Category Archives: New Zealand
About 2000km east of Australia is an Island Archipelago that almost became an Australian state and is constitutionally able to Join at any time. Australia has long had very close relations with New Zealand and their people are more similar to Australians than any other, though both peoples slightly cringe at the thought; while drinking slightly different beer while barbequing slightly different things on slightly different beaches. According to Australian media coverage one would assume New Zealand for the most part is simply not there at all.
New Zealand a place where crime was rare, then it was only violent crime being rare, then only knife rare, then finally crime was as commonplace as anywhere else.
What happened, Neo-con’s took over and made poverty and unemployment an economic goal.
Then desperation and violence became the norm.
For reference Ashburton is 86 Km south of Christchurch (the lump on the right hand side of the south island) which had large earthquakes a few years ago.
Ashburton was also once home the the Minister of social welfare and later Prime Minister Jenny Shipley who played a decisive hand in cuts to welfare throughout the 1990’s.
The Christchurch region was also home to the Aramoana incident (mass shooting) occurring in the early 1990’s as the new wave of welfare cuts came in. This incident bore some similarities to the official narrative of the Port Arthur massacre, crazed white male loner with lots of guns and had a shooting spree.
From this article today, which you may have seen on television today if you watch ABC.
Now watch the video again considering these details which you may have missed:
1) Food was being delivered to people who would otherwise go hungry.
This means poverty is severe and welfare is clearly failing. This generally means there are very limited prospects for employment in this area because money is simply not flowing in this community.
2) Tons of food was being transported, in particularly vegetables and bread. Question is why aren’t these products being sold in supermarkets? Are supermarkets simply squeezing out local manufacturers?
3) The young woman (Stacey Binns) was working for no payment.
This means no amount of work she was doing would increase her disposable income, and would not start money flowing in her community. Therefore what she was really doing was being forced to perpetuate the poverty in her community.
4) The young woman (Stacey Binns) quite rightly pointed out that there are hundreds of application for every job advertised. Her chances are slim of getting out of the poverty trap deliberately created around her.
5) This is one of 18 high unemployment areas around Australia where this scheme has been rolled out this month and already the federal government wants to expand the scheme further making it nationwide by July 2015.
6) The government will spend 900 Million dollars rolling out this scheme, that’s almost enough to send a rover to the surface of Mars. It well known that these schemes are generally not successful and actually if anything reduce the chances of transition from welfare to work.
7) 900 Million dollars is enough money to give 18,000 people 50, 000 for one year, I think 18,000 people having a basics income would generate more jobs than a downward economic spiral. The almost 1 Billion dollars will be wasted on a variety of corporate scumbags lining up for a hand out while attacking people on benefits.
8) Work for the dole or ‘help and hassle’ welfare schemes only really function when the economy is super hot and unemployment is extremely low (2% or less), not when unemployment is well above 5%.
9) All of this has been tried before and even without the stipulation to engage in slave labor, when there are no jobs no amount of looking for them will be successful.
Proof? (Warning kiwi accents.)
I cant try any harder!
-A young man shows quite succinctly by canvassing numerous Auckland suburbs that the jobs were simply not there.
The clip is from a much larger series by Alistair Barry which you can find links to here:
Don’t be too impatient give it a few minutes, you are practically looking at a working crystal ball, everything you are seeing now in the Australian economy was tried in New Zealand 25 years ago. The result was a disaster, by the time the right wing neo-con government was voted out off office in 1999 , the economy was shrinking at 2% though strangely the government statistics department was claiming it was growing at 2%. Though that is a separate scandal in itself which strangely got very little media traction. Of course this all happened while most western economies were booming, showing how much of a complete failure it was to improve the economy.
This of course was simply a tactic to reduce the average wage and introduce a whole new strata of New Zealand society to a lower standard of living ,and quite a few to abject poverty. Interestingly this right wing government launched a radical slashing of welfare just after assuming office on a strong majority after a lack luster two term Labour government with leadership changes in the dying days, sounds too bloody familiar.
