice just for general discussions and to say Norman preferred Dotcom didn’t start up a party with no arrangements or deals discussed.

Cunliffe would stop deep sea drilling

Duncan Garner pushed David Cunliffe to state his position on deep sea drilling, and Cunliffe eventually effectively said he would halt deep sea drilling until there were “standards in place”.

Garner: Ok, so you’d stop it for now and wait til you could get better standards, local standards that you were satisfied with.

Cunliffe: We’d get the standards in place and then we’d take them on a case by case basis.

Greens would never support allowing drilling so Labour would have to get National’s co-operation.

It was obvious that Cunliffe was not well informed about current standards and practices in the industry. He seems to have rushed into an issue of the day without getting up to speed first. He seems to have relied in Labour MP Moana Mackey. She opposes oil exploration

Cunliffe was interviewed by Garner on RadioLive today about offshore drilling risks. Following that Garner interviewed David Robinson,  CEO of The New Zealand Petroleum Exploration and Production Association.

Cunliffe had earlier launched into an attack on drilling:

Likely drilling incident kept secret by Govt


Documents obtained by Labour show the Government has kept secret the real risk of an incident including a major oil spill occurring at the depths of Anadarko’s proposed Kaikōura drilling site, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says.

“The Government has constantly told the public deep sea oil exploration will be safe.

“However, documents obtained under the Official Information Act show Environment Minister Amy Adams had international research 13 months ago showing there is a 70 per cent probability of a ‘reportable incident’ occurring within a year at the 1500m depth of the Kaikōura well.

“This research shows while existing shallow water sites such as Taranaki carry a risk of only around 10 per cent, the risk is dramatically increased at deeper levels.

“Amy Adams went to great lengths to keep this information from the public. In fact, she told Parliament there is a ‘very low risk’ of a large scale oil spill occurring.

“The Government needs to be honest about the risks of deep sea oil drilling, especially when the Kaikōura community and the wider public hold serious reservations about Anadarko’s plans.

“This isn’t the first time the Government has misled the public over this issue.

“Last year the Energy and Resources Minister told Kaikōura residents they would be consulted on exploration drilling but this year National rushed through legislation taking away that democratic right.

“In September Amy Adams said the impact of an oil spill would be ‘significant’ but it turns out she’d been told it would be ‘catastrophic’.

Following this there were counter claims that Cunliffe has grossly overstated the risks.

Labour ‘scaremongering’ over oil claims – Adams

Environment Minister Amy Adams and PEPANZ say David Cunliffe is misleading the public.

Garner asked Cunliffe about this: Oil drilling at Kaikoura depths has 70% probability of a ‘reportable incident’ within a year

Garner: This afternoon, big announcement, Labour said the Government had kept secret the real risk of a major oil spill at Anadarko’s proposed Kaikoura drilling site. Labour Leader David Cunliffe says he received the documents under the Official Information Act from Environment Minister Amy Adams which showed Adams had international research thirteen months ago that shows that there’d be a 70% probability of a “reportable incident” at the 1500m deep Kaikoura well within a year of it opening. How important is this information?

Has it really been kept secret? What is David Cunliffe saying? He joins me now. David, good afternoon to you. What do you think this information is telling you?

Cunliffe: …which is that based on US data and a very very reputable think tank there is a seven times greater chance of a reportable incident at 1500m deep than at the regular 300m deep that we’ve got in in-shore Taranaki so that’s a very very more risky and serious operation.

Secondly a 70% chance of something hoing seriously enough wrong inside a year that it has to be reported by ther company. Now the sort of incidents that that covers, it’s not just dropping a few tacks off you (?) off the rig platform into the sea, it’s stuff like significant injury or death, rig collision, significant pollution or spillage.

It’s not all well-head blow, that’s the absolute worst end of the spectrum, the chances of that are much lower, but I would have thought that most New Zealanders would say that a 70% chance in a year is pretty significant odds and the public debate deserves to be informed.

Now I guess the other key point you raised is we had to prise this information out of the Minister through multiple OIA requests, I’ll give some credit to Moana Mackey who’s the spokesperson in her team, we had to go to the Ombudsman to get it, we had to chisel it out of them, and it’s finally in the public domain.

This is information the Government should have pro-actively released so that the public could have a mature and sensible debate.

