North Korea a 'genuine threat' and NZ will play a role if asked: Ardern

Ardern on The Nation

The Prime Minister says North Korea is "absolutely a genuine and real threat" and New Zealand is ready to play a role if requested.  

Jacinda Ardern told Patrick Gower on Three's The Nation on Saturday all world leaders need to play a role in de-escalating the situation. 

"We've seen significant increases in testing and the capability of those tests," Jacinda Ardern told Patrick Gower on Three's The Nation.

"Every [world leader] needs to ... put pressure on Pyongyang to make sure they are responding to the sanctions and messages coming from the international community."

All options are being explored by the New Zealand Government, Ms Ardern says, but she remains firm military intervention is a last resort, and only if it had United Nations support.

"One of the reasons we're so firm on that is we're yet to exhaust all of the channels that we have."

In the past Foreign Minister Winston Peters has been requested by the United States administration to navigate a situation with North Korea - something Ms Ardern calls "an asset".

"To date we haven't had that request, but we remain absolutely available to play whatever role that we can.

"That speaks to the level of diplomacy and level of relationship I've seen Mr Peters has with members of the international community.

"I'd never be closed off to the option."

The newly-elected leader described her first outing on the international stage as "pretty successful", including the Trade Pacific Partnership agreement - something she says is inching towards the line.

"We had a set of five goals we wanted to reach. we wanted to make sure that yes we had some decent outcomes for our exporters but we also wanted to protect farming, protect the Treaty of Waitangi, protect our right to legislate, protect our right to maintain our housing market.

"Before the trade deal was somewhat masked by all of the bits which were a little more negative.

"We haven't reached a perfect agreement but there's no denying this deal gives us access to Japan ... we did not have before."

Pressuring Turnbull on Manus Island
On the Manus Island situation, Ms Ardern defended putting pressure on Australia despite their refugee quota per capita being five times our own.

"What I have undertaken to do here is certainly not to knock around Australia. I accept that they play a huge role when it comes to their contribution to refugees and taking refugees.

"What I'm trying to do is make sure New Zealand takes its share of refugees as well. We're on the back doorstep. We've made an offer, we're here to help."

Ms Ardern says our relationship with our neighbours is still "robust".

"New Zealand and Australia's relationship is much stronger than any political news story of the day.

Lead on climate change refugees
On the subject of refugees Ms Ardern, also suggested a proposal for New Zealand to take in climate change refugees could be built in to an existing system.

"We of course already have a programme within the Pacific where we have seasonal workers coming in directly to work within New Zealand from our Pacific neighbours.

"Whether or not we can build in for instance an element where we target those who might be affected by climate change and potentially be climate change refugees as part of that programme."


RAW DATA: Patrick Gower interviews Jacinda Ardern on The Nation

Watch the interview here.

Patrick Gower: Prime Minister, thank you so much for joining us. On this trip, refugees have been a very big issue for you, a very serious issue, personally. Is it a conviction issue for you?

Jacinda Ardern: Oh, yes, it is. But also, of course, my job is to advocate on behalf of New Zealanders. And I’ve certainly sensed a sentiment from New Zealanders that we should make sure that we do our bit. You know, we are in a position to be able to help – both our neighbour, in Australia, but also to lend assistance to those who are refugees who are currently being held and resident on Manus Island and on Nauru.

Yeah. And on that, there has been some pressure on Australia from you, from New Zealand, essentially. Is that fair, though, given that Australia takes five times more refugees per capita than New Zealand? Is it fair for us to sort of knock them around when we take five times less?

My expectation, or what I have undertaken to do here, is certainly not to knock around Australia. I accept that they play a huge role when it comes to their contribution to refugees and taking refugees. What I’m trying to do is make sure that New Zealand takes its share of refugees as well. We’re on the back doorstep. We’ve made an offer; we’re here to help. They’ve been seeking places to resettle those who are on Manus and Nauru, and I saw an opportunity for us to be a part of that solution. So, certainly, I’m not here to knock them around but to at least make the case, on New Zealand’s behalf.

Yeah, but is it that we need to be more ambitious with our target for refugees? I know that your government will double the quota. But do you now see, five times behind Australia, is there a need to be more aspirational than that? Than doubling the quota?