For reference in 1991 $50 NZD was worth about $86NZD in today’s money. The inflation problems experienced in Australia in the 90’s had already happened in NZ in the 80’s. Food prices are comparable with Australian prices though meat is about 20% less expensive due to exceptional livestock rearing climate (fertile soil, lack of drought and neither too hot or cold most years). Beer and other alcohol is 50% cheaper due to much lower excises, personally I think if it wasn’t the country would be empty and Bondi Beach would be full. New Zealand actually produces enough food to feed itself and all of Australia, a good reason to be in the good books with the bloody kiwis, or at least have a comprehensive invasion plan.
Guess what Australia, you are 30 years behind New Zealand!
A wave of shocked silence followed by jeers echos across the country…
Australians all angrily ask “What are we behind in?”
“Apart from Rugby Union and occasionally Netball we are not behind New Zealand!”
Only if it was so unimportant as sport, you might see whats really going on. You have been blinded by bread and circuses, or perhaps beer and footy.
Split Enz, from New Zealand in 1981, with a song written by Neil Finn, unfortunately history does repeat.
New Zealand, for decades, has been a social policy test tube for the western world. A small, largely isolated population that reeled from the Neo- con ‘shock doctrine’ of Chicago school economists.
Even more surprising was the fact that this hard core Neo-con agenda was run by the New Zealand’s Labour party, a political outfit more or less akin to the ALP in political ideology and electoral significance.
Well it would have been akin to the ALP, if it wasn’t for a few key individuals who drew inspiration from Thatcher and Regan who were in office at the time in UK and USA respectively.
Would you like to look into a somewhat tame version of what is happening now in Australian Politics with the Abbott/Hockey budget?
Have a glance at these somewhat surreal crystal balls, telling you a potential future for Australia from New Zealand’s troubled past.
If you do not watch these films, you only have yourself to blame when further nasty surprises happen!
Its worth pointing out that despite this film being made more than 12 years after the neo- con ravage and upheaval in NZ, it was effectively banned from NZ television until 2003, nearly 20 years after the events it portrayed. You might ask why, and that’s the exact question the New Zealand Government didn’t want its citizens asking. Citizens who were now being treated as units of economic production.
Another film by the same director (Alistair Barry) about the same events from a slightly different and more enlightened perspective, explores how the Reserve Bank of New Zealand was behind many of the initiatives. Curiously the director said his main inspiration for making the movies was he had so much footage that simply made him angry, and he had to understand why it make him angry, and what was actually driving the economic and social carnage witnessed.
Both of the films heavily feature television archives, which many New Zealanders would have seen as part of news broadcasts at the time of the events, some clips appear in both films because of the significant to both stories and the political history described.
Split Enz I walk away; 1984, from their last album.
Perhaps Split Enz saw the (economic) writing on the wall, splitting up in 1984 and temporarily moving to Los Angeles before morphing into ‘The Mullanes’ and finally ‘Crowded House’ and moving back ‘home’ to Australia.
The opening credits of this video sadly will not put to bed any lingering debate over whether Crowded House was Kiwi band or and Aussie band, as Hester had joined Split Enz before the remainder of Split Enz became ‘Crowded House’.
The best compromise to this sometimes confused friendly debate is best settled with this: Crowded House was a Melbourne band that formed in the USA from the remains of a New Zealand band.
Welcome to the confusion and dislocation of the shock doctrine and globalization.
And finally Crowded House ‘Weather with you’ from 1992. When the rapacious globalist corporations come, they bring the weather (and its not good weather).
If you don’t think it can happen here, this week should have been a wake up call, Chile was taken by surprise in 1973, as was New Zealand in 1984, will Australia wake up and get wise in 2014?
History does repeat.
What was once a purely New Zealand phenomenon can easily become completely ingrained in Australia, be it music or political ideology.
RIP Paul Hester
Well that’s probably a better headline for the story than The Age selected. It really sucks when some great investigative journalism is buried under a bland almost non event headline.
I think our headline is a better reflection of the facts and would certainly draw more attention, I mean you guys want to sell more news papers and subscriptions right?
Actually the next story is related and if you actually aded the headlines together, it actually becomes a better headline, but still doesn’t quite connect the dots for the would be reader.
Now the first story is exclusive, but then again editgate cyberwar was also.
So in case you have read too much of The Age this month or are other wise stuck behind a paywall/firewall here are the stories sans images.
