New blog – Anton Oliver

46 comments on “New blog – Anton Oliver ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tim 1

   24 July 2013 at 5:27 pm

   ” …… might be worth following”
   I’d give that a definite yes. A no BS, non-BS Artist sort of guy who seems to be able to recognise Emperors without clobber.

   Time to step up others!
   • r0b 1.1

     24 July 2013 at 5:29 pm

     The quoted text is no longer in the post after I did a quick edit – oops! – but still applies, might be worth following….
2. Colonial Viper 2

   24 July 2013 at 5:37 pm

   Straight clear message with the facts. Much appreciated.
3. Matthew Hooton 3

   24 July 2013 at 6:15 pm

   “The RMA was a ground-breaking statute when introduced. Being an insecure lot, we Kiwis duly basked in the global adulation heaped upon us for our foresight in setting such a statute in place.”

   I was 19 and working in parliament in 1991 when the then National-led Government passed the RMA. I do not recall the “global adulation” that Anton Oliver refers to.

   Does anyone have any sources for the “global adulation”?
   • muzza 3.1

     24 July 2013 at 6:20 pm

     Hooton run along little agent!

     Oliver at least has some credibility, as a professional, and with his post, and seems to associate with being a Kiwi.

     Not something you relate to , is it, which is why you ended up with your mouth over the glory hole, at age 19!
     • paul andersen 3.1.1

       24 July 2013 at 11:16 pm

       mouth over the glory hole,, love it! that is a keeper.
   • chrissy 3.2

     24 July 2013 at 6:25 pm

     Hooton
     Go suck a lemon.
   • karol 3.3

     24 July 2013 at 6:27 pm

     You perhaps weren’t looking in the right direction?

     NATURE, SOCIETY, AND STATE: An Antipodean Perspective by Pyar Ali Memon, p209

     New Zealand’s Resource Management Act of 1991 (henceforth the
     Resource Management Act, or the Act) has received considerable international acclaim as an environmental statute.

     Centre for Environmental Law Volume 5 2001 Articles

     Integrated Resource Management in New Zealand
     – Ulrich Klein

     New Zealand’s Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) has been praised as one of the world’s most progressive pieces of environmental legislation. Along with its guiding purpose, the Act’s holistic approach has attracted considerable attention. This paper explores “Integrated Resource Management” (“IRM”) in New Zealand, focusing on policy, plan and rule-making under the RMA.
   • tricledrown 3.4

     24 July 2013 at 7:00 pm

     Hooton is worried an articulate intelligent well respected all round nice guy is getting the message across!
     • Mary 3.4.1

       25 July 2013 at 1:05 pm

       Hooton is one of the Devil’s fingernails.
   • Yes 3.5

     24 July 2013 at 7:04 pm

     Wikipedia has a great write up of the introduction of the format by labour and carried on by national. Dual party support..a great passage of parliament on an important Act.

     Problem: 1991 was the year the All Blacks lost the World Cup and the NZ Music Awards were not held – there is no global adulation that year in 1991

     I checked Wikipedia on 1991 world circuit and there is no global adulation report for the RMA.

     Dow Jones hit record highs

     Soviet Union splits up big time – Communism falls over

     So we are just absolutely clear – Anton has been living where in NZ lately – oh Toulon – isnt that just up from Opotiki
     • Colonial Viper 3.5.1

       24 July 2013 at 9:15 pm

       Anton could live on Mars, and with his heart where it is he’d still be more of a NZer than most of the fakes in Wellington.
     • karol 3.5.2

       24 July 2013 at 9:21 pm

       From the links I provided, I think the RMA was greatly admired from those fairly expert in the field of such legislation.

       It probably didn’t get the X Factor kind of, MSM-dross adulation, but it does sound like, internationally, it was seen as ground breaking legislation.

