Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, July 6th, 2026 - 65 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/361001461/seymour-implores-gisborne-council-go-easy-forestry-companies
If you ever needed more proof that national and act are by the owners for the owners, witness them trying to get reckless polluting forest directors off the hook.
Seymour seems to think he is a lobbyist with the power to legislate.
Sanctuary
Pres Donald bonespur/chicken hawk Trump appeals to his marching morons.
"Communists" ?
And yea….white supremacist Amerikkka for Trump
He hates
communistsDemocrat Socialists because they might stymie Trump inc's shifty Pres business….And what the crooked Pres actually fears.Not commies. Being finally held to account !
The last time America "won" a war the literal Communists were on the same side.
A very fair 15 minute summary
Well, some on the American side were foolish enough to imagine they were on the same side, perhaps. And even they had no excuse for continuing to believe it after the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact were published during the Nuremberg trials.
Not to mention the naked land-grab of most of Eastern Europe.
I can flat-out guarantee that the majority of those citizens had no interest in being 'socialist republics' controlled by the Soviet Union.
finally held to account
By who??? The mid-terms? Perhaps. The establishment? Nope, too corrupt. When the game is rigged players learn to use the undeclared rules along with those declared.
The lack of evident punishment being applied to T by mythical entities in the sky or elsewhere seems an ongoing feature of American democracy. Yet I get your point about left-wingers en masse hallucinating such entities possibly being able to manifest such destiny via collaborative new-age affirmations.
Huh?
Subliminal, I ought to have written, sorry. I took the point that was implied (but not intentionally by you, it seems). Just a riff on the usual `somebody ought to do something about this shit' stance (which I often share). Irony?
I know some of you get a bit annoyed over proposed job cuts in the public service, but this is a classic example of why there needs to be a review of them. This is one job that should have been cut five years ago. Has anyone even been doing the job for the last five years? The guy did not even manage to work there a month, and has been paid for five years! This is yours and my tax money flushed down the toilet. Probably around 1/2 a million that could have been put towards something useful.
I guess that this ex lotto presenter will end up being one job cut (finally), but whoever authorised the continual payments of salary to him, should be another job cut. There needs to be accountability.
Paul Goldsmith demands answers after ex-Lotto presenter gets taxpayer-funded wage for five years on gardening leave – NZ Herald
Did someone say "lotto presenter"?
Sure, this is an extraordinary case, but the article itself explains why it happened: his employment wasn't terminated until the criminal proceedings and employment process had run their course.
You can absolutely argue that process should be reviewed if it produced an unreasonable outcome. But that is not the same thing as proving the public sector is "cushy", or that it protects staff from the consequences of their actions. Or that cuts to the public sector are justified.
At most, this shows a specific employment process produced a bad-looking result in a highly unusual case. It does not prove that broad public service job cuts are justified.
The employer is almost beside the point.
You could just as easily imagine a senior executive at a bank or law firm being paid millions while on gardening leave during a lengthy employment and legal process following allegations of serious misconduct. That wouldn't tell us the banking or legal profession is inherently "cushy" either. It would simply reflect how employers manage complex legal and employment risks.
And if the argument is that he should have been sacked earlier, we need to be clear about the principle being argued for. Are we comfortable with someone losing their job simply because they have been accused of a crime?
Or do we expect employers to follow a process that can withstand legal scrutiny?
That doesn't mean the outcome here was good. It may well have been excessive or badly handled. But those are questions about employment law and due process, not evidence that the public service as a whole is overstaffed or uniquely protected.
I don't know of a commercial employer who would be prepared to pay 5 years of salary, with zero benefit accruing to the business. The other indicative examples you cite, are of senior-executives who have been with the employer for a long time – not recent hires (for whom there is an immediate remedy). Recent examples that have hit the news, have resulted in the people resigning (how forced the resignation was, is open to interpretation), e.g. Kamahl Santamaria, James Gardner-Hopkins.
At the very minimum, the fact that he had only been in the job for one month, means that he misled his employer during the hiring process (not disclosing relevant information which would impact on his suitability for the position); which is cause for instant dismissal. I do not know of any other employer (apart, it is clear from the public service), who would not exercise this option immediately.
A related element is the lengthy delay in the case coming to trial. Five years is an outrageous period of time.