WorkSafe pays law firms bonuses to minimise victims’ payouts
Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker
Victoria’s work safety authority is paying lawyers millions of dollars in confidential bonuses to minimise payouts in compensation cases brought by alleged victims of workplace accidents.
In at least one case, a firm representing the authority received more than $1 million in bonuses over 12 months on top of legal fees.
The bonuses are paid out by WorkSafe Victoria, which receives its funding from fees paid by Victorian businesses. The bonus scheme has provoked debate inside the legal community because of the potential it will encourage firms to cut corners in order to maximise their bonus payouts, or devise other strategies that may not be in the best interest of victims or the scheme.
But defenders of the bonus system say it encourages lawyers to deal with cases more efficiently and prevents rorting of the state’s workers’ compensation scheme.
Leaked files from law firm Lander & Rogers reveal that it has made about $5 million in WorkSafe bonuses over five years by minimising payouts to alleged Victorian victims of workplace accidents. The biggest yearly bonus payout to the firm was $1.2 million in 2010.
The leaked files also show that the legal firm encourages its lawyers to offer ”entertainment” to WorkSafe Victoria executives at the tennis, musicals and barristers’ functions. A well-placed source said that at least two senior WorkSafe staff had attended events paid for by the Melbourne firm.
The leaked Lander & Rogers files show one strategy proposed by the firm involves creating closer ties, or becoming ”relationship partners” with lawyers representing workplace accident victims via ”targeted plaintiff firm strategies”.
Lawyers who support the incentive scheme argue it encourages law firms to deal with cases in a fair and timely fashion.
They say that maintaining professional relationships with plaintiff firms also leads to fairer outcomes by reducing legal hostilities that can lead to unnecessary litigation.
In defending the bonus scheme, a WorkSafe spokesman said that the extra payouts were offered because the fees defence firms get paid for handling WorkSafe cases ”are significantly less than standard commercial rates”. ”Performance incentives are designed to preserve and protect the interests of the scheme and the amount paid in [bonuses in] 2012-13 represents 0.3 per cent of the total benefits paid to injured Victorian workers last year,” the spokesman said.
Internal Lander & Rogers figures from 2011 show its WorkSafe department made almost $4 million in profit, most of which is later distributed to the firm’s partners. The law firm’s WorkSafe lawyers also generated bigger profit margins – up to 35 per cent – than lawyers from any other section of Lander & Rogers.
The WorkSafe spokesman also said the bonuses were only awarded if law firms ”meet a range of performance criteria, which includes achieving a timely outcome for injured workers’ claims for compensation and reducing the use of the courts”. WorkSafe declined to answer questions on the total in bonuses it paid law firms or how many gifts WorkSafe staff received.
”WorkSafe adheres to the criteria set out in the gifts, benefits and hospitality policy framework 2012 issued by the Public Sector Standards Commissioner and expects all employees to comply with the policy,” the spokesman said.
In response to questions about its bonuses and gift-giving policy, a Lander & Rogers spokesman said: ”Like other firms who provide legal services to WorkSafe, Lander & Rogers is eligible to receive performance incentives where it meets certain criteria, which include helping to ensure timely resolution of injured workers’ claims.
”We maintain professional working relationships with all plaintiff firms and other stakeholders in the workers compensation scheme and always work in the best interest of WorkSafe.”
The law firm threatened Fairfax Media with legal action if it published details from its leaked files.
In other developments linked to the management of WorkSafe cases, it is understood that some defence firms have reduced the hiring of private detectives who conduct surveillance on allegedly injured workers. The practice of conducting surveillance on workers has recently drawn the ire of several Victorian judges because it is viewed as expensive and intrusive.
But several lawyers who spoke to Fairfax Media said that surveillance was a critical tool to prevent rorting.
Disabled Victorians to miss out on disability insurance scheme
Up to 900,000 disabled Victorians will not qualify for the national disability insurance scheme and the state government needs to increase funding to the sector to meet growing demand, the peak body for the sector says.
A National Disability Services submission to the state budget says that while DisabilityCare Australia is a tremendous opportunity to help 100,000 Victorians with a serious or permanent disability, hundreds of thousands more will require help. People with non-permanent or moderate to mild disability will not necessarily qualify for the scheme.