Yes. Look, the doubling of the quota was an important step to take – it was – and that was the right thing to do.

But do you want to go beyond that is the question.

When we made that offer, we looked into what capacity we had – the ability to make sure that we resettle people properly. And this is a key point as well with Manus and Nauru. People will ask, “Well, why only 150?” I looked carefully at the capacity we had in our system to make sure that when we take on those refugees, we’re able to wrap support around them. We’ve got to keep in mind these are, in some cases, victims of torture who have gone through an extreme set of circumstances, who we need to make sure that when we take on that responsibility, we do it properly. And that’s what we need to do with our quota as well.

So do you see a time when you will go beyond doubling the quota? Do you want to do that?

For now I think the responsible thing to do is double the quota and see that we’re able to do that properly.

One other conviction issue for you is obviously climate change, and you’ve spoken a lot about that. But for the first time, I saw you talk about how you believe that New Zealand’s glaciers have been shrinking because of climate change. Is that right?

Certainly that’s the advice that I’ve had. And we have been advocates on this issue. I see in part, and I’ve spoken on this before, that we have two roles—

It’s costing New Zealanders glaciers – is that your personal view?

Yes. Yes. Well, yes – it is my personal view. But we have a role here. I use that to illustrate a point. We have a role here not only to lead from the front and to use our voice but to demonstrate we’re taking action ourselves. And one of the reasons that we need to do that is because we sit within the Pacific and we see and know that those around us are already feeling the effects of this global issue. In fact, Asia-Pacific, where these meetings are being held and where the attendees have been from, will be gravely affected by climate change.

Sure. And one thing – specific thing – you brought up is climate change refugees.

Indeed.

You want New Zealand to lead on that, do you?

Yeah, I absolutely see a role for us to play in acknowledging that all of us will face climate changes.

What are the practical steps to that?

One of the things we’ve already talked about is we of course already have a programme within the Pacific where we have seasonal workers coming into work directly with New Zealand from our Pacific neighbours. Whether or not we can build in, for instance, an element where we target those who might be affected by climate change and potentially be climate refugees as part of that programme. We’re in the early days, but we’re looking at some options.

So you’re actually working on that. And is this urgent, actually dealing with climate change refugees? Is this urgent for you or is this a sort of “off in the future” thing?

I think the most important thing is for us to try and slow the trend – of course do what we can to make sure that we’re not in a position where we see a large-scale refugee situation. But we also need to make sure that we’re resilient, that we’re also planning, that it’s about mitigation and adaptation. And part of that planning is looking around us and saying -- what might be the needs in our regions as well and being prepared for that.

And specific action has started on that, Prime Minister?

Yes. It is very very early stages. Very early stages. Of course we’ve only been in for several weeks, but it’s a conversation that we’re having.

Actually bringing “climate refugees”, so to speak,  to New Zealand.

But using some of our existing programmes to see how we can accommodate within that those who might be affected by climate change.

Okay, I want to move now to North Korea, which has obviously been a subject of lots of discussion with you and the other leaders. Now that you have spoken and interacted with these people, how real is the threat of North Korea?

Oh, look, absolutely it is taken as a genuine and real threat by those in the region. Absolutely.

And you, personally, what would you say to New Zealanders? How real is this threat?

Oh, you know, we’ve seen significant increases in testing and the capability of those tests.  I think most people would see that and know that it’s a genuine threat and that every member of the international community needs to play a role in doing what we can to de-escalate the situation, put pressure on Pyongyang to make sure that they are responding to the sanctions and the message that’s coming from the international community.

And if they don’t, or if there is a need for military action, is your position – because your position on the record is that New Zealand will not join military action against North Korea unless it is backed by the United Nations. Is that still your position?

The statement I used today at the East Asia Summit was we should use every tool available to us, bar military action. And one of the reasons we’re so firm on that is that we are yet to exhaust all the channels that we have. In fact we’re deploying many of them now, and with some success. So our point is those are the channels and those are the avenues we need to keep pursuing.

And that position still stands?

Yes.

It needs to have the United Nations Security Council resolution?

Yes.

Even if Japan, the United States, Australia…?

Of course. You know, our view has always been multilateral approach is best. We maintain our independent foreign policy, of course, and we’ll continually assess every situation. But, as I said today, we need to pursue every available avenue, bar military action.

