Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, July 29th, 2026 - 86 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.farmersweekly.co.nz/opinion/i-want-policies-that-are-good-enough-to-last/
Alan Emerson with some solid ideas, I would suggest to him that if he genuinely wants lifted r and d research and transpancy on donations and lobbying he'll have to help ditch the current government
The coalition government does not have a good record.
It knowingly increased the MW by less than half the inflation rate.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/361051772/anz-predicts-higher-jobless-rate-real-wages-decline
September 13 1993: Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat sign the Oslo Accords at the White House.
Then they know how long they have to recognise Palestine.
Will Stephen Rainbow be invited.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/361052030/aucklands-crl-opening-date-could-be-announced-soon-next-week
Perhaps you could unpack what the opening of the long-awaited CRL in Auckland has to do with recognition of Palestine?
It seems an awfully long stretch to conflate the two.
Really?
It is a long time since 1993 to wait for an agreement.
Many other nations have recognised Palestine since then.
Some have long waited for New Zealand to get around to it.
This government made Stephen Rainbow head of our Human Rights Commission – despite his pathological hate of Murray McCully over UNSC Res 2334 in Dec 2016 (as per illegal settlement of the West Bank).
The Knesset has claimed sovereignty over the West Bank – the next step beyond de facto annexation (without voting rights to non Jewish/Israeli residents).
Such coincidences of timing in an election year.
And the link to a local urban railway loop in Auckland is…..?
The time taken to getting around to doing long expected things.
Such as promising RONS within a decade, then before the next election saying maybe the decade after that.
Not when you note the possible date significance to our getting other stuff done.
So, no link then. Why fake a connection to NZ local infrastructure?
Even your timing argument is rubbish. The CRL has certainly not been under construction since 1993.
Link to verify what exactly, common knowledge?
Who claimed it was?
Your argumentative style adds nothing.
You linked your diatribe about Palestine recognition to the CRL
You now admit there is no connection.
But attempted to justify it by linking how long they both took – referencing a date of 1993 (in your OP)
Just give up. Stick to your Palestine post – without trying to forge irrelevant links to local events.
No I have not, the relevance is time delayed projects.
Which negates your previous statement – at least be consistent.
And the 1993 date was specified for one, not both.
The latest word on a date for the rail link opening is Sept 13, delayed few times so far.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/07/28/frustration-growing-as-city-rail-link-opening-date-still-elusive/
https://www.facebook.com/cityraillink/videos/a-dream-more-than-100-years-in-the-makingan-underground-railway-beneath-the-hear/1395462989099006/
Which you called this
The term leads to context
An emotion laden term meant to disparage the person, rather than face the issue of the post.
Yesterday's bird-discussion on "Open Mike" was very interesting and I'm annoyed at missing it. I'd have like to have mentioned murmuration and the possibility of the single "mind" that might represent. Also the "Birman" rock art near Timaru and what it might be saying across time
http://www.wuhootimaru.co.nz/rock-art-sites/743-te-manunui-the-great-bird-frenchman-s-gully-maungati
However, while looking for the above link, I stumbled upon this Spinoff article on Bill Hammond and his bird paintings! I'd not taken much notice of his work before, goodness knows why, but I'm greatly taken now! Perhaps someone here might like to read this article also. It's entertaining and intriguing, imo. I plan to spend some time this morning, "looking in" to those bird paintings!
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/07-12-2021/bill-hammond-in-search-of-the-birdman
Followed by this, if you will:
"In painting after painting Hammond documents the effects of what Allan Smith defines as “the aggressive agricultural program that characterised the first century of European settlement in New Zealand”,2 and the total and deliberate extermination of nature and birdlife from our coastal plains and swamps. In 1995 Hammond’s monumental The Fall of Icarus (after Bruegel) is a defining visual statement of Park’s critique of colonial destruction by early settlers who felled, burned and milled vast tracts of coastal and inland forests, and deliberately or inadvertently destroyed countless (bird) species, to make way for the agricultural hinterland that served Great Britain from its outpost of Empire. "
https://christchurchartgallery.org.nz/bulletin/201/the-edge-of-the-sea
Bill Hammond is indeed an icon of NZ art. His works regularly come up for auction at Webbs in Auckland (and presumably other auction houses elsewhere in NZ – but Webbs is local to me).
