The truth about age in politics and how NZ tweeters need to get over themselves.

I am in favour of people voicing their opinion on social media and having debates about politics.  Even though I disagree with them I'm fine with left wing people criticising right wing policy and even vice versa, I know I debate the policy too.  What I'm not okay with though is when people launch into personal attacks.

Last year it was Asenati Lole Taylor.  She was heavily trolled on Twitter for her opinions on prostitution and other issues affecting South Auckland.  Australian Palmer United Party MP Jacqui Lambie has been harassed and now it would seem it is Act's Epsom MP, David Seymour.

It's fine that people disagree with Act policy but when they post tweets like:

Emma Dilemma ‏@indie_pixel 1h

Just showed my 13 year old, David Seymour's legohands. He couldn't stop laughing.

Emma Dilemma ‏@indie_pixel 

What does retarded look like? David Seymour in government. #hihihihi #legohands #completejoke 

 Bills! ‏@HatePash1 1h

How many times do you reckon David Seymour will accidentally call John Key "Dad" in the next three years?

 Jeffrey Simpson ‏@DoctorJeph 2h

@toad001 If David Seymour isn't convicted of by the end of this term, he doesn't deserve to represent the people of Epsom

The above tweets are just a selection of the rubbish being dished out to Act's sole MP David Seymour.  Yes it's his first term in Parliament but it's not his first term working in the parliamentary system, and all these "he's such a child" jokes are really grating on my nerves.  He's actually 31.  Did you know that senior Labour MP Jacinda Ardern was 28 when she entered parlaiment in 2008, or that National MP Jami Lee Ross was 25 years old.  Nikki Kaye was also 28 years old.  

These are just a few examples of young people who've entered parliament.  As I say, it's one thing to disagree with policy and to support it with decent arguments, but it's another to judge someone solely on their age without actually having the facts, and the fact of the matter is, other MPs have entered parliament when they were much younger than Seymour is.

Looks like he's earned the title of whipping boy for the next three years sadly.

Regarding the "Under Secretary of Education" title, my understanding is that it's similar to being a Parliamentary Secretary in Australia, which is what I would term the third in charge for a particular portfolio. 

My suggestion is, people need to check their facts and political history before tweeting about the age of MPs because several MPs enter parliament when they're young and go onto become career politicians - Annette King, Bill English, Nick Smith to name a few more, they all entered when they were young.

The real problem with NZ Labour

I don't vote Labour and I will never ever vote Labour.  Even National is too left wing for me so I voted Act.  Labour had their worst defeat in 92 years but were you aware they weren't actually decimated like NZ's media thinks.  They only lost 2% on their last poll result in 2011 and a total of 2 MPs.  That's hardly a decimation.  It's 2002 in reverse where National polled badly and it will take until 2020 to regain ground.  It's simply the mood of the nation.

That mood of the nation has been created by bad policy and anti Labour propaganda.  Take the man ban for example.  It's actually just a way to get more women in politics and that's not a bad thing.  This was marketed badly.

Then there are the tax hikes.  You can't announce right before an election that you're going to hike taxes without some type of back lash.

The other issue has been instability and Labours plans to work with parties that support Kim Dot Com.  Nobody in their right mind would vote for Labour when there's that risk of instability and threat to national security.

The leader David Cunliffe has copped a lot of flak which is another reason the left lost the election.  Instead of collectively taking responsibility they're blaming Cunliffe but it's not his fault.  Disunity and bad policy is.  A new leader won't fix those problems.

Then you look at the campaign.  Through research on Twitter I found out that Shortland Street's Angela Bloomfield is a Labour supporter.  Why didn't Labour use an endorsement like the Greens did with Lucy Lawless?  This could have been a way to engage the disinterested voter who votes on the package not the policy.

Most importantly though, Labours just looking for a quick fix and not offering a credible alternative.  Some reporters have said they need to go to the centre but they need to do what National did under Don Brash, they need to go back to their core policy to create a point of difference and they need to quit their internal fighting.

Does the Aussie media have issues with women in politics?

It seems the Australian print media has a vendetta against opinionated female politicians.  Palmer United Party Senator for Tasmania Jacqui Lambie has become the new woman to face criticisms.  She has spoken out against the burqa and Islam.  Now to clarify, the burqa is the full covering worn in various Middle Eastern cultures while the hijab is the head scarf which covers the hair and neck.  

Lambie has been told by various people to 'shut the **ck up' because she 'doesn't know what she's talking about'.  She's been berated by numerous media organisations, including Mamamia, News.com.au and now the Sydney Morning Herald has reported Queensland MP George Christensen has told her to shut up and that she's stupid.

Firstly Islam and Muslims are very controversial topics in Australia at this point in time particularly with the threat to Aussie citizens coming from IS extremists.  Australia defence personnel are in Syria supporting air strikes, but not yet participating.  There was the threat to the average Aussie last week that a beheading would take place in Martin Place. Fortunately ASIO thwarted that attempt.

Anyway, Lambie has copped a lot of flak for being anti Islam. By all means disagree with her but don't tell her to shut up.  Telling her to shut up is really un democratic.  Wouldn't it be better to say, okay Jacqui, I don't agree with you and here's why rather than telling her she's stupid!  Personally I don't think the burqa is even a problem but it should be banned simply because of the problems it could cause.  That's not what I want to discuss here though,  it's the utter disrespect for Lambie.  Does she need a new PR person? Yes most likely.  Should she shut up though? No.  She was elected to parliament and telling her to shut up goes against Aussie values of free speech which she is trying to protect.

My final question is: would she be copping this flak or be told to shut up and that she's stupid if she was a man?  Or is Australia still incapable of respecting women in politics?  The way Lambie is being treated is so reminiscent of the Gillard era.  Then there's the fact that telling someone to shut up for having an opinion different to yours is unAustralian, and Lambie wants to protect Aussie culture which we're lucky to live in and be a part of.

National claims NZ Election Victory. Key to remain PM another 3 years.

This was the most corrupt election campaign ever.  National we're victorious with 48%.  They can govern alone however John Key, the Prime Minister has indicated he will do a desk with NZ First, United Future and Act.  So who were the big winners and losers tonight?

WINNERS:

David Seymour and Act.  David Seymour fought a very hard campaign and won Epsom with a safe majority.  TV3's Linda Clark and Paul Henry said he was naive and inexperienced.  This is false reporting and I'll be complaining to the NZ BSA.  Having attended the University of Auckland I know for a fact Seymour deserved to win Epsom.  He's been involved with the party since 2003, and first stood for Auckland Central in 2005.  He has also worked in policy in Canada for the last few years.  He is hardly inexperienced.  It's disappointing that Act doesn't bring in a second MP, but if anyone can resurrect the party, it's him and he deserves to be in parliament.

John Key.

Normally when parties are elected for a third term it is with a smaller majority.  Not so with John Key.  For the first time in MMP history, National can govern alone.  Not only that, they have increased their margin.  John Key is likely to get a fourth term.

NZ First.

They have increased their base from 6.49% to 8.89% and bring in an extra four MPs as a result with Ron Mark returning to parliament as an NZ fIrst MP.

LOSERS

Labour.

For Labour this election was 2002 in reverse.  In 2002 National were obliterated.  This time Labour were.  They only have 32 seats and it's looks like heads will roll.  To be fair though, leader David Cunliffe isn't to blame.  It's just the mood of the nation.

Internet Mana.

This goes to show the NZ public do not respond well to corruption or foreigners trying to buy our elections.  They bring in no MPs having only received 1.6% of the vote and no electorates.

Hone Harawira.