And is there an option – when you talk about dialogue with North Korea, which is an important way – is there, in your view, a role, potentially, for Winston Peters, the Foreign Affairs Minister, to play in terms of talking to North Korea? Do you think he is the kind of person that could interact with that regime?

Oh, that’s happened in the past. And I think it is a good reminder that actually, there was a direct request made a few years ago now by the United States administration for support from Mr Peters in navigating a situation with North Korea in the past. That speaks to the level of diplomacy and the level of relationship that I’ve seen Mr Peters has with members of the international community. And I’ve seen it in play during this trip. It is an asset.

And do you think it’s an asset that could be used with North Korea?

To date, we haven’t had that request, but we remain absolutely available as a government – that includes our Minister of Foreign Affairs – to play whatever role we can in reaching a peaceful resolution.

I mean should you put Winston Peters forward?

Look, I would certainly be open to a range of options that we can play our role. To date that hasn’t risen as a potential possibility, but I’d never be closed off to the option.

Now, on the Trans-Pacific Partnership – and without getting into the detail and the nuts and bolts of it – your overarching view on why that’s good for New Zealand. What is your overarching view on why the Trans-Pacific Partnership is good for New Zealand?

We had a set of five goals we wanted to reach. We wanted to make sure that, yes, we had some decent outcomes for our exporters. But we also wanted to protect Pharmac, protect the Treaty of Waitangi, protect our right to legislate, protect our right to maintain our housing market—

Sure. And you’ve done that. What’s the good bit? If someone’s saying to you, “What’s the good bit here”?

And the point we make is that we’ve done that. That therefore enables us to actually place a little more emphasis on the trade deal. Because before, the trade deal was somewhat masked by all of the bits that were much more negative. Now, we haven’t reached a perfect agreement. But there’s no denying this deal gives us access to Japan, in particular, for our beef, for our kiwifruit, for our wine, in a way that we just did not have before.

And what about locking us into the world? Is that important to you? Put the trade to one side; interacting with the world – is that an important part of the TPP for you?

Look, what we have to acknowledge is that we are a small nation, and negotiating free trade agreements, multilateral agreements, give you much greater access often in this environment. And so this has been a way that we’ve been able to access multiple markets.

And very quickly on Australia – I mean, we’ve got leaks in the Australian media; we’ve got your threat of retaliation; we’ve got the Julie Bishop issue; we could go on and on and on. What word would you use to characterise our relationship right now? Because it does not look great to the outside.

Oh, look, New Zealand and Australia’s relationship is much stronger than any political new story of the day – much, much stronger.

So what word would you use?

“Robust”.  Robust.

Now, speaking of robustness – to look at a robust measure, to look at the way we measure economic growth – GDP – do you think there is time under your government for a different measure, for a different official government measure beyond GDP?

I see room for a range, and we’ve talked about this before. You know, I want to make sure that people have a set of markers that they can measure our success by.

Do we need to create a new one – a new official measure that looks at different elements of human happiness?

Yeah, we’re very open as a government to exploring markers that sit alongside some of those traditional economic measures. Now, some of them we’ve already talked about. Let’s look at what’s happening for kids.

Like a happiness index?

Well, there have been talks about how you measure well-being, and I think that that’s a conversation a lot of developed countries are starting to have, and we should too.

Okay, and just finally, how have you found the trip? You used the word ‘robust’ before; what word would you use to describe your first outing on the international stage?

Pretty successful.

All right, thank you very much, Prime Minister, for your time.

 


27 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

27 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Communist buddys Jacinder and Kim so it all makes sense.

Chinese sounding names are banned from New Zealand but communist dictators have similar ideals so Kim can give Jacinder a nuke missile to wipe out Kiwi Home owners in one bang!

Dont have to wait till next term!