Although there is no way that I'm in the market to buy these – the works are freely available to view in the run up – and I regularly do so.
Even the auction catalogues are filled with fascinating information.
https://www.webbs.co.nz/articles-and-videos/zoomorphic-lounge-a-single-owner-collection
Thanks for the Webb-link.
Thanks Merc for giving me the chance to find out about Bill Hammond. I was talking about them yesterday to an artist. I've been fascinated by them for some time, they have a looming watchful sense of coming bad weather!
And the story of the vanished huia, which I have as a screensaver now, fits in with what Bill has portrayed about crass colonialism, which we are getting another dose of now, aren’t we. If we sit and think, Rodin’s posture!
Yes, the dawn chorus … or not.
I see Martyn Bradbury has picked up on the story in UK media about the NZ episode in the UK spy-cop case. This case involves major revelations about UK police’s frequent use of under cover spies , who established sexual relationships with women involved in political activism.
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/soooooo-does-anyone-want-to-explain-why-the-nz-police-were-spying-on-one-of-the-most-famous-whistleblowers-ever-hello-where-is-the-nz-media/
I had seen this story in the Guardian a couple of days ago and posted about it on X because of the involvement of the NZ police, and now Bradbury is asking why NZ media didn't pick up this story.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/26/how-the-met-police-spent-25m-hiding-spycop-from-former-partner
Helen Steel had been a left wing campaigner who, puzzled by the sudden, unexplained disappearance of her 1990s boyfriend John Dines, had been doing her own investigation about it. The NZ episode came when she visited relatives in NZ in 2002. At the time Dines was living in Auckland and working as a barrister.
Scotland Yard was secretly tracking Steel's investigations afraid of what she'd uncover. In 2002 when Steel and her parents visited NZ, NZ police put them under surveillance as requested by Scotland Yard. The UK Met quickly moved Dines to Aussie, fearing Steel would come across him in Auckland.
I would doubt that the NZ police would have been fully informed over why the UK police wanted to have Steel under surveillance.
It would, very likely, have been presented in terms of an intelligence operation into a political activist (which was often code-phrase for suspected terrorism).
The fact that NZ police conducted a surveillance operation, is probably not the issue. It is highly likely that the terms of reference, as presented by the UK police, met the NZ levels for surveillance. It's the terms under which the UK police were operating which are questionable.
Dines being shifted to Sydney, is entirely on the UK police, and I doubt that the NZ police were involved in any way.
In fact, I doubt whether Steel had any intention of searching for Dines, when she visited NZ for a family holiday to catch up with her sister. It was, after all, 10 years after the 'relationship' had ended; and she would have had no contact details.
I have no idea what NZ police were told by Scotland Yard about their reasons for surveillance of Helen Steel. However, by 2002, she had already made headlines in the UK in relation to her left wing environmental activism and involvement with Greenpeace.
She's was one of 3 activists who McDonalds claimed had libeled them with their statements about McDonalds, "encouraging litter, mistreating animals and workers and destroying rain forests."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4266741.stm
Also, she said, in relation to her NZ visit in this week's Guardian article
I agree with this from Belladonna that the NZ police, would, very likely, have been presented in terms of an intelligence operation into a political activist (which was often code-phrase for suspected terrorism).
And NZ also has a long track record of (SIS) surveillance of left wingers & environmentalists, including Greenpeace members and left wingers like Keith Locke:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/17-01-2019/keith-locke-spy-chiefs-apology-to-me-reveals-scandalous-truth-about-the-sis
Be rest assured there was an 'under the radar' branch of the NZ Police who were conducting similar exercises as the British Metropolitan police. I know they were active in the 1970s, 1980s and probably the 1990s because I knew someone who was involved. That is all I am at liberty to say, but my sincere hope: this revelation might lead to the story finally being able to be told.