3 News reported:

The New Zealand Petroleum Exploration and Production Association (PEPANZ) has also hit back at Mr Cunliffe’s assertions, saying his claims are “riddled” with inaccuracies.

“Labour claims they have ‘unearthed’ secret documents hidden by the Government, the truth is you can find the report online,” CEO David Robinson says.

“Taking information out of context or using images without the commentary and research it was published with is misleading and does not contribute to a balanced conversation.”

The 70 percent figure refers to more than just an oil spill, Mr Robinson says, and shouldn’t be taken out of context.

“In fact it is saying the more people and machinery you use, the more chance there is of a cut finger, injury, fire or any other incident that you would see on a construction site anywhere.”

PEPANZ has also taken issue with Mr Cunliffe’s references to a drilling off Kaikoura, saying the only thing planned at the moment is a seismic survey.

Back to RadioLive:

Garner: The information has been out there though, it may not have been pro-actively out there but David Robinson who’ll join us shortly, the CEO of PEPANZ, he sent out a number of links to this information which has been on the Internet this morning, it’s all out there and he’s got it in his press release today. This information’s available on the Internet.

Cunliffe: Some of it has been available on the website of the think tank that did it, as I say it’s US data, but the Minister redacted it from the OIA releases, she was not prepared to draw attention to it, and in the material that we released, which will be available on our website so that New Zealanders can see for themselves, a whole lot of other data…

Garner: Do you accept that this information has been publicly available for some time though?

Cunliffe: it was publicly available in the US but mysteriously was withdrawn from the website of the think tank concerned, now I don’t know why but it’s not just something that you can easily dial up and download.

Garner: Well, the thing is that some of these reports are actually, with all due respect David, are online. You don’t have to be in America,  Saudi Arabia, Africa, Ireland…

Cunliffe: That is true, but as I said, they have been redacted from the information that the Minister had previously released under the OIA showing the Government is very sensitive about it, and the Government can’t have it both ways, it’s defence now is “hey, this stuff is online out of the US”, then why wouldn’t the Government allow it to be freely debated in New Zealand?

Garner: I think you make a fair point on that as well, you’ve packaged it up and said why didn’t the Government put this in Parliament in the information a year ago.

Cunliffe: Along with a whole lot of other stuff which they’ve held back.

That sounds to me like a a fair point too. As much information as possible should be in the public domain, readily available.

Cunliffe: This is just one data point, let me give you some background here, Labour is not saying that we are in principle opposed to all oil exploration, not even deep sea oil exploration as a matter of principle, we’re prepared to have a mature discussion with the industry about how that could safely be done, but the bottom lines are pretty clear.

Number one you’ve gotta have a best practice set of environment standards up front in place and agreed by the industry.

Number two you’ve gotta be able to clean up a spill or a blow if it occurs, currently I’m not convinced that the capacity exists, certainly not in the Government, they’ve only got three rubber duckies, that wouldn’t do anything if there was a well blow.

Garner: That’s not right though, the three rubber duckies lines and it’s well used by a number of people, but the fact is that there are a number of other boats that are in Taranaki that are available on top of those three, that’s the truth.

Cunliffe: If there was a deep water blow, then it would require a relief well to help cap the well…

Garner: It would take two weeks…

Cunliffe: No, it would take six to eight weeks, and it would need to come from somewhere like Singapore or Perth at the closest…

Garner: What’s the truth here, Simon Bridges and the industry says it would take two weeks to even begin to start to clean up a spill, you say six to eight, who’s right, the Minister and the industry, or you?

Cunliffe: Six to eight is my advice to get a rig down from Singapore or Perth, and to get it drilling and to do a replacement well cap. Now I mean Dave Robinson may have new information on that, that’s the advice I’ve received, and when you think about it, it’s assuming that a relief well is available at the moment that a blowout happens in New Zealand.

Garner: Under Labour policy you would want a relief well sitting beside the main well, before you went ahead and said yes, because to me it sounds like you’re trying to have it both ways David, you’re trying to say yes we’re ok with oil drilling, but not currently in it’s current form, we’d want a relief drill somewhere.

Cunliffe: I’m saying Duncan that we do not take a position which is opposed in principle to all exploration, right. We want to have, as the industry does I believe, a mature fact based discussion about how we get the best possible protections for New Zealanders and out natural environment. That has got to include a number of things, the best practice standards in place up front, a clean up capacity, unlimited liability cover, and a decent return to the taxpayer.