Once a champion of supporting the impoverished Hone Harawira's union saw him lose Te Tai Tokerau.  He does not return to parliament.  This IS a great loss but he was supposed to represent the poor.  Joining a rich white man would not resonate with the constituents.  I suspect he'll go to the naughty corner for three years as Winston Peters did from 2008-2011 then he will be back stronger than ever.

Consrvatives.

Leader Colin Craig May be a bit of a nutter but he worked hard and increased the party's vote to 4.12%.  It's not enough to get him over the line.  He deserved to get in.  I suspect in 2017 he will run a slicker campaign with a new campaign manager and get over the line.

The next three years will see a new era with Acts David Seymour entering parliament and the parties on the left doing some soul searching and regrouping like National did between 2002 and 2005.mover all the NZ public voted for a party with a proven track record and didn't want to risk stability as Prime Minister John Key said during his victory speech.  The left will need to work hard to mobilise their side of voters as turn out left a lot to be desired. 

Media blackout in NZ on Election Day: needs reviewing

Every Election Day in NZ, the media is not allowed to publish anything which could be construed as an election advertisement.  People using social media cannot make suggestions on who people should vote for.  Before technological advancements this law was probably fair but now it's outdated.

Overseas media are exempt from the legislation which means people can still be influenced.  People can also access articles written prior as I did on www.stuff.co.nz and www.nzherald.co.nz.  Then there is the fact overseas media can report during the day which means people have access to information.

Since 2011 people have been able to advance vote for any reason, as 544,000 people did this year which is an increase from 2011.  

Due to this Election Day law people in NZ can be fined for stating their opinion on social media, which is the new equivalent of chatting in a pub.

The law needs to be reviewed so that the only thing you can't do is campaign outside a polling booth.  It's outdated and due to technology, the legislation no longer works.

NZ Election

Polling booths are now open around the country until 7pm tonight.

Blogging on results will commence from 5pm AEST/7pm NZT.

Pre election coverage review

The NZ media has proved themselves incompetent in the final days before the election.  Aside from in accurately reporting what Dirty Politocs was about they have also reported events in the tackiest way imaginable.

The Stuff team seem to think the election is a sports race not realising it's a country's future.  They are also forgetting events from 2011.  Robyn Malcolm backed the Green Party like Lucy Lawless is this year, which is also tacky, I hate celebrity endorsements for regular products, let alone politics.

The NZ Herald is worse giving out awards for how the campaign was run.  The election is not an Oscars ceremony nor should such tacky awards be given.  It minimises the importance of the election.

Then there's been the Kim Dot Com diversion which is a revenge attack.  And if Australia for example didn't spy on locals then the terrorist beheading attack might have actually happened.

The NZ media should be truly ashamed for their trashy 'reporting' and lack of focus on issues.  This is one reason that after 20 years people still don't comprehend MMP or understand the country's politics.

Affordability isn't the problem. Poor saving and financial habits are.

Housing affordability.  It's enough to make anybody break into a cold sweat and feel defeated.  Especially if you're a 20 something, but let's look at it another way.

Imagine you're on $50,000 and have no responsibilities like kids, that's about $800 per week after tax.  Now imagine you pay only $250 rent a week, possibly $150 for all other compulsory expenses and say $50 for leisure (clothes etc).  That still leaves you with $350 a week to save.  That would equate to $1400 a month, which is $16,800 a year.  Then add on the annual tax refund of an average of $3000 in Australia.  Right there you have $19800 saved in one year on a modest income.  Now say you want to get a 15 year mortgage on a $400,000 property in Sydney's west or buy an investment property in NZ for $200-$300,000, you would have your deposit right there in 3-4 years.  It's doable in two years but let's go conservative and say 3-4 years to reduce the length of the mortgage.  Presumably you'd have tenants in the investment property so you'll still be able to rent and own.  Once your investment property is paid off you can use the profit to either buy a second investment property (so have two at once) or buy a home in a suburb you want to buy in.

Aussies and Kiwis are notoriously terrible savers.  Our parents generation saved on low incomes but our generation, the iWant generation thinks the Government should hold our hands.  

People need to start planning their financial futures while they have no kids and can because if they don't they'll just end up in a cycle of poverty.  Affordability isn't the problem, expectations are yet the NZ National government thinks promising people $20,000 will solve the problem.  It won't.  All it does is create further generations of people not taking responsibility for their futures or finances.

Do you need thousands to invest in the sharemarket?

I love money.  I also like a good old game of risk, though I'm not a fan of the actual game risk.  Unlike millions of people living in Australia and New Zealand I don't see the appeal with property.  Some people love it because it's safe and just sits there increasing in value but the thing with property as the New Zealand Herald reported today, is that if you make a bad call such as by buying a new house before the old one has sold, you can lose everything and in order to enter the property market you have to have substantial savings and get into debt.  With other investments you can have smaller capital and you do not need to get into debt.

An article from the Sydney Morning Herald says that although the minimum amount needed to invest is $500, you shouldn't invest any less than $10,000.  They say this is because of the necessity to diversify.

The Motley Fool however says that although you don't want brokerage fees eating into your investment returns, it's okay when you're starting out and that saving regularly and investing in the sharemarket can have long term rewards.  This is based on increasing your investment by 10% and investing a further $1000 each year.  The other thing the Sydney Morning Herald failed to take into consideration was that once you start investing it becomes exciting and you want to invest more, that starting is the hardest part but continuing is easy.

It's for that reason I disagree with the Sydney Morning Herald that you shouldn't invest until you have $10,000 or more.  You see, if you have the money in a regular bank account you're more likely to spend it than if you have it in shares.  This is partially because of psychology but also because when cash is there in cash format it has less prestige.  When your money is tied up in shares it's more likely to stay there because although cash is hard earned, you've worked harder to get those shares.

There's an old saying, a penny saved is a penny earned meaning that your money is working for you and you have a stake in a business so the sooner you invest the sooner you can start enjoying the growth you'll get on the sharemarket (though you have to prepare to weather the short term losses) and be increasing your net worth.  Once you start investing you're going to want to invest faster. It's amazing how once you're going you want to keep going and building your wealth.  

And remember, most successful business people started with very small capital but over time built their wealth.  When you think $500 is all you need to start that is very achievable compared to $5000 for term deposits or hundreds of thousands for your first home,  and with the small investment growing you'll soon (2-3 years) have enough for a home deposit and to continue on the sharemarket.  Once you are started remember it is best to diversify as soon as possible and keep an eye on your stocks.  I also recommend you monitor the markets and stocks you're interested in.  Most services like NABTrade and commSec allow you to create watch lists and charge $19.95 per trade.

Dot Com must be deported after the NZ election

This blog post is pure opinion.  It is a rant unlike others which do hold bias towards right wing parties and causes I genuinely believe in.

To give some background I am a New Zealand citizen living in Australia and for the last few years I've tried to ignore Kim Dot Com who has a criminal history and has been banned from entering several countries.

When Kim Dot Com formed the Internet Party ignoring him became harder but I continued.  Dot Com has been bent out of shape for three years since the GCSB's raids on his house. 

Here's the thing, Dot Com is not a New Zealand citizen yet he is trying to tell NZers how to run the country and I don't know about you but I have real issue with a convicted criminal and non citizen jeopardising NZ's national security.

By catching Dot Com doing what he shouldn't have been they actually did their jobs but by going public with private conversations between PM John Key and Warner Bros executives he has crossed into dangerous territory and is putting NZ's national security in danger and the monkeys in the mainstream media in NZ have played right into his twisted delusions.

The election is this weekend and after that, Dot Com must be deported.

Is it time to distinguish between journalists and bloggers journalists were forced to register?