I am very surprised it hasn't been picked up by any NZ media outlet given the link. Dare I suggest the hand of government may be able to answer that question? If so, it is yet another example of a lily livered press.
I doubt the government would be that precious over a police surveillance exercise conducted 25 years ago, at the request of an overseas police department. It's hardly current news.
And, given that it occurred under a Labour government, the current lot would have even less reason to suppress it.
I am talking about a police operation carried out in the shadows by a group of thugs inside the NZ Police Force. It started when the Cold War was at its height, and innocent people had their lives and careers destroyed. Most of the activity undertaken was unsanctioned and unlawful and it continued after the Soviet Union collapsed.
The story exposes a once very dark underbelly inside the NZ Police Force and few people, including the bulk of police themselves, would have been aware of it's existence.
In the interest of those who were adversely affected, its about time the story was properly aired.
In the interest of those who were adversely affected, its about time the story was properly aired.
History gets written by folks who represent the world-view of the winners – the principle applies to all known history. Nevertheless, a literary expose can always get market traction if the story is well-written. As a dweller-on-the-threshold of alt Aotearoa all my life, I go for the stance exemplified by Tony Simpson in his books on our socio-political history. Therefore I'm with you on the topic of bad cops. It is potentially good for drama production too, if you factor in the shakespearean flaw motif…
The picture alongside the latest post "Our Worst Recession" is about a different matter but happens to highlight the identity of the person who was the enabler of the bad stuff. It wouldn't surprise me if that is the reason why the story is still under wraps.
Muldoon has been dead for 35 years (1992) …..
It seems a bit of a reach to suggest that he's still suppressing the news from beyond the veil.
Do you have ADHD or something? Is your attention span so short you can't absorb what you read? This secret cabal which included police personnel (no, it had nothing to do with the SIS although they may have known of it) continued to exist well beyond the Muldoon years. It may have been in a slightly different form but the same individuals appear to have been involved.
There is no doubt they had links with the covert outfit operating under the umbrella of Scotland Yard. As always, innocent people get caught up in these types of operations through no fault of their own, and the detrimental effects can linger for many years afterwards.
This is why there is a major inquiry being undertaken in Britain, and it is the source of the numerous stories which are now coming to light. I have followed some of them. We should be conducting a similar inquiry.
No I don't have ADHD.
The fact that you apparently believe that this is a slur you should feel free to cast at someone – says an awful lot about you.
I would hope that you feel disgusted with yourself.
Really? So, for example, you would characterize "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson – as representing the "world-view of the winners"?
I would characterize it, rather, as a challenge to the current-at-the-time world-view.
I think there is a very long tradition of literature which challenges the status-quo (at least in the Western world). At the very least, you are unlikely to get much in the way of sales if your book says that
Certainly, in historical writing, there have been multiple different interpretations of the 'facts' of historical periods and crisis points. I find it difficult to believe that these were all written by the 'winners'.
Yes, to the extent that any majoritarian view is likely to constellate folk toward an opposing view, it's true that we can detect sociopolitical movements forming accordingly throughout history to complicate orthodoxy. Rachel Carson's narrative was deemed subversive at the time; our monoculture didn't import it until years later.
However, according to your initial position, it would never have been written – since it wasn't written to support the worldview of the 'winners'
In fact, your position is demonstrably untrue in a modern Western democracy, where there is a substantial culture of subversive opinion in the literary sphere.
It may, of course, be much more accurate in overtly repressive regimes, where subversive opinion or rigorously repressed. Would Silent Spring have been published (or even written) in Soviet Russia or Maoist China?