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 2

Russia and China would both veto any military action against North Korea.
Because South Korea would be on the receiving end it would also reject any attack on North Korea.
The Chinese think that South Korea will move away from the American alliance system if America gets too threatening and that American strategists don't understand this.
Some recent actions by South Korea suggest this might already be starting to happen.
Even thinking about military action against nuclear armed North Korea just shows that we are living in la la land and are totally insane.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

It is quite clear from comment on this issue, in which the great truths are fairly obvious ,that the kiwi left will never grasp that Cuba, and the East German housing estates were terrible ideas and that North Korea and its Korean communist predecessors were the most fanatical and dangerous military Vanguard of the Soviet Union during the long twentieth century and beyond. In 1940 with Stalin at first grasping that Hitler might actually attack despite the perception that their regimes were not very different versions of National Socialism the Russian military tactical doctrines were reshaped to incorporate a great deal of NK personnel and philosophy at the core in the ultimate defence and counter attack out of Moscow the Tsar's Red Generals. Would incorporate every lesson of German staff training with ferocious NK rocket attacks and actual NK shocks troops leading well trained and ruthless Russian infantry riding on heavy tanks ready to fight inouter space at 50 below. In the following two days Hitlers best SS and Army units wereThe Nazi Arnie's lost a million soldiers in two days and Hitlers decision to declare war on Dec on the USA after the Japanese raid on Pearl Harbour is much more explicable, given at that point he had lost and from the on was mainly intent on extending the war to allow the maximum opportunity for revenge against those he imagined were his enemies.
North Korea was mainly known for its ferocious combat units and soccer teams. However as a small nation too much into war the best North Korean gene lines were progressively destroyed during the twentieth century. This is inclined to be the fatevof excessively militaristic small nations and is in some senses what happened to the aborigines and Anerican indians. So terrifying were the NK units that the Germans turned and incorporated quite a few NK troops inSS units as they were captured in the retreat back thru Russia. In 1950 the initial NK advance South and the inability to check McArthurs break out and drive from Inchon north and deep into NK was due to the fact North Korean troops had already lost their most effective officers and troops.Overall it can now be said LeMays approah he rebuillt and restored USAF, levelled every significant building far more effectively than the 45 campaign against and McArthurs view that the use of ,12 30 KT tactical nukes against key Chinese economic targets to deter Mao and cripple the Chinese military industrial complex. Since 1953 NK have been a nation of international war criminals, in 1967 and the following year they shot down a number of airliners and US aircraft well off their 12 mile zone. The NK capture of Pueblo and the activities of the Walker brother US Navy spies meant the Soviet Navy achieved real time interception of USN communications from 1968 to 1985 and even the position.of USN boomers. Strategic US subs often communicated and would have been silent only in post war doomsday scenario were they contemplated

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

This i/v has all the hallmarks of:

H2/Grant: your popularity is going down the toilet Cindy. Get a fluff interview - fast.
Cindy: Paddy will do it.
H2/Grant: don't say anything though. Mix it up a bit - yeah, yes, absolutely, oh, look. That sort of thing.
Cindy: could go with Campbell if we want a real dolly....
H2: are you serious?....
Cindy: ok, Paddy it is....

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 2

I voted for and am happy that we have a Labour led government.
I feel far more threatened by the Trump Administration than I do about North Korea.
I hope there are intentions and strategies to deal with this threat as well

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 2

Calm down Dale, Trump's not coming to get you. Spending some time searching for some professional help for your deep seated issues, may be a better use of your time.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 1

Ludicrous statement that is nothing more than anti-Trump virtue signalling.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

Despite repeated threats to incinerate the United States with its nuclear weapons, North Korea takes pains to note it won't strike first.

The over-the-top rhetoric is often misinterpreted in the West, but North Korea has been consistent in saying it is developing a nuclear arsenal solely to ward off a first-strike by the U.S. military, said Van Jackson, an analyst at the Center for Strategic Studies at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/17/north-korea-wont-st...

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I’ve been incredibly impressed at the progress that New Zealand has made over the last twenty five years in terms of its rankings in the Economic Freedom of the World Index. NZ has been #3 for the last five years, and deservedly so as it’s leadership has created a much more dynamic, free market based economy that has led to net migration in NZ for the first time in my lifetime.

In reading this brief interview with PM Jacinda Ardern I can’t help but fear for the economic future of New Zealand, as her priorities seem best characterized as a politically motivated muddled socialist agenda.

There is no doubt that elections have consequences, and I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this one.