Garner: So you’d put a moratorium on all deep sea drilling until you were satisfied as Prime Minister.

Cunliffe: No, I haven’t said that Duncan, I haven’t said that…

Garner: You’ve effectively said it…

Cunliffe: I’ve said based on what we currently see in the public domain, I’m not convinced that those standards have yet been met.

Garner: So would you stop deep sea drilling as Prime Minister until you saw something that gave you confidence to let it go ahead?

Cunliffe: Yes we would need see material that gave us confidence on a case by case basis.

Garner: So you would stop it until you saw that?

Cunliffe: We are not opposed in principle, we are absolutely up for a mature discussion with the industry…

Garner: Are you opposed on current standards? And I think this is very important…

Cunliffe: No no, we are opposed to the current standards. The EEZ legislation under which this is happening is currently too weak. We have jettisoned a lot of the jurisprudence under the RMA and it needs to be tightened up.

Garner: Ok, so you’d stop it for now and wait til you could get better standards, local standards that you were satisfied with.

Cunliffe: We’d get the standards in place and then we’d take them on a case by case basis.

Robinson followed:

Garner: Listening all that David Robinson who is the CEO of PEPANZ, that’s the body that represents of course the drillers and the oil industry.

Good afternoon. What did you make of that?

Robinson: Well look I think the only secret today was what Labour were going to talk about, because this report’s been on the Internet since 2011, and certainly the industry has moved on a long way since then.

Garner: Its interesting, because he says that, yeah he accepted that actually when we put it to him, that the report has been around, but the Government itself deleted it from any of it’s responses, which looks a bit tricky.

Robinson: Well look, I don’t know what the Government’s put in or out, but certainly there’s any amount of information that people can find on the Internet, and I guess one of the things that we’ve got to do as an industry is make sure we do a better job of telling what we do and how we’re doing it, and you know we’re absolutely committed to doing that and being very open and transparent about what we’re doing.

Garner: Do you think you can do better in that instance David, do you think you could say to people “hey look there are these reports, you need to see them, here they are”? Because people, I mean David Cunliffe’s right in a sense, the average Kiwi joker’s not going to jump on and try and search for all these different reports, they need to be there for them don’t they.

Robinson: Yeah, look, they do, and I think just listening to Mr Cunliffe now there’s clearly a lot of information we’ve got to share with him to make sure he does have the confidence we have in the industry. And I think the other thing is it’s very very hard to go on the Internet and find out about any topic, there’s so much information you have to trawl through.

What we have to do I think in New Zealand is rely on the regulators and the people who are responsible for governing the industry. And if you look at the legislation that’s been put through parliament in the last two years, they’ve completely re-written the rule book for the New Zealand industry, so we’re now operating to some of the world’s best legislation, and we’re operating to the highest standards here.

Garner: What do you make of Cunliffe’s position though when he says they’re not against, Labour’s not, see I find this very, this is classic of Cunliffe when he says “We’re not against deep sea drilling, ok, but we sort of are at the moment because of the standards and the standards need to get better and you need to relief drill.

I mean is it possible to have a relief drill beside the current drill so there’s not an oil spilling? I mean, has Cunliffe got a point or not?

Robinson: Well not really, I mean there’s no jurisdiction around the world that requires a relief rig to be on standby to drill a relief well. Under absolute extreme circumstances that may be required but the odds on that in New Zealand are just, you know, incredibly unlikely.

Garner: But that’s what Cunliffe is saying though isn’t it, he said to me a relief drill or well or whatever these things are is six to eight weeks away. Is he right or wrong?

Robinson: Well I think listening to the conversation there was certainly some confusion between a relief rig and capping technology, and the two are very different and you know, the way that things are designed today, all these wells are designed to be capped and have capping technology and that’s all been modularised and all geared up to be flown anywhere in the world.

So you know, if the absolute worst case scenario was to happen in New Zealand we’d be ready to respond in a very very short space of time.

Garner: Two weeks? Two weeks?

Robinson: Two weeks. But see oil spills are a very serious matter, and I can understand Kiwis being uncertain about it, and again that comes back on us to make sure we provide the information to give people that confidence.

Garner: Have you have had David Cunliffe up in your office for a decent hour or two briefing?

Robinson: I haven’t had opportunity to catch up with Mr Cunliffe, but I’m certainly hoping he’ll make time to see me and so that I can give him the good oil on the industry and perhaps put his mind at rest.