I cited the truism due to it being seen as such. It had become a cultural norm long before I was born, so I often encountered it in the old days. What we have before us is a focus on the contrast between a truism and an over-generalisation, which is often what we encounter when examining a paradox…
So, actually, not true.
Just leave it there, rather than trying to continue with pseudo-intellecutal rubbish about over-generalizations and examining a paradox.
Such paradoxes in life tend to loom as powerful learning situations, so perceptive folk like to delve into the nuances…
The Government is currently considering whether it should keep its temporary $50 weekly in-work tax credit payment to help a small number (143,000 families) with the cost-of-living
However, while they are considering that, it is becoming clear (see a small sample of the reports below) the $50 payment isn't enough nor is it going out to enough people.
What say you? Do you think the government needs to do far more?
Moreover, if Labour win the election, I'm expecting voter expectation for them to do far more will also be high. And if those expectations aren't met, voters won't be happy
40% of New Zealanders have taken on debt to cover basic living costs
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/773464/40-percent-of-kiwis-taking-on-debt-to-cover-increased-living-costs-kiwibank
Call for higher pension rates as cost-of-living increases hit retirees
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/600429/call-for-higher-pension-rates-as-cost-of-living-increases-hit-retirees
NZ wage growth worst in developed world
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/personal-finance/700162/nz-wage-growth-worst-in-developed-world-oecd-report
'There isn't anything' – Students facing tough job market
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/education/805079/there-isn-t-anything-students-facing-tough-job-market
The job market is indeed tough. And it's toughest for those students who have done a 'default' degree.
Often misled by universities and school 'careers advisors' operating on the outdated assumption that a 'degree' means greater employability. That is no longer true, and hasn't been for some time.
Indeed.
An economy in decline also the morality of a democracy that no longer 'works' for people. People who are vilified, abused for not finding work, being 'sorted'; if they are poor. now have to pay for university degrees which the government charges through the nose for, once free in its role to advance NZAO, while places and opportunities for employment enabling repayment of the debt are lessened by deliberate government actions.
This is 'a dirty little war' against we citizens, asymmetric. https://genius.com/Original-london-cast-of-hair-three-five-zero-zero-lyrics
I'm really struggling to follow your argument here.
Perhaps a bit of proof-reading before you post, would help.
No one 'has' to gain a degree. There are many jobs which don't require qualifications, or have on-the-job training, or have a vocational qualification component (outside the university system).
Choosing to 'invest' 3-4 years of your life, and accumulate a significant amount of debt – for a non-vocational degree, is not a good investment. And hasn't been for quite some time.
There might indeed be an argument about vocational degrees not being adequately supported by the government. Nursing, being the prime example, where newly qualified nurses are unable to achieve placements – even though the hospital system seems (from the outside) to be under considerable pressure.
But none of the young people in the OP attached article had a vocational degree. They have, indeed, likely wasted their time and money – and will find it difficult to compete in the job market, against people who have been working for those 3-4 years.
I fail to see the relevance of an anti-Vietnam war song from the 60s.
My nephew enrolled in uni this year because he couldn't find a job. Also even tho there are jobs that don't require a uni degree you are competing against people that do have a degree, which looks better than no job experience + no degree. I have another nephew who has gone to the mines in Australia & if he stays there for 2 or 3 years they get a years pay extra as a bonus.
Speaking as coming from a workplace where we have a significant number of jobs (more than 1/2 of the workforce) which doesn't require a degree.
The reality is that many of the 'no degree required' jobs don't *want* people with uni degrees. They are perceived as only wanting the job for a short time, as a 'bridge' to better things, and too snobby for the workplace. They also come with no experience in the reality of working (arriving on time, doing a good job, working effectively with a range of different personalities, taking direction from a supervisor, etc.)
Doing a 'default degree' doesn't always pay off.