It is no secret that I haven't respected the New Zealand mainstream media for quite some time but after reading Dirty Politics by Nicky Hager I have even less respect for them.  In chapter one there is an exchange by Whale Oil's Cameron Slater and Herald columnist Rachel Glucina.  Slater asks her to fabricate a story.  It's not yet known whether or not she did.  The book also details close relationships between Slater and TV3's Paddy Gower and Paul Henry and other well known New Zealand "journalists".  I have put that in commas because of the low standards of journalism exposed (not that it took much) by true journalist Nicky Hager.

Basically, if even half of what Hager wrote is true then there needs to be an independent inquiry, or what we call in Australia, an ICAC into the operations of the New Zealand media.  It is one thing to exaggerate the truth but it is another to hack for information and it is another to suggest outright lying.

Earlier this week the NZ High Court labelled Slater a journalist, many are appalled at this ruling, but anyone who knows anything about journalism knows that a true journalist would not hack, don't you remember the News of the World scandal which saw the paper closed? A true journalist knows you NEVER lie and a true journalist knows that you cannot defame - and it could be argued that Slater has defamed Auckland Mayor Len Brown and his former mistress (but now I wonder how much of that was true) Bevan Chuang.

The New Zealand Herald and Cameron Slater have actually breached the basic ethical standards of journalism - and that is to report the truth and not to defame.  This is basic journalism 101.  This is elementary.  Aside from the fact people should know this through common sense, this is taught at universities.  I know this because I learned it while I was studying media and politics.  When I did my post graduate study I then had to do an entire paper on journalism ethics.  If someone had done even HALF of what Slater and Glucina, and god knows who else had done they would be sacked based on the basic standards of journalism.  Just look at the situation in England involving former Australian 2Day FM radio announcer Mel Geig, she has been forced to answer questions at a Scotland Yard inquiry regarding the death of Jacinth Saldhana in December 2011 when she and co host Michael Christian pranked King Edward Hospital to get information on Kate's pregnancy.

It's bad enough to think that organisations are cutting their news staff, as a journalist I find that bad enough, but it's even worse to think that those with the full time jobs are outright lying, committing the crime of unlawfully obtaining information, working with criminals and breaching standards of journalism.  Slater was deemed a journalist this week but the purpose of his blog is solely to defame.  A journalist knows you cannot defame, that if you defame it is your neck and entire career on the line.

The fact that Slater is working closely with the NZ Herald and TV3 owned by Mediaworks, and suggested lying to them means that there needs to be an independent inquiry into the operations of the New Zealand media because without one the lies, slander and defamation will continue.  Without one the unethical behaviour will continue and the truth will never come out.  It seems that those working in the NZ media have missed the point of what journalism is about - it's not about hurting your enemies.  It's about revealing the truth and if that takes a longer time to do so then it's better that the truth comes out rather than being fed a pack of lies.

Furthermore, maybe it's now time to look at registrations for journalists - nurses have to have them, even bartenders have to have them.  Is it time that we introduced registrations in NZ and Australia to distinguish between journalists and bloggers?  The NZ media owes the public an explanation for their outright lies and journalism ethical breaches.

NZ Herald to go behind a paywall

This week the National Business Review reported that the New Zealand Herald will go behind a paywall.  As most NBR articles themselves are behind a paywall, they naturally support the move.  However as a journalist, a writer and a reader of news, I'm opposed.

The Nicky Hager book, Dirty Politics details an exchange between Herald columnist Rachel Glucina and Whale Oil's Cameron Slater.  Slater asked her to fabricate some stories and publish them.

Can someone explain why people would pay for lies?  The answer to declining readership is to hire actual journalists who abide by the journalism code of ethics and standards not to make people pay for lies, which the Herald wants to do.

This would mean they hire more journalists first and demand a higher standard of reporting.  It would mean instead of churnalism we see a return to investigation and stories that really matter, not just stories designed to shock.  Good journalism takes days, weeks, months, sometimes even years.

While we are in the digital age where blogging is common, we need to distinguish between blogs and newspapers and people will never pay for the Herald's articles unless they perceive the paper/website as a reliable source and given what columnists like Rachel Glucina have been involved in, they're simply not trustworthy.

The Herald needs to rebrand themselves and distance themselves from Slater if they're to be taken seriously.  The paper needs to regain the trust of the public by completely overhauling their image, staff and practices.

Dirty Politics - Overall conclusion

Nicky Hager basically set the scene in the book by saying that the reason why Slater has been able to executive these stings on his enemies is quite simply because of the low standards within NZ newsrooms.  Instead of reading the book cover to cover and focusing on the poor reporting, the corruption, Cameron Slater's outright lies, they just focused on the dirty tactics MPs have used, and honestly, there's actually no story there.

The real story is that Cameron Slater lies, manipulates, deceives and if he doesn't like you, you'd better watch out because he will go after you.

Despite the High Court ruling today, based on the book, Cameron Slater is not a journalist, he's not even a blogger, putting it nicely he's a spin doctor and PR expert.  A true journalist doesn't lie.  A true journalist actually researches the issue.  A true journalist cares about what's happening and the fact of the matter is, Slater doesn't care about anyone other than Cameron Slater.  In that regard he is as bad as Kim Dot Com, whom he says he has dirt on which he will reveal before the election.

The sad part is, as Nicky Hager says, the issues with NZ's media won't change because they simply don't care enough and those who do care are shut out of it, yet a destructive person like Slater is encouraged by the likes of Paddy Gower, whom he is close friends with.

Dirty Politics - Chapter 12 - The Smiling Assassin

The final chapter of Nicky Hager's latest offering, Dirty Politics continues talking about Prime Minister John Key.

This focuses more on the recent Donghau Liu and Labour Party donation/meeting "scandal" which saw Morris Williamson resign from his relatively safe seat of Pakuranga at the end of the existing term. 

Hager starts the chapter by implying that this may not have been one of Slater's stings, and that it may have been Jason Ede who worked very closely with the Prime Minister.  The real point he tries to make is that dirty tactics and stories can be manufactured by anyone and it's hard to know what is real and want isn't.  Of course, because the NZ media is notoriously bad for investigating, they tend to take what's said and believe it, which is incredibly naive.

The disturbing fact, and all of it is disturbing, is, as Hager points out, revelations such as these, instead of motivating people to get involved in politics, they actually do the opposite and discourage people, but the only way to stop tactics and vindictive people like Slater is to stop treating them with credibility because they have none, in all honesty, yet, presumably because he's worried about his reputation, John Key relies on him more closely now.

Dirty Politics - Chapter 11 - John Key & A Member of the Public

By the time 2014 rolled around, several powerful MPs had used the services of Slater to their advantage.  This year it was the Prime Minister John Key's turn.  And this time Slater went in with a new ironic angle and that was to target the honesty of longstanding MPs like NZ First's Winston Peters.  If you recall I previously blogged about Slater's dishonesty and previous communications with the New Zealand Herald's Rachel Glucina whom he asked to fabricate stories.  A true journalist wouldn't fabricate stories.  A true journalist would want to get the truth and only report on that.

It appears as if the right in NZ has lost faith in themselves and think they can only win by sabotaging their opponents rather than by convincing people they have better policy and rather than through honest methods.  Then again, you look at the 2002 election in NZ when Bill English was leader of the National Party, a very honest man of integrity who led National to the worst defeat they've suffered, much like David Cunliffe is doing this year with the Labour Party.