       As Anton is majorly into environmental issues, he probably was very aware of the adulation it got internationally from some people.
     • Draco T Bastard 3.5.3

       24 July 2013 at 11:37 pm

       Soviet Union splits up big time – Communism falls over

       Well, the USSR did split but it wasn’t communism that fell over – it was state capitalism.
   • felix 3.6

     24 July 2013 at 7:11 pm

     Who gives a damn what Matthew remembers? His fellow Hollowman John Key can’t remember the Springbok tour FFS.
   • ScottGN 3.7

     24 July 2013 at 7:14 pm

     You jumped on this pretty quick. Which must mean that like a good little Tory spin-meister you’re trying to dampen down a potential conflagration?
     • Yes 3.7.1

       24 July 2013 at 10:39 pm

       [deleted]

       [lprent: You are currently banned from commenting (and I have killed your other comments). Doubling the ban to 4 weeks – about the 21st. I’ll give you a hint – I double it every time you try writing a comment. ]
       • felix 3.7.1.1

         25 July 2013 at 2:25 am

         Ooh ooh ooh lprent you missed one! http://thestandard.org.nz/new-blog-anton-oliver/#comment-667678
   • lurgee 3.8

     25 July 2013 at 1:35 am

     ‘I do not recall the “global adulation” that Anton Oliver refers to.’

     There’s this thing called irony, Matthew, and I hope to God you were deploying it in your own post.
   • Mary 3.9

     25 July 2013 at 12:05 pm

     Don’t those quotes from John Key just show what a complete and utter hypocrite he is? I particularly like this one – reminds me of what this government did in the carers case removing the the right to merely test whether the new rules around assistance for caring for adult disabled children breaches s 19 of NZBORA, and when all there was at stake was no more than a declaration:

     “There are times when we have to stand up for our rights, and the rights of our neighbours and friends, and indeed the rights of people we totally disagree with, or else these rights will begin to erode away. And this, I say to you, is one of those times. Because this bill is an assault on what it means to be a New Zealander, and this bill is an abuse of the trust we have in the government to protect the institutions that make us proud to call this country home.”

     Guess it’s our fault for not standing up for our rights.
4. muzza 4

   24 July 2013 at 6:16 pm

   Good to see some high profile names getting stuck in, using simple information, and nailing some facts to it.

   NZ need more of these high profiles standing up, because much as the messenger should not matter over the content, the reality is, that it does matter, and if the content is sound, brilliant!
   • Saarbo 4.1

     24 July 2013 at 8:01 pm

     Yes, will be interesting to see what the National Party strategists do about this. Anton Oliver has the the type of profile to gain some really useful exposure for this issue. Hooten understands this hence the reason he’s not mucking around in trying to discredit him.
5. Molly 5

   24 July 2013 at 8:18 pm

   Was disillusioned with Anton Oliver’s stance over the Project Hayes windfarm, down south.

   Will be interesting to see what he is saying a few years down the track.
   • karol 5.1

     24 July 2013 at 8:32 pm

     Yes. As I recall, he was a bit of a NIMBY about it.
     • weka 5.1.1

       24 July 2013 at 8:44 pm

       I’d be a nimby about it too. If people in the North Island want more power, then they can make decisions about their own land bases about how to generate it. If I had to choose between having less electricity or another dam on the Clutha or a windfarm on the Lammerlaws, I’d be completely ok with having less electricity. Before accusations of nimbyism get thrown around, please ask why so much more power is needed, and what is being lost. Also consider that the people that opposed the windfarm were locals who stood up and engage in the democratic process. That should be applauded.
       • felix 5.1.1.1

         25 July 2013 at 2:06 am

         Agree about asking why so much is needed, and also about engaging in the democratic process.

         Having said that, I’m totally ok with the windfarm in my backyard, and all of the nimbyists who objected to it can get fucked. None of them had any problem ruining my beautiful surroundings with their clifftop mansions, but as soon as something impacts on their multi million dollar view it’s the end of the world.
         • Molly 5.1.1.1.1

           25 July 2013 at 10:17 am

           We had the same result with a Meridian planned windfarm in Awhitu, Auckland which visually impacted on very few properties but took advantage of those west coast winds. One reason given for objection, the sight and sound would scare the horses. I was hoping that they would make a proposal to go into the sea, those oil and gas rebates that Simon Bridges is currently handing out would go a long way to subsidising such schemes.