Bell, there are plenty of readers on this site whose jobs and careers are in the firing line from this government, so hearing this trite bullshit masquerading as justification for mass sackings is pathetic:
I know some of you get a bit annoyed over proposed job cuts in the public service, but this is a classic example of why there needs to be a review of them.
These ad homs have to stop. We are 9,000 public sector jobs down the line and rising. And lest we forget Lotto: entities like Heritage New Zealand are funded by Lotto, and Heritage New Zealand are gutting their staff out just like everyone else.
Perhaps you should address this critique to those who made the claim (not me).
However, this case, in itself, is a very, very, poor look from a government department which knows that jobs are under threat.
9,520 before RNZ stopped counting last yar.
How many public sector roles are going, and from where? | RNZ
Reading the associated article, about how they came to their numbers – it's really clear that a substantial percentage of the jobs 'lost' were vacancies. Many of which were never designed to be filled – there to retain funding, and enable 'flexibility' rather than a genuine intent to hire.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/562350/how-many-public-sector-jobs-have-really-been-axed
Excluding crown entities from the total is less defensible – but it doesn't appear that they have ever been reported as part of the public service (so are over and above the FTE totals)
In any case, the reported 9,520 appears to be very much a 'paper' figure, rather than reflecting actual people who have lost their job.
And that was not known or proved for 5 years. The alternative is to terminate immediately the employment and pay of anyone charged with a crime.
The fault is with the speed of 'justice'. not employment law.
Unless you are suggesting that he informed his employer, during the hiring process (which I think we can all agree is nonsensical) – he absolutely did mislead. And you don't need to wait for a conviction, to take action.
Have a look at the elements required for a misconduct charge.
https://www.employment.govt.nz/resolving-problems/misconduct
I cannot think of any organization which would retain an employee under those circumstances.
Indeed, it is a frequent consequence for the rest of society, when facing a criminal charge. If the charge impacts your ability to do the work (as it manifestly did in this case), you lose your job.
Also, I'd like a source for the 9,500 public sector jobs being actually cut.
It doesn't seem to be borne out from the publicly available stats: which show a 1,000 reduction over the last year, and nearly flatline (zero change) over the last 3 years.
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/data/workforce-data/public-sector-composition/workforce-size
I know that the government has announced a target of 9,000 jobs to be cut – but that is not at all the same thing as actually carrying it out.
Intending ain't doing: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/562350/how-many-public-sector-jobs-have-really-been-axed
So the left spent up big to buy support: that didn't work, support evaporated.
Boffins unsure of the difference between 2000 & 9500 ought to go into a huddle & confer. Or they could out-source the count to a sub-contractor.
So the situation is analogous to the wave/particle dilemma encountered by nuclear physicists a century ago. The public service is either 1 thing or 2 depending on when you look, and how. Another pointy-head weighs in…
Analysis then veers toward the work of the devil, which involves counting vacancies. These may be filled. Or not. Depends which way the wind blows. Good news that bureaucracy has doubled this century though:
You can go through RNZ's methodology if you like.
How many public sector roles are going, and from where? | RNZ
Did you see where they say that RNZ stopped counting the numbers in 2024?
And have you noticed that the numbers have been increasing since that date? In September 2024 the number was 63,162. In March 2026 it was 64,535.
A very convenient time for RNZ to change the subject wasn't it?
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/data/workforce-data/public-sector-composition/workforce-size
Spoken like a true RW with no anti-RNZ bias whatsoever. Two birds with one stone; stick the knife in the Public Service and also in RNZ. Or is it really just one bird?
I love how RWs tend to obfuscate and deflect using numbers, figures of imagination, and magical spreadsheets to divert & distract from key issues. Is it just an ideological consequence or a cognitive weakness or a bit of both?
What were these "magical spreadsheets" and "figures of imagination" you accuse me of using?
I gave the source in the link I provided. They were produced by the SSC. Are you proposing that they make things up?
Poor reading comprehension is a cognitive weakness.
Your Right foot is too small.
A public broadcaster NZ's most trusted news brand, again? Intolerable!
“Very convenient” for whom? “Be careful” now RNZ, be “very careful.”
But employment decisions aren't determined by seniority (Nicola Willis' proposed changes aside) or length of tenure. They're determined by employment law and what the law considers to be a fair and reasonable decision-making process.
The threshold for summary dismissal is deliberately high, even in cases involving alleged serious misconduct. That's appropriate because someone's employment is their livelihood. It shouldn't be taken away without clear justification and a procedurally fair process.
