Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, December 5th, 2025 - 48 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360906205/health-insurance-bill-outstrips-rates-car-house-and-contents-combined-says-retiree-kiwis-share-anger
Might be time for all theses rich whingers to accept a bit more tax and build a rock solid public health care system
Haven't you heard- tax is a dirty word that must never be said out loud in the context of paying more.
It's long past time for a 0.5-1% tax on everyone that is ring-fenced only for public health, with regular auditing to make sure that's what it's being used for. No doubt some will complain bitterly, but tough. I think the majority of the population are ready for it.
Re the ever increasing cost of private health….as with most problematic things, its always someone else' problem…until it's not. ( I note there are many more stories about this..)
And an interesting perspective….
Maybe I was just more..aware? But I certainly remember reading, literally decades ago, peoples complaints about the
shifting goal postpremium increase as their age bracket climbed into the payout zone.Why I have fought hard for our NZ Public Health..to remain Public !
+100 especially as it makes economic sense with our small population to have a public system.
It's just another public asset to then that they wanna strip mine.
Privatising public health services is very lucrative – for the usual sorted suspects 🙁
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/20/one-of-tories-biggest-ever-donors-frank-hester-profited-from-135m-of-nhs-contracts
https://corporatewatch.org/the-national-wealth-service-privatisation-profiteers/
The corporate MSM needs to stop being pussies and shills and start saying the "c" word – "corruption" out loud now.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/580561/charter-school-agency-reveals-enrolment-numbers-after-telling-schools-to-keep-figures-under-wraps
"…the Charter School Agency has revealed there are 427 students enrolled in the eight charter schools…''
53 kids per school.
"…Agency staff told the committee the schools' sponsors received $10.9 million in 2024/25 including $6.3m in one-off establishment funding, and $4.6m in operational funding…"
$25,000 per student, all of effectively a transfer of public money to ACT party cronies with zero transparency on how it is being spent.
No wonder all the right wing grifters are stampeding to try and set up charter schools!
Ol' Wily Winnie/NZFist…..and one of the conflict of Interest/donors. Seems he is indeed troublesome, which I, and others, had commented about the possible future problems, months back..
IKEA is apparently awesome. (meh, I dont get either the necessity OR the hype? I would much sooner buy from an OPshop or similar…)
Anyway, beyond the difficulties of
reef fishflat pack furniture purchasers car parking/traffic jam dilemmas, there was this.IKEA apparently doesnt have Fire Insurance. No, not for the flat packs….but the Pine forest blocks,.which they are heavily involved with…
The article is a big read. (with quite an Ag pushback on Forestry…I am primarily linking to IKEA and Fire Insurance)
So….Its too expensive, and we pay for your fire/emergency response? Hmmm…
A lot of large companies do the calculation and decide to 'carry their own insurance', as in suck it up and pay the bill when something goes wrong.
There is the small matter of the land owner avoiding Fire Service levies. But that's to do with the Levy being paid through insurance premiums. Which may not be the best way of financing the Fire Service as more properties, large and small, become uneconomic to insure, or are refused insurance.
No one is required to have fire insurance (or any insurance for that matter)
If you want to carry your own risk (both of your own loss and any loss caused to others, caused by your negligence – then that's a decision you can make.
We see it a lot with people who choose to drive their clapped out banger uninsured; knowing that the insurance premiums would be greater than the cost of the vehicle. Most are entirely unworried about any damage they cause – since they have no assets, they simply won't pay.
Try getting a home loan in NZ without insurance. This is just one example that disproves your false claim.
Once you own the home, there is no requirement for insurance.
And, indeed there are plenty of examples of insurance companies outright refusing to cover high risk properties.
https://lawnews.nz/property/buying-a-property-ensure-your-agreement-has-an-insurance-condition/
Perhaps you could provide the evidence which makes you believe otherwise.
A diversion, unclear, and potentially misleading. In any case, your claim was false, as one simple straightforward example (aka an inconvenient truth or fact) demonstrated.
Another diversion [from my single example].
Your quote must have come from somewhere else (AI?) because it didn’t appear in your link!?
I have no idea what you’re saying here other than trying to put the onus onto me (aka sealioning).
You have a bad habit of sounding as convincing as an AI bot but your claims often fail under only a little scrutiny.
I apologize for the formatting error – which attached part of my commentary to the quote (the, first sentence of which, does indeed appear in the link provided) – 4th paragraph.
How is it diversion, to challenge your example. And provide a counter example disproving it!
I might equally challenge you for diversion, in introducing house insurance – when I had been using the example of car insurance.