Slater's technique is to lie and make up stories, and because, like he and his associates have said, because the NZ media doesn't investigate further for source validity, they lap it up and he gets away with it, so these smear campaigns gather weight they otherwise wouldn't have.  In a way, Slater has been able to capitalise on the ignorance and laziness of the mainstream media in NZ.  That is how he was able to damage Len Brown's reputation and how he was able to destroy Bevan Chuang amongst others.  The sad part is, Slater gets kicks from doing so.  And although Key didn't orchestrate the smear campaigns he didn't say no.  Key's a smart man so in his case it might have simply been a case of keeping his friends close and his enemies even closer.  I don't think anyone would want to get on Slater's bad side given what's been reported in the book.

As Hager points out, through his thorough investigations, which take years, the mainstream media in New Zealand has been a victim of wanting to be first with the story and of Slater's manipulative games yet even today they continue to lap it up.  An example of this is a report on Fairfax' stuff.co.nz website today which says that the High Court ruled Cameron Slater is a journalist.  Had they looked at the evidence in the Nicky Hager book and investigated it, they would actually come to the conclusion that Slater is not a journalist, nor is he a blogger, at best he is a PR Expert/Spin Doctor.  Slater has also manipulated photographs and then lied about what the headline is.  A true journalist knows you NEVER lie about a story, exaggerate and embellish for sensationalism purposes, but not outright lie which is what Slater does to increase traffic on his site.

Dirty Politics - Chapter 10 - Sex Scandal

This chapter focuses on local body politics.  This is where the sex scandal involving Auckland Mayor Len Brown and Bevan Chuang comes into play.  For some reason Cameron Slater felt it was his duty to take down any left wing politician at a local body level.  In other words Slater wanted to "take down the left".  That doesn't sound like someone who truly cares about local issues.  That's someone who just wants to win at all costs.  It's more obvious with each chapter I read that Slater has bad blood because of the way his father, John Slater was dumped as president of the National Party.  It seems that he just has an axe to grind and a vendetta.

Again, Bevan Chuang was used as a pawn in Slater's game and she got caught in the crossfire which damaged her reputation.  Slater is a sick individual who needs psychiatric help.  It is as though Slater doesn't care about the women he harms in these malicious attacks on his male enemies, just destroying the men at any chance he has, and his preferred method is sex scandal.  I now wonder if he was involved in Don Brash' downfall in National - if he was involved in the leaking of Brash' affair back in 2008.  Last year, Chuang was used by Wewege and Slater for their own selfish game and dirty tactics.  They have no respect for women.  They also don't respect Asians.  That was a key point.  The idea before the story came to light was to create and manufacture a story from thin air.

Before the 2013 Auckland mayoral election instead of focusing on policy and focusing on doing a better job for members of the Auckland public, Slater, Bhatnagar and Wewege just wanted to sabotage Brown.  The tactics they used are worse than bullying, and they aren't even spin doctoring, the bottom line is that they're malicious and demented individuals who only care about themselves.  Someone who cared about Auckland would focus on what Brown was going to do that would do the city harm - like the city rail link or all the store closures on Auckland's Queen Street.  Someone who had actual credibility wouldn't need to use dirty tactics. 

As Hager says in this book, Slater has selective morality.  I think that is putting it nicely given all the evidence stacked against him in the book.  The evidence against Slater is that he is a sociopath and although the book doesn't say this, my National Party insiders have confirmed that they believe Slater is a sociopath and that the National Party is trying to distance themselves, that Judith Collins was caught in the crossfire.  They have also confirmed Slater's mental health issues, and drug abuse.

According to this chapter nobody is safe from Slater's attacks, the bottom line is, if he doesn't like you, you'd better watch out because he'll try and dig sexual dirt on you that he can later blackmail you with and that does extend to Act's John Boscawen and even Radio Live's Duncan Garner.  Regardless of how we feel about what people do with their sex lives, it's none of our business and only a sick individual would think it is.  Even the Taxpayer Union's Jordan Williams has been involved in this web of deception editing the Wikipedia page of certain Labour MPs and helping Slater.  It appears as though some help Slater to protect themselves.  Slater and Farrar were involved in getting the women in the Young Nats drunk so they would reveal dirt on people's sex lives, presumably that Slater could use at a later date when he needed it.

Dirty Politics - Chapters 8/9 - Chaos & Mayhem/The Many Hats of David Farrar

Chapter 8 starts by indicating, as I've already indicated, sabotaging people and businesses, mainly those on a left is a sick game for Cameron Slater and his associates like Cathy Odgers.  All they care about is themselves.  It's very apparent on the first page of chapter 8 that they don't actually truly care about New Zealand at all.

It also appears as if they want to incite violence, including at Nicky Hager before this book had even been completed.  Commentator Matthew Hooton is involved here too.  What happened to fighting a competition the legitimate and honest way?  How can these people claim to be tough on crime and favouring a right wing party with a tough on crime stance when they want their enemies to be physically harmed? 

The police need to do something about this and they ALL need to be held accountable.

Further information is given in chapter 8 about the corrupt activities of Cameron Slater and his Whale Oil blog isn't designed to inform.  It's intended to act as a propaganda machine for big tobacco, big corporations and the like, the very thing true journalism is supposed to be against.  True journalism is supposed to uncover truths that people don't want to hear about that make us uncomfortable and I'm really uncomfortable reading what I'm reading and writing about it, but it's the truth as told by Nicky Hager.

At best Cameron Slater is a public relations expert, worse case scenario and what I think is most likely, he's a criminal.

David Farrar is earning his money the same way as Cam Slater.  He's being paid by big corporations to blog, and appear independent but he's not in the least bit independent.  Truly independent blogs are uncomfortable to read and often go into further detail.  Truly independent blogs seek to tell the truth and truly honest people will often fight adversity because people can't handle the truth.

Kiwiblog is run just as unethically as Whale Oil, carefully constructed PR articles, with the author's name changed, that's not journalism.  It's insulting to jouranlism that NZ's MSM hasn't focused on these issues.

The irony is that chapter nine has the following quote:

'Reporters are lazy and under-informed.  It is your job to inform them with your information.  Therefore high profile blogs can establish "what is going on".

As much as I hate what is said here, it's absolutely true, the majority of New Zealand reporters ARE lazy and that is why Cameron Slater and David Farrar have been able to get away with what they've been doing for so long - acting as puppets for those with an agenda.  The New Zealand media has allowed them to get away with this, and by still not holding them accountable, they're still doing that.  The real villians as per my previous blogs are the bloggers and the Broadcasting Minister Craig Foss who needs to investigate the role of blogs in the digital age.  I would expect Paddy Gower and Duncan Garner to delve into the issues.  I may not like them, but I still have faith in Garner to hold bloggers accountable and delve into the story.  As a journalist, Garner should be just as appalled as I am from the contents of the book.

It gets worse.  David Farrar's Curia Market Research operates outside of National Party HQ in Wellington - in short, they're not an independent market research company.  David Farrar works for the National Party and any polling results he publishes are done by the National Party.  Is David Farrar on the National Party payroll?  I'm not 100% sure of that.  The book doesn't say.  The Market Research Association of NZ would be very interested in auditing the results.  The methods applied by Curia Market Research/David Farrar are not consistent with industry standards.

Dirty Politics - Chapter 7 - Cash for Comment

If you didn't already think Cameron Slater was a phoney before, it's even more obvious now that he is.  The majority of his blogs are written by Carrick Graham, and Slater simply puts his name to them and gets paid about $6500 a month for around one hours work.

Yet today the High Court ruled Cam Slater a journalist.  Sorry, copying and pasting is not journalism.  One has to assume that the High Court Judge has not read or researched the matter, nor have the lawyers involved in the case.  Being labelled a journalist for copying and pasting articles that aren't even his is a new low for journalism in New Zealand but about right given the activities of the New Zealand mainstream media.

In his blog, Slater claims to have been given information under the OIA but the reality of the situation is he is being fed information from his corporate associates. 