In my own family, we have several teens who have made the 'no uni' call. All would have been qualified to go – but the economics just don't hold up unless you are going for a high-value vocational degree (law, engineering, etc.). Finding jobs has not been easy, but after 6 months, all three have found full-time work (in very different industries) Building from part-time gigs with unsocial hours, through to regular employment. All are above minimum-wage; and are in jobs/trades where they can grow employment (that may be in NZ, or overseas – following the great OE pathway of young kiwis over the generations).
I agree that the Australian mines can be a great employment opportunity – I have a nephew who did the FIFO for five years in Oz, and is now well set up financially. However, mining is a bad word in New Zealand…..
Heh! So is milking.
I don't care if you can't understand everything I say Belladonna. Other people will despite your confusion. I don't understand what you are about quite often as you seem to critique the commentary rather than passing on helpful information, or seek to add new viewpoints. These are needed as previous decades of discussion do not seem to have changed our country's direction to a practical and positive outcome offering hope for the future.
Given that no one else responded to your confused post – I doubt that your point was clear to anyone else either.
Nor can you ask for people to debate issues with you, when no one understands the point you are trying to make.
Just what change do you want to see – apart from 'more work' – as opposed to the "decades of discussion"?
Again, you haven't addressed why a protest song against the Vietnam war from the 60s is relevant.
I try to get discussion beyond the well worn path as I read and go on and share thought. I am not trying to debate with self satisfied persons as you Bella.
My reference was to war, a dirty little war, and that is what we are having, experiencing in Kiwiland. Our society and considerate culture we were trying and succeeding to build is demolished, our state possessions, commons, privatised ie sold off to outside profit makers, our very living being treated as collateral to the main goal which is more money in self-satisfied people's bank a/cs while opportunities for work on a living wage, and life are limited to the already-middle class, but they will lose out too.
People who think and care have to step down from their podiums to the mosh pit and deal with real people's needs and ideas there, and work within the community. This is not a computer game and we are too intelligent not to see our addictions driving us if we force some study and introspection on ourselves. Study history and what has happened down the centuries, learn and rein in the smart ideas of science development (not stop), and pass ideas in front of the practical, sustainable test expanding the simpler life of being kindly and practical.
Well, if you are not trying to debate with me; and no one else has responded to your post, then you must be debating with yourself.
That's not what the data says. But some people don't trust science, I guess.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/personal-finance/595142/trades-or-degrees-for-higher-pay-here-s-what-the-data-shows
And this article compares degrees with trade certificates (another qualification), not degrees with no qualification.
It seems very poor advice to be discouraging young people from further formal training.
The emerging theme of distrust of universities by RW actors and politicians is quite remarkable given their insistence on lifting productivity through R&D and innovation. It’s like they’ve been brainwashed to believe higher study is an inherently left wing concept to be fought against.
Historic data. Not showing the change which is currently happening.
Vocational university degrees are still relevant (Engineering, Medicine, Vet science, etc.).
But most others, even ones which traditionally led to higher incomes, are not likely to do so in the 21st century.
The job market for a BA in English is extremely limited.
However, the rapid change of AI is significantly affecting the employability of many 'entry level' degree holders – even those which were previously seen as a pathway to employment.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg33nwy9llo
It's not entirely doom and gloom, but you need to have a lot more than just a degree to offer.
This is anecdata, but it comes from several avenues in NZ companies (including the one where I work). Where IT development is employing young guys (a few women, but mostly guys), between 18 to early 20s – who are hands-on with this rapidly developing industry. 'Wasting' 3 years to get a CompSci degree, which contains outdated content, is pointless. There will be no job at the end of it, just a lot of debt.
If you want to encourage the young people in your life to take 3-4 years, and a whole lot of debt, on the old-fashioned belief that a generic university degree will make their life-time wages higher – you do you.
The article is dated 14 May 2026, 78 days ago. I guess you could call that historic in that it is in the past.
Also, @6.1 you said:
But now your speculation rests on what you claim are current anecdotal trends.
It's good to see you've thought a bit more about it and have narrowed your target to a BA in English as the waste of time and money. What is it about English majors that have you so worked up?