It's certainly possible the Ministry could have lawfully terminated his employment earlier. Equally, it's possible they concluded that doing so before the criminal proceedings had concluded exposed them to an unjustified dismissal claim.
None of us knows what legal advice they received or what information they had at the time.
The fact the criminal case took five years to resolve is a separate issue. If that's the real concern, then the delay in the justice system is what deserves scrutiny.
As a public sector organisation, the Ministry is also likely to be particularly cautious about following employment law and due process. That isn't necessarily evidence of a "cushy" culture; it's often the consequence of being expected to demonstrate that every employment decision is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.
The threshold for dismissal following a lie (even a lie by omission) during your interview process is very low, indeed. It just has to be proven (not difficult, he did not disclose that he had been involved in the criminal activity for which he was subsequently charged), and be detrimental to his employment (again easy, a serious criminal charge is indeed a barrier to employment in the role – which is why he was on 'gardening leave'.)
Even being charged over a serious criminal matter (regardless of whether or not you are found guilty), is something which could bring your employer into disrepute (as it has, in fact done). And this is an established reason for dismissal.
I think that the five year delay in the case coming to trial is egregious. Although it would have been substantially reduced by an early guilty plea – rather than the criminal extorting his salary until two weeks before the trial.
However, there should have been no delay in his termination, except as caused by the prompt investigation and assembling of the legally watertight case to dismiss him.
As a public sector organization, the Ministry should be particularly cautious over expenditure of public money. The fact that it is (apparently) not, is indeed evidence of a "cushy culture". Being able to "demonstrate that every employment decision is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair", does not require this level of entitlement; it simply requires good processes and documentation.
Any other organization would have carried out a fair and reasonable decision-making process, and terminated his employment for cause (failure to disclose a matter which resulted in a criminal charge, shortly after he started work).
Indeed, we saw this happening (even within the public service) with Andrew Coster's forced resignation from the Social Investment role.
It is very typical for senior employees to be 'allowed' to resign, rather than being fired. What is not typical, is for them to continue to be employed for years, while the matter winds it's way through the courts.
This is the second Ministry which has been found guilty of inappropriate action, at the highest levels, this year (following on from the Ministry of Immigration). The public service is not winning any friends, here.
At a time when they should know they are under scrutiny, and be scrupulous over both their internal activities, and keeping Ministers informed.
What, on earth, are they thinking.
I would find this demonstrably untrue in any organization. Junior employees are regularly fired for issues which are winked at in upper management.
Public service favouritism applied to citizens on a random basis ain't such a bad thing. Winning comes from a combo of karma and the right triad (person/place/time), so the serendipity is natural, not artifice. The only sad part of the story is the public servant genius is forced by the system of bureaucracy to remain anonymous.
Bureaucrat as do-gooder hasn't been quite the social archetype of yore in recent decades. The nobility of spirit exhibited by the anon deserves public acclaim.
We could then nominate that person for the Socialist of the Year award. Such targetted delivery of benefits to citizens is exemplary political performance!
Is "Socialist of the Year" a NZ award? Tell me more about the nomination process
Well, tbf, socialists would formulate that by consensus. You'll be wanting to riposte that socialists have never been known to do so. Fair point. Ain't impossible tho (I catalysed consensus as office-holder in the GP for several years).
Nominations ought to be open to all public do-gooders, eh? Dames, for instance, are leading contenders often. All they need perform is classic Jungian projection of leftist idealism blended with new-age effusions such that multi-generational resonance is achieved – a tried & true recipe any player can concoct.
Evading my question? True to form, as is your mind-reading shtick
Perhaps I jumped too far too soon. Anyone could nominate, but selectivity via design would be required to marginalise polluters; an algorithm to detect & subtract bot multipliers, obviously! Then employ thresholds to measure like-mindedness around nominees/nominators. Public opinion is never a monolith or monoculture nowadays. Severality is normally a feature.
Is "Socialist of the Year" [@3.3] a NZ award? It’s a straightforward question.
And it’s OK if you’d prefer not to answer
Just not quite onto what you're getting at. I did have a book by Blaylock but didn't like it. I gather your question addresses current reality?
If so, no is the answer. In a better world, the award would exist due to popular acknowledgment of merit. Like socialists, I value a better world.