Slater is a phoney and a fraud.

Journalism standards in NZ are appalling too.  The NZ Food and Grocery Council fed both Cam Slater and Matty McClean stories, which were press releases and then they put their name to them.  Basically the NZ media aren't going out finding stories.  They are acting as puppets for corporations and not interested in true journalism.

Dirty Politics - Chapter 6 - El Rushbo of Aotearoa

Last year there was a major controversy after Cam Slater revealed on his Whale Oil blog that Auckland mayoral incumbent Len Brown had slept with Bevan Chaung, also involved in local body politics.  Getting sex stories was Slater's tactic, also shared with Lusk.

When the Act Party was choosing between Don Brash and Rodney Hide, Slater suggested:

'Cam,' he wrote, 'we can fuck up rodney'.  He had heard about Hide sending some inappropriate text messages to a young woman: 'Jordan is talking to a girl that rodney had been sending dodgy texts to.  Slater was instantly interested. 'Get the txts,' he wrote back. 'I can get them to Jonathan Marshall, just the sort of grubby shit he would be into'.

The real issue here is Cam Slater and Simon Lusk's obvious disrespect for women.  It seems that all they care about was using women to sabotage their opponents.  It makes you feel sorry for Chaung for what happened after the Len Brown affair last year.  It makes you wonder why women in the National Party put up with this disgusting sexist behaviour, which is sociopathic. 

Again, it's one thing to want to win and beat your opponent, it's another to use women in the crossfire and as a woman, an intelligent woman I'm really offended and disgusted that a) the National Party associates with such criminals and b) that someone, in this day and age thinks so low of women that they're just a pawn in his sick demented twisted game.  It is incredibly disrespectful to bring what goes on in a private relationship into politics.  What goes on in private is NONE of our business, this however is our business because it shows the sociopathic behaviour of Cam Slater and Simon Lusk.

I'm also disgusted that the mainstream media in NZ admires Cam Slater and hasn't held him accountable for his criminal behaviour. 

Dirty Politics - Chapter 5 - Simon Lusk's Plan

Simon Lusk who was very familiar with American politics wanted to bring some of the tactics used in America to New Zealand.  The plan was to get young right wingers involved in politics and because right wingers have more money, it would be much easier to spread the message.  Part of this relied on the number of right wing blogs in New Zealand and the fact that New Zealand journalists tend to rely on blogs for information.

I have to laugh here because this actually shows that the right wing is manipulating the New Zealand mainstream media who don't know how to do proper journalism.  The fact they didn't delve into the book in this much detail is just one example from a long list, but that's not what I'm here to discuss today, this chapter is really about Simon Lusk, an party strategist relying on the stupidity and poor journalistic standards of the New Zealand media.

The discussions between Slater and Lusk are somewhat disturbing.  They don't care about the country, all they actually care about is, is, "fucking up the left" and sabotaging their enemies.  The pair have no ethics at all, and why the National Party would associate with such vindictive nasty people is actually beyond me.  It's one thing to want to win, but it's another to play fair and another to fight dirty and that's what Slater does.  He doesn't have a moral bone in his body.

They turned their attention to Rodney and Slater blogged about the unethical behaviour of Brent Robinson, well that's rich based on the previous five chapters, all that springs to mind is, pot kettle black.  Slater is known for trying to reveal truthful and honest information but in this chapter it becomes clear that a significant number of his political posts are actually made up lies intended to suit his own agenda.  How he was labelled a journalist today by the NZ High Court is confusing given he doesn't report facts, just manufactures them and manipulates his associates to do what he wants.  Lusk is of a similar breed telling Slater he "gets off on wrecking people and gets a major buzz, and I've done it three times".

Dirty Politics - Chapters 3 - 4 - Straight from the Beehive/The Crusher & the Attack Dog

By the time chapter 3 rolls around it's no surprise that Cameron Slater and his associates like Catcus Kate/Cathy Odgers attack their political opponents by using malicious methods.  They have no qualms about acting unethically where winning is concerned.  Their philosophy might as well be "win at all costs" and "sabotage at all costs".

Chapter 4 starts how the previous ones have left off, nothing about honesty or integrity.  All Slater cares about is his readership ratings.  That's not what true journalism is about.  True journalism, as I've said in my previous posts about the book is about informing and engaging the public.  It's not a contest of who is better.  Or at least it shouldn't be, and this is a major issue with the majority of the mainstream media in New Zealand.  Australian media is significantly better and more ethical.

Cam Slater and former Justice Minister Judith Collins are portrayed in chapter 4 as vindictive and there's a difference between wanting to win, and being outright vindictive and sabotaging opponents, they fall into the latter category.  We're talking editing Wikipedia pages to suit, replacing bad information with good information and influencing what's out there about them.

The bottom line is Slater and Collins are not just using attack politics.  They're using smear campaigns, dirty tactics, bullying, sabotage and the language in some of their conversations is disturbing and not what you would expect from the now (former) Minister of Justice.  You would expect some level of ethics in public and private.  Collins showed neither in her interactions with Slater.

It also appears from this chapter that former Collins was involved in the ACC leak involving Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag. 

This just gets more and more demented, twisted and tacky politics.

Dirty Politics - Chapter 2 - The PM's Black Ops Man

This chapter paints Cameron Slater in a worse light than the previous one.  He worked with National Party activist Aaron Bhatnagar to hack into the Labour Party's donor list and then to release the information.  Does anyone remember the News of the World controversy in which hacking wasn't looked upon favourably?  Well, this is on the same scale.

It's actually worse to be honest.  Cameron Slater and Aaron Bhatnagar are maliciously targeting the Labour Party.  It is one thing to fight for the party you support.  It is another to openly try to sabotage them through corrupt means.  And that's what Slater and Bhatnagar were trying to do.

The worst thing about all of this isn't so much that they were hacking, though thought's pretty bad.  The worst thing is they were pleased with themselves and didn't see anything wrong with this on an ethical level.  The worst thing is that they were proud of themselves and the worst thing is that Slater is close friends with the now, former, Justice Minister Judith Collins. 

To lay it out for you, Bhatnagar and Slater are criminals who have obtained information that isn't theirs through criminal means and I don't know about you, but I don't look too kindly upon that and Slater must be investigated by the police and possibly fined or even receive a light jail sentence.

The other bad part of this mess is that the New Zealand media hasn't gone into specific details about what's in the book and so the public, while they're rightfully disgusted, they're not disgusted at the right people, and the last thing the media in NZ should be doing is cosying up to a criminal, but then again, they've got a record in doing that - Kim Dot Com and now Cameron Slater.  It seems to be in the good books of the NZ media you have to be a criminal.

Further blogs to come as I get further into the book.

Dirty Politics - Chapter 1 - The Rise Of The Bloggers

I've been a little slow to blog about Dirty Politics because I didn't want to comment on a book that I hadn't yet read.  It wouldn't have been right.  The book arrived today and I am one chapter in having read the chapter, "The Rise of the Bloggers".  To summarise, the chapter talks about Whale Oil/Cameron Slater's relationship with the National Party and the dirty tactics he uses against the left.

I'm pretty liberal on most things that go on behind the scenes having studied politics at university (a paper titled Political Marketing, one called Political Content of Television and another entitled Media Opinion and Propaganda) but there is one excerpt that disturbs me.

"Two days before the dinner, for instance, Slater wrote to New Zealand Herald gossip columnist Rachel Glucina, urging her to try to smear businessman Owen Glenn, who donated money to the Labour Party: 'You should dig out some girl stories about Owen Gleen, either who he was/has shagged or tried to get in the sack'. And, he urged, 'if you can't find any then make it up....."