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 1

North Korea would last all of 30 minutes if it ever (successfully) launched against the USA, it will never happen, i see Kim the younger's rhetoric as nothing more than a cry for attention and aid from its benefactors, a lesson learned from the money for nukes Iran deal

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

U.S. COULD LOSE IN A WAR AGAINST NORTH KOREA'S MASSIVE ARMY, FORMER PENTAGON COMMANDER WARNS
http://www.newsweek.com/if-war-north-korea-comes-us-military-would-be-ou...

Jacinda needs to get some new advisors who aren't so quick with all the war talk.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Thank you for the link but i believe in an attack & counter strike there will be a flood of defectors heading south , mainly for food

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Yes but that retired General is talking about a conventional war. Any war that the USA wages against NK would have to be a nuclear one, and it would have to consist of a massive strike against NK, taking them out in one go. So there would be nothing left for NK to fight back with. All over and done with in one go, as horrible as that sounds. Anything else, and that generals prediction would be the probable outcome.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

There are rather more conventional ways of taking even the most difficult targets.The reason the Soviet generals thought tactical nukes might be essential to break thru in any largely conventional attack into Europe in 1983 is that certain geographical blocks in valley say and other powerful force concentrations in opposition could only be cleared by using them. Montgomery consistently claimed to deliver on his claims in North Africa and Normanby in 1941-1944 and ultimately after failing to get through the gap in three months (0ften being held by fanatical 18 year old SS scholars without aircover and only advantaged by the hedgerows and superb battlefield recconaissance by Lufftwaffe AR 234 Blitz jet B-2 Bomber surveillance aircraft 10 miles high which provided Generals like Guderain and Rommel a picture of every blade of grass , which they could digress for 24 hours on of analysis, spoken straight to Hitler without notes- where the intelligence resulting from Engima and Turings team combined with Allied photo recc gave a much inferior picture. Therefore the only way for the Allies to break the gap inevitably came to ordering Bomber Harris to sent 700 lancester for the next two days and nights to level the town or all the defence around the road intersections. Su ch levels of firepower and destruction can be achieved sometimes with nuclear weapons if you have the heavy bombers and heavy gunpower o do the necessary close area destructive damage. Warfare is very much about blocking at land and blockade offshore. Real war is flamethrower war and usually involves serious ffire weapons as every great general from Drake to Rommel . One of the values of the ancient Rothesays like HMS Otago for the British in the Falklands was I imagine was they were the last frigates that could make smoke and provide cover for the Canberra and QE2. They were the far from the last steamships the USS Buchanan and the Charles F Adams class RAN destroyers are all totally steam powered although MFAT and NZ academics would never admit or concede that point or understood the reason- ie high quiet speed, less sonar blind and nuclear related dev. But the likes of HMS Plymouth provided the old fashioned needs of throwing a lot of old fashioned moderately heavy ( by modern stds shells without jamming) and making a hellof a lot of smoke. Margaret Thatcher demanded of her admirals once her ships and boys were under attack surely they can make smoke . Admiral Leach replied ' our ultra modern navy dosent provide that option anymore' but of course they still did however much it appalled there top anti sub and carrier officers.
I would suggest the Zumwalt which looks like something out of the civil war ( probably deliberately as cover and justifiable to compensate for its apparently small 6 inch retractable guns- which is very difficult for your average yank to understand- the fact there modern very long calibre shells rather than wide ones and actually the same weight as USN Korean and Vietnam era 330lb 8 inch shells is very diffcult to retail in Peoria or Atalnta) and maybe something like a few hundred Lancer or Valkyrie B-3 Bombers capable of realpower and performance in the speed and power of a modern Blackjack and Backfire. What trump needs is to rebuild real classical US destructive power over a few years lnot lightweight crap like obsolete nuke carriers or LCS

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

The big problem that the USA has, is that they cannot afford to let NK fight back after the US hits them. The death toll in SK would be astronomical. The US has the nuclear power to do it. Conventional, I don't know.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Once saw a movie called "The Mouse That Roared" Was about a tiny country that got out of its depth.NZ could be a mirror image of that .A message and word of advice for the Peters "selected" NZ Prime Minister.Time she came up with some of her election campaign promises ,instead of big noting on world affairs.
Case in point her pledge. To start with Pike River body recoveries. Now that was quite a hot potato around election time.