If you prefer the current world, you're welcome to it. Perhaps neolibs ought to wear an identifying badge nowadays?
My question 'addresses' the last paragraph of your comment @3.3:
So, "the Socialist of the Year" is not a NZ award – thanks for that, and for your efforts to provide info about nominations are appreciated. Even though it's not a NZ award, might Kiwis be eligible for nomination?
Perhaps they oughta – the 'sheeple' can't always pick 'em you know
Yeah. I expected the global left to revise socialism in response to the '80s shift away from it. Seemed a necessity at the time! So I'm not being totally satirical. Anyone who selects a beneficiary via luck of the draw is a serious contender – I admire the pluck of the bureaucrat.
Keep on Dennis F we follow you (most of us) most of the time, and I think you are getting better all the time at getting your thoughts over.
We all hope soon to be singing along with Louis Prima 'My Dreams are Getting Better all the time'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lvZcXcMeS8
He is singing soulfully about wanting someone he hasn't known long, and we'll be singing joyfully about not having someone (multiples) we've known too long.
Nats go for magical thinking, using the magic number 7: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/election-2026-national-pledges-new-trade-deals-with-seven-economies-if-re-elected/6Q4IHP7YWVHQHFHD42YWRFZXDU/
In accord with neolib theory, the incoming tide of wealth will lift all farm-bikes…
I mean, it's an attractive announcement, but the hard part isn't identifying countries you'd like a trade deal with. It's persuading those countries that a deal is in their interests.
Several of the first tranche are likely to be particularly difficult. Brazil and Argentina are major agricultural exporters and compete directly with New Zealand in meat and dairy. Switzerland also has a long history of protecting parts of its agricultural sector. Those aren't impossible negotiations, but they are unlikely to be quick or straightforward.
Politically, though, this does create some risk for National. A very pro-FTA position may bleed some votes to NZ First, especially among voters already sceptical about an India deal or anxious about the effects of trade liberalisation.
But that may be an acceptable risk for Luxon. Peters has already ruled out Labour, so even if NZ First campaigns against parts of National's trade agenda, National can probably treat it as a future coalition-management problem. They can carve out an agree-to-disagree provision, provided NZ First still supplies confidence and votes when needed.
So announcing seven priority markets is the easy part. Concluding even a few meaningful agreements, while managing the coalition politics around them, would be the real test.
This is even more likely following the FTA with India, when it became clear that Labour would support FTA, even when NZF did not. Meaning that National has a wider pool of support than just the coalition partners.
Because the country needs an experienced leverage lead.
/
https://www.cio.com/article/203899/ex-nz-tech-ceo-candace-kinser-becomes-nz-lead-of-analytics-company-palantir.html
lol if true
https://x.com/damienmgrant/status/2073534574815273418
https://x.com/Mountain_Tui/status/2062262153315496422
A rant about NZ First's proposed citizenship voting thing:
https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2026/07/05/citizens-only-voting-and-unintended-consequences/
The idea that someone should have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarchy in order to vote is reprehensible.
It seems from the article, that this 'oath' business is only of concern to PR elderly British citizens. The rest of the non-citizen population – have little concern over the form of an oath; and much greater concern over losing their entitlement to their original citizenship (e.g. China, India, not to mention the Netherlands). A practical, rather than an ethical concern.
If the affected people have such a great concern over the technical matter of allegiance, I'm surprised they haven't already renounced their British citizenship. Surely it is better to be stateless than remain under the dominion of that most horrific of beings, a king. Indeed, moving outside of the Commonwealth altogether, would be the best option.
I fail to see just why it is reprehensible to be required to swear allegiance to the leader of the country. If you want to change who that is, you can join all of the rest of the Republicans, and agitate for change from within.
After all, no one is going to check to see if you have your fingers crossed behind your back, when you swear the oath.
If it ever got to being a citizen-only vote, National would dominate future parliaments.
Actually, no. Asian Permanent Residents vote heavily National.
Agree with your summation rather than the one you replied to. It's probably why National would never consider such a policy.
Oaths should be sincere. It's why they are oaths, and an oath that requires people to swear it insincerely is a farce at best.
As for British citizenship – there is a difference between being born into it and swearing allegiance. Dude was born into it. If you’re born into it, you don’t need to swear allegiance. So far as becoming a citizen of a new country, swearing allegiance to the country would be no bother – but swearing allegiance to an elite family of crooked inbreds, just to retain the ability to vote?