There are two things that I'm disturbed about here:

1. Cameron Slater who has been fighting to be labelled a journalist and criticises the New Zealand Herald publicly encouraged gossip columnist Rachel Glucina to make up a story.
2. He appears to be unhealthily obsessed with dragging out the sex lives of politicians which has nothing to do with politics at all.  People meet others.  It is natural that they'll get involved with people in their circle.

What this indicates to me is that Slater cares more about bullying, although that is too kind to him, he's vindictive and wants to achieve victory at all costs and make a name for himself regardless of who he hurts along the way. 

This chapter really throws into questions about journalism ethics in New Zealand.  I've been saying it for years that the NZ 'journalists' have no integrity and this chapter just adds weight to that.  Why isn't journalism in New Zealand being investigated?  It is more corrupt than I'd previously thought and I'm really ashamed that the NZ journalists get away with this type of behaviour.  That's not what journalism is about - it's not a tit for tat scenario.  True journalism is supposed to inform and help people, not seek out to destroy reputations.

Reaction to the Pistorius verdict

What is there to say about the Oscar Pistorius verdict?  It's a case that's divided public opinion.  Some say he was guilty and some say not guilty.  In this case the only person whose opinion matters is Judge Thokozile Masipa who cleared him of both the charge of murder and premeditated murder.  He may still be found guilty of the manslaughter of Reeva Steenkamp however even if that is the case his sentence is likely to be very lenient. 

It's already being described as this generation's OJ Simpson case.

The case was built solely on circumstantial evidence. and because we don't know everything that happened that night, only Pistorius does, we can never truly know if he was innocent or guilty, so there's only really one question to ask.

Would Pistorius have been found guilty if he hadn't overcome adversity to become an Olympian or if he was an average person on the street?  That's what we really should be asking, does the world media and public go easier on those who we hold in higher esteem?  Really, in all honesty, sportspeople are just regular people who succeeded at reaching their goals.  They just had the passion and drive to do so. And were willing to take the risk to reach their goal.  I don't think that makes someone more or less special and even if the judge denies it, Pistorius' career success would have been, even if only subconsciously, taken into consideration when delivering the verdict.  That's just the reality of the situation.

My personal opinion:  I would have found Pistorius not guilty of murder too.  Manslaughter, hmmm, not so sure on that one.

Big Brother: The Highlights So Far

I have to apologise to you in advance but over the next three months I will be frequently blogging about Big Brother.  It's not my usual blog style, but it's one reality TV show that is absolutely worth the investment of time.  It's like a soap opera that's real without a script, although it's loosely scripted of course because of the personality types.

So basically we've now met all the contestants.  Nothing stands out about the four that were introduced on Tuesday night. 

The other highlights since are Skye and Gemma having a mini falling out because she said that Skye was as deep as a paddling pool.  I think a paddling pool would actually be deeper than Skye.  Those on social media have jumped to Skye's defence saying we shouldn't judge her but she chose to go on Big Brother knowing full well that people would judge, although given her lack of intelligence, maybe she didn't know and she's the one who knew people would quickly form opinions by saying she hated "that politics" thing and that was the point at which she lost me, though I do like her fashion sense.  It's probably the only thing I like about her but it wouldn't be enough for me to keep interested in watching her.  I'd vote her out immediately if I was in the house and if viewers have any say she'll be the first one I want to go. 

Another highlight according to Channel 9 is Jason's coming out story.  He's the real estate agent from Canberra and told a sob story about how his family don't want to know his partner.  Really?  Who cares?!  This is 2014, who actually cares what he is.  It's kind of a non event to me, and who cares that his family hasn't met his partner (other than his dad).  Relationships are between two people and two people only, the two people in them.  It's such a non event that he's gay.

It also turns out that heads of house Katie and Priya took the $10,000 each that Big Brother offered them meaning that the house is on a diet of meal replacement shakes for the week.  I'd have done the exact same myself and some people drink meal replacement shakes for free as a way to lose weight.  Plus regardless of what happens now, Katie and Priya have each won $10,000.

Getting back to Skye, Channel 9 has listed the seven moments we're in love with her and it's total rubbish, not all of us are in love with her, and it has nothing to do with her hair colour.  It's because she is incredibly thick and it's hard to watch someone that genuinely dumb who doesn't realise that at the end of it people will be laughing at her.  Unfortunately because she's a dumb bimbo the media will latch onto her, because women aren't allowed to be smart in the media.  Just look at the reporting of Kate's pregnancy, today there was a story about how she wants a third baby by the time she is 35, what about featuring stories about women who don't want children, who want a career more than babies?  Where are these stories?  Are women not allowed to have ambitions beyond nappy changing and staying at home?

What Kim Dot Com is really disclosing on Monday.

So tonight's another leaders debate but what I really want to talk about is the big reveal happening on Monday night.

You see, the Civillian Party's Ben Uffindell wanted to keep this under wraps until, well, he hoped it would never come out.  He's actually the love child of Kim Dotcom and a mystery woman, well I've been investigating and it would seem his mother is Bronagh Key but John wanted the one indiscretion Bronagh had to be secret, hence his last name, and the reason why Mona, Kim's ex wife has been photographed with Max Key is that they're brother and sister.  Mona is Max's half sister from a pay back affair John had.  

This is really what Kim Dotcom is going to reveal and he's just saying it's about Hollywood because the scenario has all the makings of a Hollywood movie.   Key had never been keen on his family entering politics and wanted to shield them from the public eye.  So yes, now you know, no need to pay Kim Dot Com anymore attention.

Disclaimer: this is satire and the actual truth should be treated with a grain of salt, better yet, KDC should fade into oblivion and not be given any further media headlines.

The obligatory Aussie Big Brother 2014 launch blog

So Big Brother started last night with the pregnant Sonia Kruger hosting.  We met 12 of the 16 contestants.  We meet the other four tonight.

Katie and Priya are heads of the house and were given the choice to each take $10,000 immediately and the house no food for a week, relying on shakes instead (I'd do that for $10,000) but they chose to feed the house which is crazy.

Skye is your typical blonde bimbo from the Gold Coast who paired up with the similar but smarter Lisa.  Already Skye has polarised people and she hates 'that politics thing'.  She's only in because of her looks.  I hated her as soon as she opened her mouth.

Dion is a gym freak and also polarising.  He's very opinionated and a cool guy.  He'll annoy housemates and the public who are lazy and not obsessed with fitness.

Sandra works in an underwear store in Wagga Wagga.  She's 30 and seems like good value.

Jason is from Canbera and he's a real estate agent.  He is smart and good looking but has a girlfriend on the outside.

Dave seems cool.  He needs to ditch his goatee though.

More to come after tonight's episode and as the series progresses but these are my faves so far.

National's tax cuts - the policy was accounted for in 2008

I'll keep this blog short.  National promised a tax package in 2008.  It would be introduced in three phases, one of which would be 2011 and the other 2013.  The tax cuts in 2013 never happened and now that it is election time, National is trying to make an old policy, delivered one year late, look like a new policy.

Well, I support these tax cuts, it is not a new policy.  National is, for want of a better phrase, reminding people of a policy that was already locked down back in 2008.

Well unluckily for them some people don't forget.  I wonder if this is why 52% of those polled by TV3 are opposed to tax cuts, because they knew they were already happening and are being delivered a year late.

If however people have genuinely forgotten and are opposed to tax cuts then that makes no sense.  The tax cuts would see people with an extra $20 in their pocket per week, or $1000, which could improve people's bottom line if they used the extra money wisely by putting it into savings or their mortgage repayments, or saving and then investing it later on.