The article references historic data. Given that it refers to lifetime earnings, then it would have to do so. Absent a time machine, you cannot record the lifetime earnings of two current 18 year-olds (for example, a plumber's apprentice and a commerce student at uni) projected forward into the 21st century.
We already know that many graduates are still paying off their degrees decades later. And that this has a significant impact on their ability to buy houses and start families – or even retire.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/578436/dinner-or-debt-pensions-cut-to-cover-student-loan-payments
I was very clear over the continuing value of vocational degrees (medicine, etc.).
But most of the rest – not limited to a BA in English (which was an example, not a total sum of options)- are unlikely to be worth the time and money invested.
If you re-read my comment you will see that I referenced AI as being a significant game-changer.
Even the article that you quote has substantial caveats:
The 'assumption' that all university degrees will continue to hold their value in terms of life-time earnings, is one which is very beneficial to universities. I find it …. curious…. that you are so willing to accept this, uncritically.
Would you have recommended an apprenticeship in harness-making or carriage building in the 1920s – as the automobile was on the brink of wide-spread introduction? After all, the historic data would have recorded it as a high-value occupation.
By definition, all data is historical, no?
You said:
So, you made a bold, anti-academic claim attacking young people who go to university as old-fashioned and poor investors, then spent the rest of the afternoon clarifying and walking it back.
Couldn’t help yourself at the end though, created a 100 year old straw man for the purposes of attacking young apprentices as well!
Like I said, discouraging family members from higher education seems to be absolutely terrible advice.
You seem to struggle with the difference between a vocational degree (which still pays off long term) and a generic or default degree (which does not, and hasn't done so for some time).
Not walking this back one iota.
But you should feel free to encourage all the young people in your life to accumulate substantial amounts of debt, gain a generic degree which offers no increased income, and spend the next couple of decades paying it off. See how happy they are with you, in 20 years time….
I'm sure they'll welcome the advice.
Your ignorance of the rapidly changing economic environment in the 21st century is a direct parallel to those still advocating for harness-making in the early 20th century.
You don't have to take my word for it (I fully recognize that you wouldn't take my word for it raining outside) – just do a tiny bit of research on the impact of AI on employment rates for university graduates.
New Zealand's apprenticeship numbers dropped sharply from a peak of about 84,245 in 2022 to roughly 59,720 in 2025.
Decline in workplace training as well.
https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/new-zealands-workplace-based-learners
I really don't believe the MBIE Immigration officials over their claim that they had no intention to deceive a parliamentary select committee.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/immigration-scandal-ministry-officials-deny-deliberately-misleading-parliament-committee/J6CEKCQM5RGTHFUGMQH7Y5RFII/
If they truly believed this (and it seems, frankly, incredible), then the appropriate way to deal with it is to tell the Select Committee that the project had stalled, and there were contractual negotiations ongoing to recover funding [not that I believe this for one minute]
You don't do this:
Even if this is true, lying by omission is still lying.
This was a systematic culture of deliberately misleading Ministers and select committees, by MBIE officials across multiple Ministers and governments.
There is no excuse for this.
And, there needs to be very serious consequences for the officials involved, so that future ministerial officials won't be tempted to do this again.
But will anyone be held accountable?
As I said, I would hope so. The Privileges Committee (where the latest iteration of this has been unfolding) has yet to make a finding.
a systematic culture of deliberately misleading Ministers and select committees, by MBIE officials across multiple Ministers and governments.
Surprisal, much?? Okay, if normal, no comment is likely from political opinion leaders. Rocking the boat is naughty. Moral corruption in the public service? Cue Hipkins: "Eek! We need divine help! Wrong-doer infestation siren alarm pronto!"
This seems unusually impenetrable commentary, even from you.
Could you just use plain language to tell us what you think.
When the behaviour of public servants is in accord with Deep State theory, the notion seems validated. Those of us who have observed this pattern for decades won't be surprised. I get why Nat/Lab voters aren't surprised: denial is their default, ignorance is bliss, so they get high by ignoring the evidence.