The organisation’s submission says there are about 1 million Victorians with a disability, including 338,200 with a profound or severe disability.
”This suggests that some 900,000 Victorians with a disability won’t qualify for the NDIS and will still require access to mainstream services such as transport, housing, education, health, justice and mental health,” it says.
NDS Victoria state manager James O’Brien said the state government had a role to play building a strong disability sector able to make the transition to the scheme.
”The NDIS won’t be the panacea for all, and we need a whole-of-government approach to ensure that mainstream services are accessible for all Victorians with a disability,” he said.
The Napthine government is also urged to lift annual investment to disability services by $900 million over the next five years. The group argues that with the government’s forecast surplus of $2.5 billion in 2016-17, the fiscal environment would allow the government to do so.
The submission outlines how demand continues to outweigh investment in the sector – it says while funding for the sector increased by 7.5 per cent last year, on the back of the trial of the national disability insurance scheme in Barwon, demand for services grew by 10 per cent. ”The real cost of providing disability services continues to escalate and government indexation fails to keep pace,” it says.
The submission says there should be more public-sector procurement from accredited disability organisations. It also wants the government to build more inclusive public spaces.
Building the capacity of the sector also requires more workers and NDS warns demand will rapidly outstrip supply unless action is taken now. The establishment of the scheme will require 25,000 workers by 2020; currently, there are just 12,000 in Victoria. ”This poses a huge challenge,” the submission says.
The government has welcomed the submission from NDS but will not comment on the budget ahead of its release in May.
So what does all of this mean?
Some great journalism, but journalists sometime can’t really say what they think for a variety of reasons, such is the sad state of our ‘deMOCKracy’. Fortunately we can say what ever we like as long as we feel its true.
The WorkSafe Premiums you are being forced to pay for has now become a slush fund for lawyers and government bureaucrats.
The levy you are being forced to pay for NDIS is just becoming a federal government slush fund.
Denise Cosgrove is embezzling (stealing) money paid by the Victorian tax payer, worst of all she’s using it to bribe lawyers into robbing WorkSafe claimants. She’s only been in the role of CEO for 12 months. This con artist really moves fast.
Mike Dixon-McIver is an advocate for ACC (New Zealand work cover system) claimants. He was quite successful in helping claimants in getting their entitlements as per required by the law. The law that ACC sought to subvert on many occasions simply for the sake of profit. He became a thorn in the sides of ACC so the they tried to destroy him with a completely manufactured and flimsy fraud charge. The charge was thrown out of court and Mike was left with lawyers costs, which ACC refused to pay. Ultimately this lead to his bankruptcy despite the fact he did nothing wrong, and was only trying to help the people ACC wanted to defraud and destroy.
So after failed attempts to resolve the situation, Mike decide a hunger strike would be the way to draw attention to the issue.
Today :day 45
7 sharp back ground story
The bait and switch attempt by ACC, offer to resolve the matter and then pull out at the last minute.
You may be thinking “how does this affect me ?”
The very same sociopaths who lurk the corridors of ACC are slowly beginning to migrate here and take over various work cover authorities here in Australia.
Introducing Denise Cosgrove, Former CEO of ACC, now CEO at Worksafe Victoria.
Worst part is that she is not alone,
other ACC sociopaths are infiltrating Australia’s workers injury compensation institutions.
Denise Cosgrove wants to reduce your rights in law.
Denise Cosgrove gained fame for releasing to the media, details of a rape survivors treatment expenses claims. If she did that in Australia she would be likely jailed so why is she employed here in a position to do exactly the same thing?
A NZ farmer and former aircraft engineer, Richard Osmaston, is running for mayor of Nelson, with a view to implement a resource-based economy. To put his non-money where his mouth is, he will reject the $160 000 salary, if elected.
“We are heading over a cliff – socially, financially, every way you can think of. So far, all anyone has done is address the symptoms, and there are so many now that everyone’s exhausted fighting them.”
Air crash investigation ( called Mayday in some regions) is a really good series for a lot of reasons.