Garner: I might text you his number after this and get the two of you together for some sort of lunch before Christmas, because that might be the way to resolve this I reckon.

Robinson: That would be very kind of you if you would.

Garner: Good on you David, I appreciate your time.

So Cunliffe comes out today and has a go at the industry, and he hasn’t yet sat down with the industry and been briefed.

You see, I’ve got a problem with that. If I was running to become the Prime Minister I actually would want to go and sit down with Anadarko and these other guys from PEPANZ and to say “ok, give me everything I need to know, this is what I want to know, I want ten hours with you, I want two hours with you, I want every document possible, give me everything so I can make my own mind up about this”.

Because Cunliffe said it would take six to eight weeks to start to clean up a spill, I said two, he said “well I don’t have that information”. It would take two weeks. All the industry says that. There is no relief rig anywhere in the world on site, that wouldn’t happen as well. Is that what Cunliffe is saying? He wants a relief rig next to the drilling rig. I tell you what, it doesn’t happen anywhere in the world.

I think David Cunliffe needs to sit down with David Robinson, a couple of Davids in the same room, maybe bring in Anadarko and see if we can crunch out some kind of resolution because if Cunliffe is going to be the next Prime Minister making these big decisions I reckon a bit of information won’t hurt anyone.

It seems from this that the industry hasn’t done a good enough job at providing information, it appears that Government hasn’t been forthcoming enough with information, and Cunliffe has launched into this issue without being well enough informed.

Cunliffe’s information seems out of date and insufficient. He has to take responsibility for coming off half cocked. He seems to have relied on Labour MP Moana Mackey to inform him, she is known to oppose drilling so has done her leader a disservice on this, but ultimately it’s up to Cunliffe to be properly briefed. Perhaps he should have talked to Shane Jones about it as well, Jones supports oil and gas exploration so may have provided some balance.

And certainly Cunliffe should be communicating with the industry and not just rushing in to the anti-Government protest of the day as appears to have happened here.

Cunliffe has ended up taking a position on deep sea drilling, after being pushed on it by Garner. He has effectively said he would halt deep sea drilling. It’s not clear if it would also apply to other drilling.

Garner: So you would stop it until you saw that?

Cunliffe: We are not opposed in principle, we are absolutely up for a mature discussion with the industry…

Garner: Are you opposed on current standards? And I think this is very important…

Cunliffe: No no, we are opposed to the current standards. The EEZ legislation under which this is happening is currently too weak. We have jettisoned a lot of the jurisprudence under the RMA and it needs to be tightened up.

Garner: Ok, so you’d stop it for now and wait til you could get better standards, local standards that you were satisfied with.

Cunliffe: We’d get the standards in place and then we’d take them on a case by case basis.

So Cunliffe would halt the exploration and drilling until he gets “the standards in place” – that presumably means legislation which at the very least would require significant time.

And it would require the support of another major party. The Greens would never support anything that enables drilling. It would  National would back Labour  to reinstate exploration.

RadioLive and rape culture

The RadioLive and rape culture repercussions continue. Jackson and Tamihere have an advertising free show today.

Willie Jackson & John Tamihere’s show on RadioLIVE today will be commercial free. Telecom is the latest company to pull its advertising.

A number of companies pulled from it by RadioLive seems to have tried to not risk losing the rest. But it’s still getting worse regardless:

Vodafone New Zealand ‏@vodafoneNZ

We have suspended all advertising with Radio Live following the actions of John Tamihere & Willie Jackson around the Roast Busters case.

The instigator of the advertising protest, Giovanni Tiso, has blogged This is what rape culture looks like where he explains his actions, and lists the questions that Jackson and Tamihere asked.

How did your parents consent to you going out as a 14-year-old til 3am in the morning?

So anyway you fibbed, lied, whatever, and went out to the parties –­ did you not know they were up to this mischief?

Well, you know when you were going to parties, were you forced to drink?

Don’t youse [sic] know what these guys are up to?

Yeah but girls shouldn’t be drinking anyway, should they?

Why is it that it’s only taken you this arvo to stand up and say this happened?

I know you’re only 18 but as the pressure comes on, a lot more girls who might have consented who are identified might well just line up and say they were raped as well.

How free and easy are you kids these days out there? You were 14 [when you had sex], yeah?

But if some of the girls have consented, that doesn’t make them rapists, does it?

