Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The sphere of influence

204 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Andrew C,

    This doesn’t seem to be correct, at least not according to the GM of Green Valley Dairies anyway

    Well, surely that shouldn’t be too hard to corroborate and if it turned out Grant omitted (quite unintentionally, I’m sure) that non-trivial context he will stand up in the House and publicly retract and correct the very serious allegations he made under parliamentary privilege. Right?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Andrew C,

    This doesn’t seem to be correct, at least not according to the GM of Green Valley Dairies anyway:

    True, and having noted the flavourings issue first time round I should have remembered this time. But bear in mind that Oravida is Green Valley’s biggest customer – GV’s not going to drop them in it. Did the import clearance certificate that Oravida posted on social media still help its case?

    But yeah, not so much a smoking gun.

    Otoh, Rob Salmond’s timeline of Collins’ interventions, compiled from the OIA documents, seems utterly damning. It directly contradicts statements she made in the House yesterday.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Well, surely that shouldn’t be too hard to corroborate and if it turned out Grant omitted (quite unintentionally, I’m sure) that non-trivial context he will stand up in the House and publicly retract and correct the very serious allegations he made under parliamentary privilege. Right?

    Sure. Right after Judith Collins addresses the multiple contradictions between her statements in the House and the documentary evidence.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Otoh, Rob Salmond’s timeline of Collins’ interventions, compiled from the OIA documents, seems utterly damning. It directly contradicts statements she made in the House yesterday.

    ..and statements Key has made in her defence - oh and any non-faith-based reality.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Sure. Right after Judith Collins addresses the multiple contradictions between her statements in the House and the documentary evidence.

    Or we can actually expect everyone making incredibly serious allegations of corruption under parliamentary privilege to be more than usually scrupulous about not only getting all their facts right, but to remember you can lie by omission or wrongful emphasis as well as by commission. Especially when it involves people who can't respond on a level playing field.

    Collins should be held to account for her own behavior, not use as a free pass for anyone else.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    Especially when it involves people who can’t respond on a level playing field.

    like public servants, yes.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • 81stcolumn,

    So poor Judith is the victim in all this:

    “It is actually a forum where people can be very abusive towards me and I’m just not doing it.”

    Of course, none of the stress she is under has anything to do with her corrupt behaviour or dishonesty….

    And to think not all that long ago she was the one scaring people on Twitter. Now that the Twitterverse is turning against her, I wonder if she’ll start calling for it to be Mubarak-ed?

    Quiztime! Who said on twitter;

    "vile, wrong and ugly, just like her jacket today"?

    Nawthshaw • Since Nov 2006 • 790 posts Report Reply

  • "chris", in reply to Bart Janssen,

    ..and sorry about the interruption I was just off hocking muskets and spreading smallpox. But your case has made me quite interested in how ‘Lukes’ pronunciation demands are being applied in this case:

    My Chinese colleague at work chooses to use Luke because he is understandably unkeen to hear us butcher the name

    You mentioned you work with Chinese colleagues and so I guess my first question would be with regards to the ‘us’ referred to.

    1. Has Luke made the decision that in the workplace he’d rather never hear his given name pronounced as his parents intended (as surely some other Chinese colleagues may be capable of) if it also means being subjected to nuanced pronunciation? Is it just Luke?

    or

    2. Is it more akin to one country two systems whereby he’s using two names in the workplace and those who are capable of pronouncing his name correctly are deemed worthy of doing so, and if so, does this “allow” list feature any non-Chinese, or is the pronunciation by non-Chinese of equal cause for disdain across the group? and if this is the case, how do conversations run when he’s referred to in the third person? Or is it just Luke?

    3. How are second-language and even native English speaking staff pronouncing your name Bart, have you ever felt your name being butchered to such an extent that you’ve informed them that their pronunciation is so far removed from your parent’s model that you’ve insisted on an alternative handle. And similarly, how many of your colleagues made these stipulations? Or is it just Luke?