Doing night fill in a supermarket isn't something to aspire to like NZ papers would have you believe. Stay in school and get an education

Stuff.co.nz seems hell bent on running a series on poverty and how people are so incredibly hard done by.  Today I'm referring to a story about Aroha Ireland.  She is from Mount Albert's McGehan Close which prior to 2007 had been labelled a street of hopelessness.  Anyone who knows Auckland's Mount Albert knows it actually isn't a bad area.  It's no Remuera, but it's fairly central in Auckland and nothing like south Auckland.  Mount Albert is close to the more affluent Mount Eden and the student suburb of Kingsland.  How Mount Albert has a bad reputation is beyond me to be honest.

Anyway, in 2007 Aroha Ireland met Prime Minister John Key as she was from McGehan Close which had been described as a street of hopelessness.  At the time Aroha was 12 years old.  She is now 20.  Since then she has moved to Australia, obtained a job packing shelves at Coles and there has been no indication that she finished her education, with Stuff.co.nz and the New Zealand Herald reporting that she had been expelled from school at 16.  Her mother was a beneficiary who had a brief stint working National MP Jackie Blue following the meeting.  No reason has been given publicly as to why that position was terminated, only that she was made redundant.

Aroha is now living in Melbourne and claims to be paying $265 per week with her husband.  To get that price you would need to live at least 50 kilometers away from Melbourne's CBD, closer to Gippsland according to a quick rental search on Domain.com.au, that would be the Sydney equivalent of living in Penrith or the Auckland equivalent of living in Pukekohe and travelling to the city.  The average weekly income in Victoria's Pakenham is around $1200, with the average personal income being around $600.  That is low by Australian standards given the low end of a full time individual's wage is $1000 per week in the city, and significantly higher in the mines, but bare in mind with mining, it is FIFO work, so some weeks you may make $3000 but others you could make no work.  Basically to be paying $265, Aroha and her husband are living in a poor area, one that is probably worse than Mount Albert.

Aroha claims to make $38 in a supermarket warehouse.  Minimum wage in Australia is $16.87 per hour and according to the NSW Government's Coles wage sheet the average night fill wage for a Coles staffer is $40 per hour.  Looking at Victorian wages specifically for Coles, the wage at the high end would be $32.69 per hour based on a salary of $68,000, however, another website shows the average wage at Coles is around $20 per hour, so in order to get $40 per hour, Aroha is doing nightfill.

HOWEVER, although Aroha is making good money, and there is no disputing that, she has no education and no formal qualification.  What this means is that if there is an economic downturn and she finds herself out of a job it will not be easy for her to get another job, like it would be for someone with an education.  The other issue is that when she has children they won't be growing up in poverty like she did, BUT they will grow up with uneducated parents which will increase their likelihood of being in poverty.  If you read the Stuff.co.nz article you'll see that she had trouble stringing together simple sentences.  It's like when New Zealand papers suggest that working in a call centre is something to aspire to.  The feeling I got from the article Stuff.co.nz published today about Ireland was that doing nightfill (though not explicitly said) was a long term option for her, and that is because she lacks an education.  That is why there were no opportunities for her in NZ.  And here she has no other options because she didn't finish school.

The other big problem with the article is that Stuff.co.nz has written it as though doing a night fill job - stacking shelves is something to aspire to, and that is absolute hilarity.  It's no wonder kids in New Zealand and Australia struggle to construct sentences in which they must argue a point (recent NAPLAN controversy) and that some children in New Zealand do not have basic verbal skills, when you consider that the newspapers, online or print, promote, unskilled jobs.

It's one thing to be struggling and educated, it's another to be a struggling uneducated whinger, and they seem to be the loudest people.

I'm sorry but Aroha Ireland is not doing better than she would in NZ.  The only difference is, wages here in Australia are higher so uneducated people who would be on the scrap heap in NZ can get jobs that they wouldn't be able to in New Zealand.  And the main message, if you really want to have a good future with good prospects, and choices, stay in school and go to university, do an apprenticeship etc, because in economic downturns the first people who will struggle to find jobs are those without transferable skills.  She is one such person.

The best way to get out of poverty is through better financial decisions, not increased welfare - it's not the amount of money you have, it's what you do with it that counts

It seems that nearly every day we read an article about child poverty and every day that article is from an apologist who says that wages are the problem (in the New Zealand media) or that the Newstart pension needs to increase (in Australia, ACOSS says this).  This is a naive view to hold.

Poverty isn't caused by the amount of money you have.  If it was then why was New Zealand Prime Minister John Key able to get himself out of poverty?  I'll tell you why.  It's because despite being in poverty his mother didn't let him drop out of school despite him having a moment during high school where he wanted to.  He ended up going on to university and became a successful currency trader despite coming from the type of background where you wouldn't expect that because the family didn't have much money.  Prime Minister John Key wanted a better life for himself and now he is a multi millionaire.  Then there is Social Development Minister Paula Bennett.  She was a solo mother but she pulled herself out of that mess and now she is a successful MP in New Zealand's parliament.  In Australia let's look to the founder of Westfield, Frank Lowy.  He originally came by boat as a refugee with nothing to escape the holocaust and now he's one of Australia's wealthiest men.  That's because of decisions that his parents made.  Had he remained in Europe he may not have made billions of dollars or founded the biggest Australasian shopping centre, but he decided not to let his early upbringing determine his future.  He made proactive decisions.

Closer to home, in Australia the Australian Council of Social Services and the Victorian Council of Social Services along with various other charities argue that the Newstart pension should increase by $50 a week.  They say that people are trapped in a cycle of poverty.  This is completely untrue.  Australia is a good country and primary education is free, as is secondary education and people have access to HECS to go to university.  It is similar in New Zealand with access to the student loan scheme through Studylink.  Regardless of your financial position or upbringing you do not have to have access to funds immediately.  In New Zealand you start paying your loan back for every dollar earned over $19,085 and in Australia it is around $50,000.  This means you can get your education today and not need to worry about paying it back until you're in a financial position where you are able to.

The Australian economy, despite reports in the mostly left wing media, is booming which means that there really are jobs for those who are truly willing to work, and wages are high enough that you can maintain a work life balance so you could have a job just to pay the bills while you look for a job in your field and you could volunteer for free to get your experience up so that you are more employable when the jobs in your field are available.  Those who are educated will always get jobs over those who aren't, and because education is available to everyone, there is no excuse for not getting an adequate education, other than making bad decisions.  

I've had numerous arguments on Facebook and Twitter with several of my friends and followers agreeing with protesters in New Zealand that minimum wage is the problem and why people are in poverty.  What they fail to say in the arguments is that if wages go up so too does the cost of doing business, which means prices will go up and therefore the wage increase will immediately be negated.  Minimum wage is not supposed to be long term.  It's only supposed to be temporary, something that those on the left side of politics never say.  Unionism is also to blame for wages not increasing, they prohibit person a getting an increase despite the fact they may be doing a better job than person b.  this is because person b will have a whinge that they're hard done by rather than working harder therefore it just isn't worth it and employers don't increase wages.

There is also a greater issue at play here and that is how people are managing their finances.  Stuff.co.nz reported earlier this week the story of Ofa Ta'ufo'ou who, with his wife had a combined income of $2000 a fortnight.  Apparently that was too low.  I worked out a budget with people on Facebook, and we came to the conclusion that he was bad with money and that the problem was not actually his income, that if he managed his money better then he wouldn't be struggling.

