That reads far too long, complicated and detailed for anyone to care about.
It needs to be clearly expressed in about 10 words. Preferably as a haiku.
The usual argument is that if you are paying rates to a council you should have a say in how those rates are set and how the money is spent.
Sometimes I've wondered if it'd make more sense to just levy rates directly on residents, instead of property owners, which would remove that minor ambiguity. It's typically the residents who fund the rates and other council-influenced expenses either directly or indirectly via their rents, anyway. Most owners' primary interest is about their property value, or possibly their future residency if they're letting out their home. For comparison of the latter scenario I don't get to vote for other other councils just because I intend to live there in future. I have to actually show up and reside there and have a direct stake in the place to have the right to vote. (Or buy a property and optionally stuff someone else into it, apparently.)
Really it seems to come down to how "we" want to do things. Where central government elections are concerned, we seem to be quite content with a system of people who live here getting priority. Unlike many other countries where citizenship is everything that matters for elections, NZ's requirement seem much more centered around residency and permanently (and legally) living here. Even to the extent that NZ citizens overseas can't vote unless they've demonstrated a commitment to visiting NZ within an election cycle.
Thanks. I invoice an agreed rate in NZD and they pay me in NZD so I'm not too fussed about exchange rates, as they're talking any hit from that. I have suggested they could use something alternative but they prefer to pay direct from their account to mine. I've used NZ Forex a few times to bring my own AUD across at much better rates.
I'm mostly miffed at why the bank on my side decides it needs to take $15 in exchange for getting more money to look after and invest in my account. Does the conversion get done on the receiving side and not the sending side? (I'm also miffed, as stated, about the lack of a clear record from ASB that it has actually taken $15, but that's another thing.)
is the ridiculously high margins they charge on foreign exchange deposits, much higher than other banks.
How much does Kiwibank charge?
Most of my present income comes from a company in Australia which I invoice. Every time they pay a monthly invoice, ASB takes NZ$15, which has always miffed me but it'd be a pain to change banks right now. It's being paid from Commonwealth Australia, which owns ASB and had close enough ties that money shows up almost immediately. It's hard to understand what justifies the charge.
An additional annoyance is that ASB provides no record on the statement that it's taken $15, so in the official record it always looks as if the client has paid me less than what I invoiced. I've raised this with the bank which predictably refused to care.
Also, from the Herald...
Further drama played out when Forbes was invited to take part in a discussion on the BSA decision on Media Take - a Maori Television show - and then was uninvited for reasons yet to be disclosed.
Which episode was this? I've lost track.
I'm confused. Was it Fairfax that made the request? It'd be helpful to know what it actually asked for and just how targeted the question was.
Meanwhile, section 16(2) of the OIA states that the agency should only make information available where it's not contrary to a legal duty of the organisation.
Is there not some kind of legal duty here on the part of Maori TV, where it's effectively defaming her character or alleging she committed a crime (without any process) with the release? That's a genuine question. I get that there's probably also a public interest aspect to this, but it's essentially an employment dispute with an individual employee, right?
That's really interesting, but I didn't quite follow the last few paragraphs. Is the implication meant to be that George Speight's coup was somehow connected to the publication of his article in Pacific Islands Monthly a month earlier? Or is he just noting the correlation in times for no particular reason?
It is just a sideshow. But maybe someone could tell up-and-coming legal dynamo Cameron Slater that New Zealand copyright law doesn't have a concept titled "fair use". (He probably means "fair dealing", which isn't exactly the same as the US fair use thing.)
Slater said the legal action was "just farcical". "That is only what I can fathom. He clearly doesn't understand copyright law, he clearly doesn't understand how media works, he clearly doesn't understand what fair use is.
I have mixed feelings about this thread being used for any and every generic gripe people have about the current government, of which I'm also in part guilty. I think it further confuses the understanding of what the Dirty Politics book was actually about, which went deeper than just governing badly.
I don’t think the TU is really the main problem. “Exposing” it would be of limited use because anyone who spends more than 10 minutes looking at it with a critical eye can already see what it is.
The bigger issue is with media that simply republishes stories that are clearly written for it instead of applying any measure of independence… which is the exact situation that the TU exists to take advantage of. If the TU were “exposed” to the point of no longer being in anyone’s interests to publish, let alone fully collaborate with it in ways like Fairfax has in the past, something would come along to replace it. Eg. It might be more helpful to support better revenue models for modern media than competing with Facebook shared corporate press releases and blogs by giving away cheaply produced material in exchange for advertising.
Well, its annual accounts (and society rules) can be downloaded from the Companies Office at http://www.societies.govt.nz/ (latest available is currently YE Dec 2014?), but it doesn't specify specifically where the money comes from. Someone else would have to answer if there's any way that could be extracted from it.
It is what it is, and the documentation is publicly visible to show what it is, at least to the point of making it clear that it's not transparent or clearly representative of anyone but a tiny, self-appointed handful of very specific lobbyists who control everything about it. I just wish it weren't repeatedly given attention and credit by others (esp media) as if it actually represented the masses of taxpayers it purports to when there's no clear evidence of that. It's probably too late for that, though. NZ's mediascape is so shallow that it's unlikely to go far to discredit itself by publicly criticising a source that's already been elevated so high. There's a huge incentive for journos to avoid slagging off their possible future (or current) employers, so it probably just has to be put up with.