    Sorry if those questions are a bit of a handful, call it curiosity. I’m subjected to mispronunciation of my name on a daily basis but I’ve never been offended when effort is made let alone reached the point where I’ve decided that certain peoples’ pronunciation is so abjectly poor that they no longer be permitted to even attempt my name and must be relegated to addressing me by an assumed name.

    Likewise my wife, reading your post stumbled on:

    check that white privilege a notch or two

    And quite passionately exclaimed that its nothing to do with white, black or yellow. And I’m inclined to agree; skin hue would seem to play a limited role in one’s ability to enunciate. For her part, She said she’d far rather people use her inherited given game, mispronounced or not, than be pressured to assume one of these dumbed-down Anglicized appropriations, because that’s her name. I can see her point.

    But back to work, I’ve never met any of my colleagues, we are located worldwide and our names reflect this. Working online also means we never speak, we merely type and read. Except for the Chinese staff in our company i assume everyone else is using their given name. With regards to my Chinese colleagues I’ve made numerous inquiries as to who I’m actually working with and why they refuse to provide their real names, and furthermore I’ve inquired as to how this idiosyncrasy benefits teachers who are required to pronounce student names from myriad languages as a matter of course. I have thus far (one year later) received no response from our manager.

    His name is Neo.

    location, location, locat… • Since Dec 2010 • 250 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to "chris",

    His name is Neo.

    ROFL

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • "chris", in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    And having spieled my tits off but hopefully not derailed the thread, last Saturday I was relieved when a student who’d alphabetized her name as Fuk asked me instead to address her as Julia.

    location, location, locat… • Since Dec 2010 • 250 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    A propos of none of the above, Key said something interesting in the House today.

    Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister believes in high standards, does he believe that paying for access to Government Ministers, including the Prime Minister, whether it is through a so-called charity golf game or undisclosed attendance at the Antoine’s dinners, whether it is through Oravida or the systematic abuse of the “Cabinet club”, which contravenes the Cabinet Manual—does the Minister think that those are the standards that New Zealanders have a right to expect of him or his Government?

    Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If you will bear with me for a moment, because this is a slightly longer answer, but let me start with the Cabinet Manual. Paragraph 2.54 makes it quite clear around what a Minister can and cannot do. They certainly cannot take additional remuneration unless I sign off on that, and only one Minister so far has done that, and that was Maurice Williamson. Paragraph 2.94 makes it quite clear that Ministers can go to fund-raising functions for their own electorate or for any other member of Parliament. If they are paid for that, they are meant to donate that. They can also—the Cabinet Manual makes quite clear—be at events where people pay political donations. They can talk about their portfolios, interests, and all of those things. That is because they fundamentally go in their capacity as an MP or a member of the party. But let me—if you will bear with me just for a second on these points—say that I am aware of a couple of interesting situations. I am aware of a situation where a market stand was established, where a fee of $1,250 plus GST was paid—

    Was that a Freudian slip? S2.54 of the Cabinet Manual says, specifically:

    2.54 Holding ministerial office is regarded as a full-time occupation and is remunerated as such. Accordingly:
    (a) accepting additional payment for doing anything that could be regarded as a ministerial function is not permissible;
    (b) accepting payment for any other activities requires the prior approval of the Prime
    Minister.

    which would be the first time I’ve heard that there was money involved in Maurice’s transgression. And it’s not a simple numerical error on Key’s part, as the section under which I thought Maurice was biffed was s3.15 (c):

    3.16 The style of the relationship and frequency of contact between Minister and department will develop according to the Minister’s personal preference. The following guidance may be helpful.
    [...]
    (c) It would clearly be improper for Ministers to instruct their departments to act in an unlawful manner. Ministers should also take care to ensure that their actions could not be construed as improper intervention in administrative, financial, operational, or contractual decisions that are the responsibility of the chief executive.