Reply
Share
  • 2
  • 1

How bad can Cindy Astern get ? Completelybriles Turnbull in front of world leaders,talks utter crap about climate change immigrants in the Pacific that is not a climate issue, then feels on a par with Trump, Xi etc as a world leader herself. It woukd be god if she said we rather Thacker I incessantly but then there is not really a team

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 1

China has said it won't support Nth Korea if it strikes first.
NK has said it won't strike first.
Where is the problem because under those guidelines the Yanks won't strike first.
Media beatup.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Get back to NZ affairs and start doing what you were elected to do.
Not poncing around on the international stage

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

Kim is really worried now. A dozen peacekeepers are coming to get him. The frigate has departed as we speak. A 50 year old Hercules will be providing air cover. A loan has been approved, and it's all go, for operation Taxinda Naiveabution.
Newsflash... Kim reported to have choked to death on his rice, while laughing hysterically, after hearing that this impressive task force from NZ was on it's way.
Ardern claims bragging rights over Trump, saying that it was all planned!!
NZ to now take in all the poor unfortunates from north Korea, as per Labour party policy.
Labour party fantasy's over for the day... thank god.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

Yes but is the currently available arsenal of President Trump and PM Turnbull really that awesome, safe and sure as a mean of dealing with a pigmy nation like NK, particularly NK. It appears the NK forces have waves of rockets of a fearsome sort aimed at Seoul; a lot of potentially undesirable individuals and refugees that could rush the borders of South Korea, China and take to boats and a lot of old 1950s style Romeo streamlined diesel submarines with an underwater speed of about 12 knots but with difficult sonar conditions in coastal waters and whatever other disturbances , may present a difficulty and seem to actually have sunk a modern South Korean frigate a couple of years ago. Basically NK is at war all the time, so we really should not have anything to do with them given there track record notably in there relationship with Malaysia which is another powerful indicator that our massively uninformed 'world leader' Jacinda - who will have given her briefings papers an even faster once over sunshine than trans tasman mate Malcolm Turnbull should not be taken more refugees from Manus or anywhere else in that region.
I doubt if President Trump has any particular plan to deal with the NK regime. One of the problems is who actually runs the country, Mr Jong, Mr Sun, the NK Generals or the NK Military Intelligence service. The leaders guru or girlfriend or the officer class generally. The USAF seems to direct its drones at the selected enemy leaders or source of the troubles but in NK I supect the factor that would have to be replaced for change to occur. In terms of conventional US capability to deal with the problem I doubt if either Trumps CVN carriers with their old F-18s or Mr Turnbulls RAN Collins sub which have always been partly justified for this mission are really the answer. I actually think the TR 1700 los tof the Plate better

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Who knows? Maybe one day we'll find out.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Thats what she said
Safe bet hand wringers do nothing

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Hmm, UN reckons that there could be as many as 150 MILLION climate change refugees by 2050 alone; how many are we going to take? How about 0.1%? 150,000 Third World refugees, now that is a future, tax payers will love that. We can't even house the economic refugees we take in from the Pacific Islands now. Platitudes is all Ardern seems to spout.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

UN - United Nuckleheads, the most corrupt organisation on planet earth. Umm... Climate change refugees...Is that where its too cold?? ..too hot??.. too wet?? too dry??
too much water level rise..?? too much whatever?? I'm sick to death of that term "refugee" so they can get lost. I have enough of my own problems to deal with.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

After the GV release today Auckland will have about a million rate's refugees...completely agree Steve sick to death of refugees (read economic opportunist)

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Does anyone else find her responses frustrating? So media-trained and superficial.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.7011 0.0022 0.31%
AUD 0.9137 0.0020 0.22%
EUR 0.5948 0.0013 0.22%
GBP 0.5217 0.0014 0.27%
HKD 5.4761 0.0181 0.33%
JPY 78.6930 0.1420 0.18%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1257.1 -3.460 2017-12-14T00:
Oil Brent 62.7 0.860 2017-12-14T00:
Oil Nymex 57.1 0.410 2017-12-14T00:
Silver Index 15.9 0.065 2017-12-14T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NASDAQ 6887.4 6901.1 6875.8 -0.28%
DJI 24631.0 24672.5 24585.4 -0.31%