Then the ability to vote isn't that important to you.
The ability to vote is important. It's incredibly important. But one should not have to swear this to vote:
"I [say your name] swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, King of New Zealand, his heirs and successors according to law…"
Note that since Andrew is in the line of succession, he is covered under the "heirs" bit. Which means being able to vote hinges on swearing to bear true allegiance to an inbred paedophile. Charming.
I think the British parliament can reject a claimant to the throne if they have a good reason to do so. I don't think they would be willing to see Andrew succeed.
The gizmo is on your side: Less than 3% of the British public prefer Andrew to be king, according to recent polling. Extensive tracking data by organizations like YouGov indicates that over 90% of Britons have a negative opinion of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. [1, 2]
Monster Raving Loonies abound in younger-gen sub-cultures? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party
They may feel Andrew is too down-market, I suspect. Fortunately someone designed an electronic online sleuth: YouGov royal family favourability tracker, 2011 – 2025 https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/52737-royal-family-favourability-trackers-august-2025
Their set of comparative trendlines puts Andrew in the public dog-box to an emphatic extent! He may have to hire Rupert Murdoch to do a public relations switcheroo via Fox News. If Rupert told the yanks that Andrew will pontificate on geopolitics from the perspective of British royalty, the King would have his mettle tested, huh?
If it came to that, I don't think that they'd be willing to see Harry succeed (which is vaguely within the realms of possibility).
Authority of Parliament over the monarch and the succession was established in 1689 – when Parliament deposed James II, and rejected his son (the, at that time, legal heir), in favour of his older half-sister Mary II (and her husband William of Orange).
More recently (well, last century), the abdication of Edward VIII (later Duke of Windsor), was only legally valid, after Parliament passed the Act.
So legal (if historical) precedent for both booting out a reigning monarch, and choosing someone other than the direct heir as the successor; and recent precedent for the power being Parliament's not the monarch's.
Well, campaign to change it.
However, in the meantime those are your options: Swear the oath 'as is' – or don't become a citizen.
ATM, in NZ you can have your cake and eat it – in that the privileges of being a permanent resident are virtually identical to those of a citizen. If that changes, then people may have to make some hard choices.
IIRC, NZ is one of the few countries which doesn't require citizenship for voting. Kiwis living in Australia, certainly can't vote there.
NB: Heirs and successors mean that you are swearing to King Charles, and any subsequent king (i.e. there is no get out of jail card, because you swore to acknowledge Charles, and William is now king). It is incredibly unlikely that Andrew would ever become king (requires 8 deaths). There is no requirement to swear loyalty to any member of the royal family because they might, in some remote possibility, succeed to the throne.
You should note that the oath of allegiance is virtually identical in all of the Commonwealth countries (which makes sense, since they all have King Charles as their official head of state).
That’s right, the right to vote is not foremost on the minds of people who make a conscious choice, a genuine and often quite expensive effort, and a considered decision to uproot their lives and set up live & livelihood in a different country often with a different language & culture. In contrast, anybody who’s born here is entitled to vote by default.
Sorry, I'm a surprised at the anti PR opinions I'm reading.
iow it seems that those no voting for ppl with an PR, but see no problem that kiwis, who have been living overseas for many years, can vote, and often have no longer connctions with a community.
But ppl with an PR, been here for 40 years, are part of the community, but are not worthy enough to have a say about the environment, bottom trawling, etc.
A good reason not to give up your PR is for your children having an opportunity to work ( or work experience) in the country of one of your parents.
It's an legal way to gain a passpoort for that other country and opportunities they might or might not want to use.
The oath is to the head of State. Charles is the present incumbent. What one thinks of Charles as a person is probably not relevant.
No oath requires you to swear insincerely – it's just that there appears to be no consequences if you do so. If you have religious objections to swearing 'before God' then you can opt for an affirmation, instead.
In social media, you get social darwinism. This emanates from predator/prey relationships. Hooton = predator, Brash = prey – symptom of rw ethos:
A decision often takes time, due to pondering. Ponderous deciders like to slow things down so that the chances of error slim up smartly. When the right time comes, you just know, particularly if you're a judge. So you wait, thoughtfully. Which capitalist ought to win the money?? Always a tough call, but it may be better to recycle the ghost of Selwyn Toogood, and deploy the bag in court as an option…