    Key’s press release was not clear about exactly which part of the Cabinet Manual Maurice had broken. I’m now wondering if that was deliberate.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant, in reply to nzlemming,

    Check the Register of Pecuniary Interests? Williamson gets director's fees from "Holyoake Industries Limited"

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    Holyoake Industries Limited

    seems unlikely unless they were somehow paying him to be a Minister?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    Check the Register of Pecuniary Interests? Williamson gets director’s fees from “Holyoake Industries Limited

    Yeah, nah. I can't see how that relates to Donghua Liu.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to nzlemming,

    additional remuneration

    seems to be the key phrase there

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Sacha,

    seems to be the key phrase there

    Which would open a whole other can of worms...

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    Yeah, nah. I can’t see how that relates to Donghua Liu.

    Holyoake Industries, owned by rich-lister Noel Holyoake, is a large supplier of air conditioning and ventilation systems and is a big player in the construction industry. Liu was given citizenship at least partially on the basis of a proposed $70 million construction project.

    I wonder who Liu planned to give all the ventilation and air conditioning contracts to...?

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    I wonder who Liu planned to give all the ventilation and air conditioning contracts to…?

    That strains more than a straight answer from Key.

    If Key said "only one minister has taken additional remuneration and that was Maurice", then money has been paid. But Liu's proposed construction venture never happened. So no money would have changed hands. If money changed hands, and Maurice was the receiver, it had to be for something that actually took place.

    Donghua Liu may be a partner-beating bastard (that's for the courts to decide, BTW) but no-one ever said he wasn't a canny businessman - it was part of Maurice's reasoning for lobbying on his immigration status, after all - and I can't see him paying something for nothing.

    I'm morbidly curious as to what Key was referring to, and I note that the rest of that question's supplementaries was clouded in rhetorical theatrics that almost got him ejected. Perhaps to divert attention from something that slipped out?

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens, in reply to nzlemming,

    hat strains more than a straight answer from Key.

    I agree, but the biggest problem now facing National is the web of informal power by which the establishment elites do business, and which largely favours National, has been partially exposed and is being questioned in the media.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to nzlemming,

    If Key said “only one minister has taken additional remuneration and that was Maurice”, then money has been paid.

    But paid by whom? And was it authorised? If Key is implying that Williamson took a bribe, that's a really fucking big deal and although Key is a charlatan I don't think he's the kind of charlatan who would try and cover up clear criminal behaviour by another MP no matter how inconvenient it would be; the political cost of being found out would be far, far more inconvenient, not to mention the possibility of becoming the subject of a criminal investigation in his own right.

    I took it as Key saying Maurice was the only minister who had received permission to receive income other than his ministerial salary.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to "chris",

    Apologies this has become off-topic.

    reading your post

    You really need to be careful with attribution, only you and Craig have mentioned white privilege - personally I think in both cases it was meant as an insult - which is disappointing.

    Your questions
    1 As I clearly said it was his choice. I am more than happy to try and get his given name right but it is his choice to be called whatever he wants to be called for whatever reason he chooses (unless there is an intent to deceive). I would not presume to impose my will on him over that choice.

    2 Nope he uses Luke at work for everyone. He might use another name in other social groupings but that is his choice, not yours nor mine.

    3 You should reread my comment, as I said other people use their given names and we (everyone from the multiple ethnic groupings in our workplace) try our best to get them right. Again that is their choice and I respect that choice.

    Overall your attitude suggests you have a right to choose what name another person chooses to use. I personally disagree.