You see Amy, when you get to that sort of number and you get people like you who’ve been around for three years, you know what, I find it very difficult to understand why an allegation, if rape has occurred, it hasn’t happened before.

That’s why I’m getting a bit confused here right. The girls like them, the girls think they’re handsome, the girls go out with them, then you say they get raped, right?

The other side come to it, are they willing drinkers, all those questions come in don’t they?

Do you think over this period any of the girls could have got together and said, this is not on?

When the tried to apologise the following day they just demonstrated that they didn’t get it.

Tiso concludes:

This is what rape culture sounds like: victim-shaming, blaming alcohol or lying to one’s parents, the core belief that if rape happens often enough, it’s no longer rape. It’s all there.

This week, our collective conscience has been shaken. It’s time to turn the outrage and anger into collective action, so that we may not regain that false, misplaced sense of innocence and trust.

Apart from some isolated misogynists there has been widespread condemnation of the culture surrounding the Roast Busters. At least the awakening of action to address the issues may make good of something widely seen as awful.

Willy and JT keep roasting themselves

Willy Jackson and John Tamihere have been getting a lot of criticism for an interview they did yesterday with a girl about ‘Roast Busters’. I listened to it last night, I didn’t think it was quite as horrific as some have claimed but it wasn’t flash – it demonstrates what is quite common male thinking, unfortunately..

Wrong-headed Jackson/Tamihere interview with friend of Roastbusters victim yanked – comments slagging hosts remain:–JT/tabid/506/articleID/38783/Default.aspx

An open letter to the RadioLive hosts:

Tena korua John and Willie

Yesterday we were sent the link to your radio programme of your discussion with ‘Amy’. Listening to your programme is a rare event in both of our whare. Why? Because the views you espouse are on the whole conservative, often ignorant and nearly always sexist. So we are not surprised with the misogynistic undertones of how you spoke to ‘Amy’.

What is saddening is the fact that you seem to have absolutely no awareness or experience of the impact of rape on the lives of it’s victims and survivors.

What is disturbing is that you show no empathy for the pain and ongoing distress caused by sexual violence on entire whanau.

What is alarming is that with all the involvement you have in providing programmes within urban Maori communities that you remain ignorant of the destruction caused by rape culture.

What is disconcerting is that you have no sense of understanding for how difficult it is to talk to others about being raped, about sexual violence, about family violence let alone what it means to be 14, 15 or 16 years old.

What is disgusting is that you seem to revel in the deep-seated ignorance on these issues.

Rape, whether it be of a woman abducted, or of a mother catching a bus home after work, or of a young woman out for drinks with her friends, or of any woman in her own home by someone she knows – is rape.

Rape, John and Willie, is rape.

Rape, John, is not about “how free and easy are you kids out there these days”.

Rape, Willie, is not about how you are too young to have a drink out with friends.

Rape has nothing to do with if they are good looking. ‘Good looking’ men rape too Willie.

Rape – John and Willie – is rape.

Your continual use of media to promote sexist, anti-Maori women sentiments, and rape culture can only be a reflection of your own beliefs about women. There is no other reason for the flow of misogynistic diatribe that falls so easily from your mouths.

This is not the first time that you have both supported rapists or deeply offensive sexist behaviour. It is a consistent activity on your part. Dismissal of women, marginalisation of Maori women and the promotion of male supremacy is commonplace on your shows and in your commentary. This is not the first time we have called you out on that.

These girls and young women are peoples’ friends, daughters, sisters, cousins, grandaughters. Women raped by those men you support and promote are daughters, sisters, cousins, grandaughters. That is what you are promoting Willy and John. You are supporting and promoting a rape culture that lays blame at the feet of those women who should in society be free to have a drink, wear whatever they wish, go out with friends and feel safe to do so.

You need to think of all the women in your whanau and in your circles, John and Willie. You need to see the act of rape as an act of abuse, an act of power and an act that instills fear, and act that impacts on all women, on all wahine Maori including all those wahine within your own whanau. Perhaps then you would be less dismissive of their pain and less promoting of the violent acts being perpetuated everyday on our wahine.

There were some pertinent questions you could have asked yesterday to instead call our rape culture, our systemic enforcement of it and our everyday sexism to account. We never expected this of you both because that takes real journalism.