As regards the possibility of Hipkins noticing the pattern, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if he doesn't, a junior staffer may suggest that the elephant is in the room. Their temerity could be punished via demotion, to make everything alright again. Yet Labour folk may be uneasy at the notion of public service subversion. The alarm siren may go off.
How does this make sense?
It seems most likely that Nat/Lab voters are indeed surprised by this outcome. Certainly the level of outrage at blatant lying from senior public servants to Parliament doesn't suggest denial or blissful ignorance or "get high by ignoring the evidence"
Are you suggesting that the public service is entirely corrupt? I have no idea what you mean by "Deep State theory".
NB: if that was the intent of your comment, then ceasing to use impenetrable language and phrasing, and stating your opinion in plain English, enables debate.
For the record, I disagree. I think that overall the public service does it's best to serve the country. I believe that, in some instances, they are too insulated from reality; and that on some occasions they 'snow' Ministers when they don't want to implement a policy (acting as unelected bureaucrats, who impose their will over the elected representatives). But, overall, I don't believe that they routinely lie or cover up failures.
That (hopefully) clear statement should give you something to react against and present a counter argument.
Given that this instance involved lying to different governments, and directly to Labour MPs on the Select Committee – it seems highly likely that Labour MPs are just as outraged about the situation as the current minister.
Implying that Hipkins hasn't noticed this issue, or would need to have it drawn to his attention by a sacrificial junior staffer – is a fairly stupid inference.
Hipkins hasn't noticed this issue, or would need to have it drawn to his attention by a sacrificial junior staffer – is a fairly stupid inference.
Seems sensible to me, as inferences go. His behaviour, and Labour's, continues to support my inference.
Are you suggesting that the public service is entirely corrupt? I have no idea what you mean by "Deep State theory".
No, just that observers tend to generalise on the basis of evidence. Human nature. The good apple, bad apple thing applies. Bad servants may or may not contaminate good servants. DS theory got traction on the basis of escalating paranoia several decades back (and then normalised).
It's going from bad to worse
Stanford reveals $6m more wasted on immigration IT project, ministry unsure of total cost
MBIE is engaging an independent financial auditor to try to establish how much was spent.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/minister-erica-stanford-reveals-6m-more-wasted-on-immigration-it-project-ministry-unsure-of-total-cost/YDC32YI3MBAI7ECUS2T34GDKNU/
While I don't condone waste, IT projects do carry a substantial risk of cost blow-outs, and failure. It happens.
My concern isn't over the total bill as such (although it's concerning that MBIE don't seem to have been doing adequate accounting, as well as not doing adequate project management).
My concern is over the flagrant cover-up of information on a failing project to the different Ministers and select committee. Not just once, but repeatedly.
That is a much bigger issue than a failed IT project.
Our democracy depends on Ministers and Parliament receiving accurate, truthful and complete information from Ministries.
The "Yes, Minister" culture needs to be eradicated.
Gareth Morgan's take on the opportunists is worth a read. Typical economist, he turns in useful analysis without big-picture realisation: https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/07/27/gareth-morgan-the-real-opportunity-is-on-parliaments-cross-benches/
To be frank, such pragmatic acceptance of the flotsam & jetsam thrown up by political market forces seems frankly commendable despite that whiff of a bad smell. Investing in it as a sociopolitical ecosystem can be likened to an experiment in social ecology.
So there you have the commandment from the guru on high: be sensible! Be principled! Yet politics is the art of compromise, Gareth. A paradox?
However, the current leader of TOP, Qiulae Wong says that sitting on the cross-benches is the third and last option. First negotiate with the largest party, then with the 2nd largest, and only, if both fail, consider the cross-bench option.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics/713437/opportunity-voters-lean-labour-but-party-says-it-doesn-t-drive-our-decision-making
If TOP gets into Parliament, then they want to be in government.