    So Chris, or whatever name you happen to be using at this time, having answered your questions I would hope you'd refrain from further accusations of white privilege.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Sphere is the key
    A good way to get an insight into who is squeezing NZ and into whose cup they're squeezing it, is to attend one of CAFCA organiser, Murray Horton's public meetings, he is currently travelling around the North Island on a speaking tour:

    He is at AUT tomorrow afternoon:
    Auckland - Friday May 9, 4.00pm
    Pacific Media Centre, Sir Paul Reeves Building
    Auckland University of Technology

    and Hamilton on Monday evening:
    Hamilton - Monday May 12, 7.00pm
    Trade Union Centre, 34 Harwood Street

    then onto: Te Awamutu, Thames, Waihi, Te Aroha, Tauranga, Whakatane, Opotiki, Gisborne, Clive, Palmerston North, Whanganui, Paekakariki, Otaki, Wellington.
    and finally Christchurch on June 25 at the WEA

    get the full itinerary and local contact details at:
    http://tinyurl.com/cafcatour

    Please pass on to your friends and networks.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    I took it as Key saying Maurice was the only minister who had received permission to receive income other than his ministerial salary.

    You could read it that way, I suppose, as I/S said. Damn, thought I had something there. ;-)

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood,

    Attachment

    I fed the Roy Morgan numbers into OneVoteTwoVoteRedVoteBlueVote. Keep in mind that as it is to the 4th of May, most of the polling period precedes Williamson's resignation, and does not cover the events since Collin's attacked Katie Bradford at all.

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1445 posts Report Reply

  • "chris", in reply to Bart Janssen,

    Sorry, there has been some misunderstanding Bart. I’ll just try to clear that up.

    As I said:

    Likewise my wife, reading your post stumbled on:

    When she read your post, she responded. Looking back at it:

    "Incidentally, and this is a pet gripe, I’m a little tired of Chinese giving me these phoney names on the pretext that I wouldn’t be able to pronounce their Chinese name

    Well, bully for you Chris. Perhaps you’d like to check that white privilege a notch or two, and consider those Anglicized names can be a more pleasant alternative than having your name offensively mispronounced on a daily basis.

    Same."

    That you included both my and Craig’s quote, it’s not unreasonable to assume you shared his view verbatim. Looking at it now, I’m a little unclear as to what “same” meant, but as I said, when my wife read your post, that is what she saw and said, and as such that kind of set a tone.

    Also sorry that my questions were rather wordy, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer, I guess I should probably quickly respond. As I said from the outset

    “Having said that, I don’t expect anyone to change their name for me, or stick to using one name because I said so, I simply don’t trust any of these two-faced pseudonym wearers. because.”

    In the context of a discussion on De yi “Stone” Shi, registering one company under the name “Deyi Shi” and its subsidiary company under the name “Stone Shi”. My primary motivation in posting is with regards to the ways this cultural trend’ can be exploited.

    I understand you may have missed that, it was jammed in the middle of a long post. but certainly, there’s no argument from me with regards to anyone’s rights to choose what they want to called, that’s their right, just as it’s mine not to trust someone for whatever reason. I took that to be what aggravated Craig and I wasn’t quite sure about yours. It would seem that it was Craig and Craig alone who wished to bring “white privilege” into the discussion. Personally I’m of the type that is strongly opposed to the restrictions the DIA imposes on people choosing to legally change their name to whatever.

    With regards to your answer to question 3 here, I’m embarrassed to bring this up, but it may save misinterpretation in the future, I was one of those wacky preteens diagnosed with an adult reading age, and I do as such still read comments carefully. Your posted stated:

    We have other Chinese colleagues who choose to use their given names

    Which could cover all your Chinese colleagues, but I was asking about everyone in your work place:

    And similarly, how many of your colleagues made these stipulations? Or is it just Luke?

    With regards to this:

    Overall your attitude suggests you have a right to choose what name another person chooses to use. I personally disagree.

    A quote to accompany such a summary dismissal may be helpful if that was more than a misunderstanding Bart. Obviously my tongue in cheek use of a pseudonym at the end of that initial post may have been a bit too oblique.

    Anyway, I’ve long enjoyed your contributions here Bart, and just as I won’t hear of your insinuating that I insist what anyone call themselves, I likewise have no wish for bad blood to flow between these distant shores.

    location, location, locat… • Since Dec 2010 • 250 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.