The gut wrenching drama, the triumph of man over (malfunctioning ) machine in a life or death struggle, the ‘needle in a haystack’ investigations, the human drama and tragedy. Another reason is just learning about the inner workings commercial flight which is something we completely take for granted these days. Not to mention the thorough logic to find the ‘smoking gun’.
Often the investigations find the faults in strange places, a weird widget, a badly designed procedure, poor maintenance of planes or airports, pilot error, etc.
Disturbingly of all though, many times it is the nefarious characters either non state actors or greedy corporates who measure the cost of human lives in the same cold accounting they use for counting the price of jet fuel or corporate/political advantage.
In most episodes the investigators are lauded for their determination in finding the cause of these disasters, and some investigations can take decades, the ultimate ‘cold case’ waiting for the technology or even the tiny scrap of metal to reveal the crucial clue.
But this particular episode differs from the script in that sense. One of the deceased passengers parents was an engineer determined for answers and willing to launch their own investigation which challenged the ‘official’ finding. Chillingly the fault found by the Campbells’ had been in existence since the original design of the aircraft.
Eventually their finding was accepted over the ‘official’ version, which tended to imply a refusal on the part of the various corporates and regulators to acknowledge a costly fault.
In a real twist of irony an air accident lawyer was on the ill fated flight, he wanted to get away from the air-crash industry on a planned holiday to Sydney. This lawyer explains the callous economics of commercial aircraft safety.
In a weird twist of cognitive dissonance, the operators and vendors of the aircraft are perhaps a bigger risk to the safety of the air traveler than the ‘non state actor’, yet the passengers are routinely harassed and humiliated in weird security theater rituals “because of the 911″.
911? try asking about 811, your life is a “cost of doing business” to the corporates controlling the airlines.
The title of this article is speculative regarding the sentence imposed based on previous similar case.
I think story the original from the New Zealand Herald gives the greatest level of detail on the case so far.
Read the story and be suitably horrified, them re-read the story with the genders reversed. I think you will find the level of outrage will increase.
Notice the word pedophile was not used once in the story. Curiously under NZ law women cannot even be charged with rape.
If a 36 year old man has non consensual sex with an 11 year old girl, you can be sure he would go to prison for a very long time.
But if a woman does it, it is treated as a lesser offense, why?
This is cognitive dissonance and the cultural Marxism of feminism, which always want to paint a picture of men as rapists, but women as oppressed angels.
Sadly many children are born of raped women, and this is a very sensitive and complex issue for the mother and child of this event. But can you imagine the shock you might feel to know your mother was the rapist.
Some people might say the boy must have enjoyed it to achieve orgasm to allow conception to occur, this however is a misnomer. pre cum contains some sperm and the orgasm reflex is not always consciously controlled, its not uncommon for women to report orgasm during rape. Something that is not often talked about for obvious reasons.
To add to the outrage of the case this female pedophile has been granted permanent name suppression so she will never answer to the community about her wrong doing and other children will be placed at risk.
I think if there is ever a case where a child should be taken from a mother at birth this is it, she sees children as sexually desirable, so what is stopping her from sexually abusing the child she conceived from sexually abusing another child.
More on the light sentencing of female sex offenders here.
Looks like a case for Derryn Hinch to do some digging.
Posted on March 7, 2013 by Occupy Savvy.
They say the wheels of justice turn slowly but indeed they are turning.
At long last, some measure of vindication for the countless legitimate protesters victimised by Auckland Council.
At the close of business today March 6th 2013 the corporate media began reporting that the High Court in Auckland has finally found in favour of Occupy Auckland.
The extremely sparse media reports (no more than a few short paragraphs and almost uniform wording across a slew of mainstream news sources) don’t tell you much other than that the violent evictions imposed by the Council despite our pending court appeal “went too far“.
Indeed, lawyer Ron Mansfield suspected as much, when he warned us that the conduct of the Council surrounding the evictions may have breached the terms of their own by-laws. That stealing and storing our belongings in a supposedly “vacant” hangar at the same airforce base the FBI were flying in and out of that very week; miles out of town; may be onerous.
That their demanding private information about anyone who did manage to get out to the airbase to “claim” their belongings; may not be legal.
The human cost of the evictions is impossible to calculate and goes far beyond the dozens of arrests on January 23rd & 26th, 2012.