Gareth Morgan's opinion is effectively valueless in this space. After all, he failed to get elected, and no longer has any relationship at all with TOP. Why would anyone listen to him?
I think Morgan's idea for a party was generally pretty sound, but it fell down on the ill-informed detail. This new and improved version might just be enough to oust the current clowns.
They certainly seem to be highly invested in actually being in government (therefore with a chance of implementing at least some of their agenda); as opposed to being in opposition, or on the 'cross-benches' with little or no political influence.
I think TOP's strategy of remaining open to negotiate with anyone and its message that we're sick of tribal politics and the polarisation that comes with it is a good one. Whether it's despite or because of their suite of progressive policies we mightn't know until after the election, but I have a glimmer of hope that when push comes to shove TOP's arrival will mean the end for this current bunch of clowns.
Gareth Morgan's opinion is effectively valueless in this space.
Is there a point in this deluge of words.
It seems unlikely that Morgan would qualify as an oligarch in modern NZ. He has little or no political influence on any government over the last decade. Nor is he a major business influencer, either. He's just a rich bloke (money made from investing in his son, not on his own merits) with too much time on his hands.
Is there a point in this deluge of words.
The global trend toward oligarchy has become quite a thing the past 30 years. No sign of abating – the chronic failure of democracy seems to be ramping it up.
If our current polling status quo gets us to election day with no shift, I suspect voters will put opportunists in control of govt. Not just TOP, but they will be in the driver seat of whatever govt we get, so the chances of him taking them seriously again are looming. He will become more likely to bankroll them again, in this scenario, and he may even rejoin…
Gareth Morgan is no oligarch. He has had no influence in NZ politics (despite his obvious wishes).
It is possible that he might try to rejoin a successful TOP – should they get into government. But will find that any influence he may have had is long gone. Once in Parliament, the party will have other income sources; and the current leadership will have no desire to abdicate in favour of a blow-hard political failure. What would be in it for them?
Perhaps you could give evidence from Western democracies of the global trend towards oligarchies following the failure of democracy over the last 30 years.
I put your question to the gizmo, so it fronted this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10767-026-09585-1
Really not interested in random results from an AI search.
If you have a point, perhaps you should make it.
Right now, I'll take it as you have no evidence.
That would be silly, since it is a widely-held view. See here: https://reporterre.net/From-oligarchy-to-the-new
An oligarchy is a form of government where power rests with a small group of people, typically distinguished by wealth.
The existence of inequality, and greater division between rich and poor – does not require or imply an oligarchy.
Again, which Western countries do you (not AI) think demonstrates oligarchy rather than democracy.
I disagree. I share the view of most leftists on this point. You could almost cite it as neomarxian: the upper classes are the control system because of the extent that they are financially invested.
They exert their collective influence as an oligarchy due to this class behaviour that is widely viewed as a root cause of social problems.
Any microfocus on how it gets done in any particular nation isn't a topic of interest until contingency makes it so.
Yeah, Nah.
That's not the recognized (by anyone) definition of oligarchy.
Not wasting my time any further.
All countries participating in the global economy, since they are all complicit in making the top 1% rich and the top 0.1% super-rich.
Did you actually read my comment? The existence of a wealth divide does not require or imply an oligarchy.
Again, which Western countries do you (not AI) think demonstrates oligarchy rather than democracy.
Give just one example, and describe how the oligarchy controls the government.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/christopher-luxons-awkward-transition-from-ceo-to-prime-minister/premium/EHPFDXRMGVGJFDBO3USTXYME3I/
I haven't read this because it's paywalled but I bet my house on it being a puff-piece aimed at getting us to vote the current clowns back in.
https://archive.li/GxKpP
Thanks, wholly sycophantic. I get to keep my house.
This is extremely disappointing
Wish them all the best in finding a workable alternative
Why couldn't the equipment stay in place? It isn't likely that the second hand machinery would have a market price and if it was for freezng the vegs then it needs special handling.