It's not the amount of money you get that determines your ability to save, it's your budgeting and for the most part, those who are living in supposed poverty badly need budgeting advice, not an extra $50 a week.  To put it into real terms, at the moment my income is lower than it's been earlier this year, but I'm actually getting ahead.  It should be the opposite based on what the poverty apologists say.  Apparently the more money you have the better off you have, but when you have more money you actually get lured into a false sense of security and waste money on things you don't need.  For example, earlier this year my income was just over double what I'm getting now, yet now I'm budgeting my money better.

It would actually be better if Governments, instead of giving further handouts gave people budgeting advice so they can better manage the small amount that they have and so they can get ahead.  That's the only productive action that will truly lead to the eradication of poverty, not further handouts.  All further handouts do is limit people because instead of having to make better decisions they don't bother to work hard because the welfare system is there, but with no welfare system people are forced to work harder and they're forced to take control of their futures.  In a nutshell it's a survival of the fittest rather than giving up because the safety net is there.

And on the issue of a safety net, to a degree a minimum wage is a safety net that does more harm than good.  Minimum wages actually restrict those who work harder because instead of getting the pay increase they deserve based on personal merit, those at the bottom whinge that they're being hard done by so companies can't reward hard work.  Minimum wages are only good for those at the very bottom of the ladder, not those who go the extra mile.

Basically the bottom line that the left fails to realise is that you get out what you put in and if you work very hard and make good decisions, like instead of using a tax refund on a holiday for example, using it on investments and cutting debt you'll be better off in the long term than the person who squandered it on something they don't need.  The mainstream media doesn't help teach people what they should and shouldn't do.  The new iPhone 6 is coming out in a couple of weeks time and today the Sydney Morning Herald actually encouraged people to get into debt for the phone, rather than suggesting saving for it.  Have we become so reliant on credit and want things now that we would rather get into debt which actually costs us more in the long run?  Interest is dead money,.  It's no wonder the economy went through a downturn in 2008 with the reliance on credit and not using the money we have wisely.

What MMP is really about - please please please consider your vote wisely and when voting ask "who do I want National or Labour to work with after the election?"

As the New Zealand election is nearing and being held in 15 days I feel it is vitally important to discuss MMP and what it is about.

MMP is mixed member proportion.  What that means is that instead of having an FPP system like Australia, where it's the Liberals or the Australian Labor Party, New Zealand has a system which gives people two votes.  One of those votes is for the party and the other is for the electorate candidate in the area in which you live.

The aim of MMP is to force the major parties, in New Zealand's case, National and Labour, to work with minor parties like Act, United Future, Mana, the Greens (which are a major minor party) or NZ First etc.  The purpose of working with multiple parties is so that the major parties do not have absolute power and are held accountable by minor parties.  It ensures that a range of views are represented, and not just one or two.  It ensures that the major parties are kept honest, and for the most part it's a very good system.

Where the system falls down is where people ONLY vote for the major party.  That absolutely defeats the purpose of MMP.  The idea of MMP is to give the major party a coalition partner - in National's case Act or New Zealand First and in the case of Labour, the Greens or Mana etc.  The idea is that you vote strategically.   Depending on your electorate you would give your electorate vote to a minor party and your party vote to the major party.  MMP was not introduced so that National or Labour can govern alone.  It was introduced to prevent that because when you have only Labour and National you only have one or two views being represented.

The other area where it falls down was seen in the 2011 Election where in an electorate like Mount Albert the party vote was split 50/50 (approximately) between National and Labour but the Labour candidate (David Shearer) won by the landslide.  That absolutely defeats the purpose of MMP and negates your vote because you're voting for two opposing sides.  It would be like playing a game of rugby and scoring points for both teams, that's just plain stupid.

It's amazing to think that after 20 years people still do not understand MMP.  The idea of MMP, and I cannot stress this enough to ensure that the major party has a coalition partner because if they don't they can do whatever they want and that is not the purpose of democracy.

Australia has FPP and they can't handle parties like the Greens and the Palmer United Party having some say over Government policy.  PUP is closely aligned with the Liberal Party and has the power to veto or support a particular policy.  The Australian public do not comprehend the concept of having coalitions and can't understand that minority interests actually do need to be represented to be truly democratic.

Once again, to reiterate, and I cannot stress this enough as I've said, the idea of MMP is to give the major party you support a coalition partner so that parties are forced to compromise on democracy, NOT to split your vote by going Labour and National or National and National or Labour and Labour.  Without minor parties there wouldn't be true democracy in New Zealand.

It is only two weeks until the General Election, please, please, please use your votes wisely and vote for a minor party and a major party, because that is actually the purpose of MMP - MIXED. MEMBER. PROPORTION.  Which means that a range of views and ideologies have their say in parliament, not just one or two which is what the OLD system NZ voted against (FPP) was about.

Joan Rivers' death

I hate writing about death and just a few weeks ago after Robin Williams' death and been reading articles about incredible celebs who were still going in their 80s.  Joan Rivers was one such celebrity.  She was an incredible comedian (yes I've spelt that correctly, I don't believe in using different labels for men and women in the same job) with a career spanning more than 50 years.

To think she died just a few weeks after fellow comedian Robin Williams is crazy.  

Yes Joan was 81 but she was a young 81 and the world will be a duller place without her, and her criticisms of Oscar dresses, which for the most part are hideous.

On the upside I'm sure she and Robin Williams are hosting some killer comedy nights in heaven.

Why the NZ Labour Party is crazy for suggesting the introduction of a Capital Gains Tax

Moving away from the Dirty politics debacle and Kim Dot Com saga, the biggest issues in this years New Zealand General Election are Kiwisaver and the Government's Kiwisaver scheme.

If Labour was to win the general election being held on the 20th of September they would introduce a capital gains tax.  The Capital Gains Tax would be introduced in an effort to stop property speculation which Labour leader David Cunliffe believes is the main reason people are unable to purchase homes.  Under Labour's policy proposal, only the family home would be excluded from the tax.  That means all investments including shares, term deposits, managed funds and property investments would be taxed if they made a capital gain.

New Zealand is one of the only countries in the OECD without a CGT and those on the left think the proposal has merit but this blog will attempt to explain why it is a terrible idea.

A Capital Gains Tax is generally introduced by countries in an effort to stem growth in particular areas - in this case the NZ housing market however as mentioned it would have undesirable consequences because New Zealanders are already terrible savers.  Nobody is going to invest in something if it's going to cost them money to do so and people will be less likely to take control of their financial futures.  

That is a major problem which would see the Government need to pick up the slack.  We're already seeing that with Kiwisaver which was originally introduced by former Labour Finance Minister Michael Cullen under Helen Clark.  Kiwisaver's original aim was to ensure that New Zealanders had enough money to fund their retirement however that isn't at all what's happened.  Kiwisaver is now, for want of a better phrase, a home deposit savings scheme.  Instead of being just for retirement, after being enrolled for five years people can withdraw the money invested and use it to purchase a home.  In addition to this, the Government will top up the money.  The problem with this is people in New Zealand are notoriously bad savers and providing what are essentially handouts as both a Labour and National want to do, will make the situation worse.  

A CGT will too.  People are already not saving or planning for their futures and given that terrible track record of saving the last thing people need are more barriers to planning for your financial future.  The problem is a capital gains tax will extend to all types of investments and if people aren't investing in their future they'll be so much more reliant on the state in retirement.  It isn't just people's retirements that will suffer.  What if they lose their job or for whatever other reason they are unable to work?  Why should the taxpayer foot the bill?  Why should those who DO plan for tomorrow be penalised?  And why should those who don't save continue to get a free ride with Kiwisaver and other government policies that just reinforce the handout mentality?

These are just some of the reasons why a CGT is a bad idea.  If anything, to promote planning for tomorrow, the government needs to cut taxes and increase the age at which you can get super so people are forced to take responsibility for their own lives.