There *is* no legal requirement for insurance in NZ. Not fire. Not life. Not health. Not car. Not house. This is true both for individuals, and for companies (the source of the initial discussion)
The lack of insurance may make people's life difficult (as your buying a house example, points out) – but there is nothing in NZ law which says you have to have (and by extension, insurance companies have to provide), insurance.
If you believe this is a false claim (your words) – then provide your evidence.
You have a bad habit of attributing bad faith to just about any comment I make – as an initial reaction.. I note, with interest, that you did not challenge the comment from Graeme, who was saying much the same thing.
You made a claim and one example was enough to disprove it. You diverted from ‘getting a home loan’ to ‘once you own a home’, i.e., post-approval stage. What exactly do you mean with “once you own a home”? People who want to get a home loan require home insurance by the lender (e.g., the ‘big banks), so how have you disproved this??
Obviously, I chose an example of “any insurance” to disprove your general claim; the car insurance therefore was useless.
So, you moved the goal posts from requirement to legal requirement. How quaint! I suspect you won’t accept ACC as an example. And there are plenty of industry-specific requirements, based on a quick Google search.
Was he? Does he have the pattern behaviour as you too? How interesting indeed!
AKA Strawman.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360909983/school-centre-mouldy-food-incident-launches-internal-investigation
More lies from compass and arbuckle?
Yes it looks like Mr Arbuckle at MPI will regret coming down on Compass' side so soon, with so little information, too early.
Now that the school is getting lawyered up and and their evidence in a row, Compass, MPI and Seymour are going to look pretty stupid.
They will regret messing with that school principal.
Just to add that this Mr Arbuckle looks hopelessly compromised to me, can he be sacked next year when Seymour and Luxon are gone?
Re Mr Vincent Arbuckle. I dont know if anyone else knows of him..or his previous career positions, but there was this in relation to the NZ Fire service..and the Fire Fighters Union.
Looks as though he's a long-term public servant (since 2007) – working within MPI since 2019, and in his current role since 2021.
Not a political appointment.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/vincent-arbuckle-a227ab12/?originalSubdomain=nz
Of course, the incoming government could 'fire' anyone they please – but that's moving towards the US model – where all of the senior administration is political, and replaced at each election. Not a route that I would want NZ to go down.
Where is the source of your claim that the school is getting 'lawyered up'?
The initial article said they were conducting an internal investigation.
Do you doubt that the school might be seeking legal advice?
I'm asking for the evidence that they are. The claim was made, I'm asking for the publicly available information to support it.
Why is such ‘evidence’ even important [to you]? What are you really after?
An answer to the question.
It's been made very clear to me in previous TS comments, of the importance of attributing sources of information – and providing links (not an instruction to find it yourself) so that people can see the context – and decide for themselves if the information is correct, or what bias might be present in the reporting.
Is that no longer your position?
An answer for answer’s sake, so you’re simply sealioning here, which tends to draw attention from Mods.
No reasonable person would have much doubt that the school might indeed seek some form of legal advice & assistance, so your attempt to seed doubt was blatantly obvious and smelled like a setup.
Your fellow Mod, Weka, doesn't agree with you.
So?
Yes, it happens a lot across all the mods. We're not a hive mind.
What I don't get is why you want to argue with a mod who is already pissed off with you. What's the point?
I see Incognito is now hinting at a ban for you for next year. We are giving out long term bans for people we see as trolling or disruptive to the posts of commenting.
here's my problem with what is going down.
I rate you as a commenter, not least because you stop the place from becoming an echo chamber. You make political arguments, and don't often resort to having a go at other commenters. I think you will be an asset next year.
However, this ongoing argument with a mod makes me think that some kind of point scoring is more important to you than the commentariat and culture here, or your own ability to retain commenting privileges.
My advice is if you don't want to get a ban, then stop arguing with a moderator. Even though they're not using bold/having their mod hat on, it's clear there is an issue and it's escalating.
Also, reporting of an actual legal challenge against MPI and/or Seymour (for slander, or reputational damage, or whatever) – would actually be a really significant piece of information.
It would, but that wasn’t what the comment said, so you created a straw man and ran with it.
Are you really not able to use a computer? It took approximately 10 seconds to find this, quote from the Haeata Community Campus principal:
She said if it was up to her she'd release the footage now, but needed to check with the school's lawyers before publicly releasing it.
"There'd probably be legal implications for that."
– RNZ 3/12/25
Imho, twerker and frequent liar Seymour's knee-jerk punching down on the "frequent flyer" school principal while the jury was out really speaks to his character and priorities – it's 'government' by and for the sorted, folks.