Both of you alongside Radio Live AT THE LEAST owe a formal and unconditional apology to all who have experienced sexual abuse and rape. You owe an apology to their families. You owe an apology to any human who has been disgusted by your remarks yesterday and your attitude towards ‘Amy’ and all like her.

Yesterday we put out a public call to Radio Live for Marama Davidson to talk on your show but not to debate the validity of your attitude. There is no argument there. You are simply wrong and likely to have caused further harm to any person triggered by your ignorance. We would have appreciated the chance to be a voice to unpick that harm and call you to account and most importanly, to stand in support of ‘Amy’ and all like her. We are still waiting for your invite……..

We hope you have the sense to reflect on your actions. We hope you and Radio Live at th least offer a formal apology.

Na matou
Te Wharepora Hou Maori Women’s Group
Dr Leonie Pihama and Marama Davidson

But their ignorance continues:

Toby Manhire ‏@toby_etc

Willie Jackson apologises, incl on behalf of Radio Live, for “any offence caused to Amy”, but says he’s no idea how ppl could be upset.

John Tamihere: “the questions put were prudent and worthy of putting”. He’s “flummoxed” by people who amplify details of “phraseology”.


Jesus Christ Jackson and JT apologise immediately!!!!

Doesn’t sound like this sideshow is anywhere near over yet.

‏@RadioLIVENZ is trying to promote it as an apology.

AUDIO: Willie & JT apologise for handling of ‘Roast Busters’ caller “Amy”–JT/tabid/506/articleID/38783/Default.aspx

Interesting support:


Great to read lots of Maori women out there on Twitter climbing into Willie and JT. Silent too long.

And some Maori men.

From Stuff – Radio hosts apologise over interview

The RadioLive hosts said that if “some” of the girls had consented, “that doesn’t make [the Roast Busters] rapists, does it?”

They suggested that women who consented to sex may now “line up” to say they were raped as well.

On today’s show, Jackson said that they “absolutely don’t condone the actions of the Roast Busters” and were simply trying to discuss complex issues.

“We have no problems apologising to Amy for causing offence. Not a problem at all. We thought were sensitive yesterday, maybe we could have done a better job.

“We’ve got the utmost respect for Amy for speaking out about her experience, it was an incredibly brave interview.”

They could have done a much better job, but only if they understood what they were talking about, and as far as rape goes they clearly don’t. Unfortunately their attitude is not uncommon.

Garner Drive – send young to Christchurch

Duncan Garner thinks young people should be sent to Christchurch.


50,000 unemployed young Kiwis not in work, training or education. Send them to Chch to help rebuild the city. Why not? RadioLive Drive 3pm

If I was a young Kiwi not in work, training or education and work was available in Christchurch I wouldn’t need to be sent, I’d go and get a job myself.

Is this just a generational thing?

A taxing alcohol problem

RadioLive asks “Is alcohol too cheap?”

Would lifting the price of alcohol reduce consumption?

Possibly, depending on how much the price was increased.

Justice Minister Judith Collins has confirmed the idea of a minimum price for alcohol is being floated, due to concerns that it is available too cheaply. The regime may be included in last-minute changes to legislation.

The Law Commission recommendations include a 50 percent excise tax on alcohol.

In general I’m against penalising everyone to address a problem with a minority.And so is Bill English…

Acting Prime Minister Bill English this morning told Marcus Lush the Government has not yet seen convincing evidence that an increase in price will make a difference to consumption.

“With alcohol, there’s a lot of people for whom moderate consumption is just fine – it doesn’t have a detrimental effect on their health or their state of mind.”

So I have been reluctant to support artificially pushing up the price of alcoholic drinks.

Is price-fixing best way to cut alcohol consumption?

It may cut consumption, depending on how much of a price increase.

Or is it merely a swipe at the poor?

Good grief, soon we won’t be able to change anything in case some poor person could conceivably be detrimentally affected. Leave that out of this argument.

An illogical case for increasing the price of alcohol

I drink a small-moderate amount of alcohol, and have thought that I shouldn’t have to pay more for it to try and stop a few heavy drinkers from making a mess of themselves.


  • Alcohol is a non-essential “luxury”
  • A modest increase in price may hardly affect modest drinkers
  • None of us would be harmed if we drank a bit less alcohol
  • The extra tax would be handy right now
  • It may stop heavy drinkers from drinking so much

Those aren’t all strong reasons to increase alcohol prices, but there’s no strong reason not to, and we could all benefit a bit.