The evictions crippled the physical presence and daily functioning of the four simultaneous and autonomous occupations in Auckland Central – (Occupy Aotea Square; Occupy Te Herenga Waka at Victoria Park; Occupy Albert Park and Occupy Queen Street)
The occupations created organising hubs for the public to engage in political activism that should be encouraged in any healthy democracy and indeed is enshrined in our Bill of Rights.
From the homeless protester in his 80s who suffered multiple heart attacks and was hospitalised after his heart medication was unlawfully seized by “security”, and the Occupy who liaisons frantically tried to negotiate with the Council for the return of the medication, only to wait 48 hours for a response…
…to the middle-aged grandmother who had never been arrested in her entire life until Occupy, never had a tent or stayed overnight at an occupation, but was named in litigation by Auckland Council and hauled relentlessly through Court, unjustly…
…to the intelligent and sincere young man, of whom images were plastered all over the national media after he was lifted off the ground by his neck by police alongside mercenary corporate private security companies hired by Auckland Council at ratepayers’ expense…
…to his petite girlfriend, trapped outside the temporary fencing Auckland Council erects on a whim at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, screaming with raw fright and fear as she witnessed what was happening to her partner before her very eyes…
…to a little 5 year old boy, who the police and Auckland Council staff alike, left in the middle of Aotea Square; after they arrested his father in front of him, without even noticing the child…
…to the woman who scooped up the child onto her hip, marched into the congregation of police officers outside the paddy-wagon-filled Auckland Council carpark and publicly scolded the Inspector in charge for the display of utter negligence…
…to the uni student, who was one of the first to feel the cold touch of publicly-funded Council-ordered surveillance, so early on in Occupy that he was not believed; surveillance that, although later confirmed by the Council to have been undertaken, escalated until his entire life fell apart around him. Despite being so young, he was forcefully institutionalised and temporarily drugged into apathy… all on our tax dollars… his persecution paid for by our rates…
…those who suffered profound loss because of Auckland Council are too many to be counted on all our fingers and toes. Thousands of people per week became active in their communities at grassroots level because of Occupy and collectively housed, fed, educated and cared for hundreds residing in the occupations.
…to every person who ever learned something because of Occupy; taught someone because of Occupy; fed someone because of Occupy, was fed by Occupy – to everyone who for the first time in their lives saw that we CAN provide for each other and we CAN provide for ourselves…
…to those who were slandered, libelled, suppressed, oppressed, victimised by many of the mechanisms of the state, most visibly, Auckland Council.
The very body that is supposed to represent our interests.
Whether there can ever now be reparation remains to be seen. So much was lost that cannot be returned. Many occupiers may now not even be alive. Many have had such financial pressure and mental stress applied to them that they have lost or are losing what assets and opportunities they had.
Many have been served with questionably legal trespass notices; intimidated out of returning to the CBD or outright threatened in various forms.
Last October 15th, 2012, the 1 year anniversary of Occupy Auckland, protesters performed flash occupations at the original sites and at other places of significance to our movement.
But of course, Auckland Council got a visit.
Occupy Auckland Council As did TVNZ, the national broadcaster who had participated in the corporate media blackout, and then smear campaign against Occupy.
TVNZ, who utterly failed to fairly represent the voices of the people, or to sufficiently educate the public as to the global and viral nature of the movement, found their staff entrance temporarily occupied.
Occupy The MediaBut also on the flash occupation list was the High Court in Auckland.
Yet this recent ruling begins a process of restoring the faith instilled in us by the human rights lawyers at Occupy Auckland, so long ago.
We DO have the right to the basic necessities of human life even though Auckland Council denied us water, power and the tools of communication.
For we do and should have the right to peacefully assemble. The right to free association.
The right to dissent and the right to seek redress from our systems of Government.
We have the legal right not to be discriminated against on the basis of our political opinion.
We have the right to participate in our democracy. All of us.
And we must. For the viability of the continued existence of our entire planet, depends upon what we do now.
E tu Aotearoa. Stand up and fight back. Don’t let them sell what scraps they have not already stolen. This is our country. It is priceless.
Rise like lions and roar.
OCCUPY AUCKLAND MEDIA TEAM