How has NZ come to this – aren’t we supposed to be on a NAct1 fast track.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360908920/principal-says-cctv-exonerates-school-mouldy-lunch-saga-heres-why-she-cant-release-it
https://thestandard.nz/seymour-is-wrecking-the-school-lunch-program/
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/16-09-2024/has-david-seymour-saved-school-lunches-or-enshittified-them
Telling someone to 'use a computer' is not an effective way of communicating the source of your information. Nor did you actually provide a link.
It's pretty evident from your quote from the 3/12 and a subsequent quote from today
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/580912/principal-says-school-not-to-blame-for-mouldy-lunches-as-authorities-review-footage
Unless you have further evidence, I don't think that this supports your argument:
Nobody said that the school was mounting a legal challenge and the link of 3 Dec unequivocally stated that the school was talking to [its] lawyers. You put words into somebody’s mouth and then attacked them for it (aka a straw man attack).
Your link (8:58 pm on 4 December 2025) had not even been published at the time of the comment, so you’re relying in the advantage of hindsight.
All in all, a total waste of time because of you, that added nothing of substance & significance and shows you up for commenting in bad faith.
No I did not. If someone is described as "Lawyering up" – there is a legitimate inference that they are preparing a specific legal challenge. It would not usually refer to consideration of the legal aspects of releasing footage to the media.
In addition, the comment referenced lawyering up in relation to Seymour, etc – when it was immediately clear from the actual quote, that the legal context was around data release.
I find your comments in response to me, almost inevitably 'in bad faith'.
And note, that Weka has found my question both legitimate and relevant.
An inference is also known as speculation and that’s not admissible in court, AFAIK. In any case, one can ‘lawyer up’ to clarify one’s legal position (as was the case), prepare for a legal defence, and not necessarily prepare for a legal challenge on one’s own accord. You inferred incorrectly.
And note that I disagreed with her, as Mods often do.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360908920/principal-says-cctv-exonerates-school-mouldy-lunch-saga-heres-why-she-cant-release-it
Afaik, 'lawyering up' typically refers to seeking legal advice before answering (further) questions during an investigation.
"Someone", or, as in this case, something – "the school". Imho, your "legitimate inference" is erroneous – what "specific legal challenge" do you (now) imagine that "Now that the school is getting lawyered up" might refer to? Keep digging, please 🙂
Not a good look for our deputy PM, and I'm not surprised by his unprofessional attempts to denigrate (“frequent flyer“) his way out of another mess of his own making – dropkick Seymour has 'troll form'. He seems incapable of self-reflection – dodgy as, imho. That NZ has come to this 🙁
Your quote
Do you have any evidence that this has happened?
Because the *only* quotes made have been in relation to the legal aspects of releasing footage to the media.
Or did you 'infer' this from the original lawyering up comment – or your speculation of what might be going on in the background.
Sigh – we’re going around in circles again. See Stan’s reply to you @ 5.1.2.1.1.2 (https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-05-12-2025/#comment-2052724).
Sigh – I already explained what ‘lawyer up’ could mean and you still don’t get it!?
We prefer people to provide evidence for their comments, when asked. That includes a link. The reason for this is that it creates better debate culture. People don't alway have time to chase up other people's claims or statements, some people on phones and it's harder.
Belladonna's question was reasonable. Other people will read what you write and be better informed too.
I beg to differ; BD’s behaviour of late has been quite unreasonable at times and this was one of those moments, IMO.
Stan: the school is lawyering up
Belladonna: what's the evidence for that?
That is completely normal behaviour on TS.
Missing a bit of context there.
The question got answered but the answer wasn’t good enough because of ill-founded prejudice on behalf of the questioner. As a Mod, I could see this coming from miles away, as my earlier probing comments show. We don’t need this vexatious behaviour in the next year.
Specifically what? The subthread where you and BD were arguing? Or something else. If we leave out the conversation between the two of you, it went like this,
Stan: the school is lawyering up
Belladonna: what’s the evidence for that?
Stan: quote without a link, plus a poke at BD as a commenter.
Belladonna: we link here, mild poke back about the computer usage
Belladonna: the lawyering up relates to the video release, I think your argument is wrong [link and her argument provided]
That’s all very normal on TS.
It’s true that you took BD to task over percevied assumptions, which is again normal. People make assumptions, or even just speculate about what others say (because often people aren’t clear what they mean), and then others pull them up on it.
Just caught up with Coster admitting responsibility for the McSkimming cover-up and resigning.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/12/03/former-police-boss-andrew-coster-resigns/
The presentation is that it was not corruption or a cover up – but that he presided over systemic flaws within the police organization.
IMO, Brian Roche is being very generous to Coster when he says.
I think there absolutely was a diversion and cover up. The problem being that they thought they were covering up an external affair, and didn't realize they were covering up an abuse of process within the police (or that McSkimming had a whole host of other illegal behaviours, which were also camouflaged as a result of the back-scratching).