           As for Project Hayes, I believe, the proposal needed to be weighed up with our collective responsibility towards climate change, as well as our local environmental and aesthetic concerns. I understand that the end result was not a reduced windfarm, but a complete lack.

           (@felix: Yep, I would also put my hand up for one in my backyard – is that a new acronym? YPIMBY)
       • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.2

         25 July 2013 at 3:24 am

         If people in the North Island want more power, then they can make decisions about their own land bases about how to generate it.

         1.) Building wind farms on land isn’t the best idea. Much better to build them out to sea.
         2.) Communities work by cross-subsidising.
         3.) Wind is something that takes to cross-subsidising really well. Build multiple wind farms around the country connected via smart grid and the whole country gets good, reliable power.

         Build them only locally and so that they only supply locally and the local power supply will be inherently intermittent.

         Also consider that the people that opposed the windfarm were locals who stood up and engage in the democratic process. That should be applauded.

         Democracy isn’t a few people whinging about their back yard but the entire community discussing what’s best for the community.
   • weka 5.2

     24 July 2013 at 8:40 pm

     The other guy said this “There will, one day, be new hydro projects on the Clutha.”. Which means pro-development. Wind farms for local power production in a powering down or even steady-state economy are one thing, large scale wind farms intended to supply power to people far away, in a society that doesn’t understand the meaning of finite and shits in its own nest, are just encouraging different kinds of pollution. Windfarms with that kind of mentality do fuck all for mitigating climate change or peak oil.
     • Colonial Viper 5.2.1

       24 July 2013 at 9:13 pm

       The South Island already has plenty of power. Once we succeed, its the North Island which is screwed.
       • karol 5.2.1.1

         25 July 2013 at 8:11 am

         Ah, now I get it. CV’s comment puzzled me last night. Succeed at what?

         Should be “secede”.
       • Winston Smith 5.2.1.2

         25 July 2013 at 8:14 am

         I agree with this statement
6. Sable 6

   24 July 2013 at 8:40 pm

   Probably make more of an impact than Shearer. New candidate for Labour leader, maybe?
7. newsense 7

   24 July 2013 at 9:21 pm

   purposeful, urgent and some might say a little eloquent even!

   Leadership in defence of some of the NZ values we haven’t heard a lot about recently.
8. Sanctuary 8

   24 July 2013 at 9:54 pm

   Now that site looks damned good.
9. Brett Dale 9

   24 July 2013 at 10:10 pm

   What is Oliver’s business interests?
   • lprent 9.1

     24 July 2013 at 10:17 pm

     Wikipedia is your friend – perhaps you should read it as a first baby step…
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Oliver
     • Brett Dale 9.1.1

       24 July 2013 at 10:29 pm

       wow he went to Oxford, hats off to the guy!
       • McFlock 9.1.1.1

         24 July 2013 at 10:49 pm

         Kronfeld and Wilson are no brain slouches, either.

         Very interesting period for the Highlanders – and not just because we were winning 🙂
         • Winston Smith 9.1.1.1.1

           25 July 2013 at 8:17 am

           Glory days because there wasn’t full professionalism so Otago Uni had more pulling power where as now young rugby players go straight into academies….

           I don’t think its improved NZ rugby
           • vto 9.1.1.1.1.1

             25 July 2013 at 12:19 pm

             Professional rugby has turned it into something like a church where all the participants churned out speak the same, look the same, promote the same, follow the mantra, succumb to the brainwash.

             Top rugby players today get around like some sort of cult. No veering from the plan allowed. Comply or be dammed.

             I always wonder if another Lomu or similar came along, you know an absolute star, and proceeded to refuse to play ball with the cult’s rules but nailed the rugby completely and utterly, would he still make it into the AB’s? Or would their religious order determine such a player blasphemous and toss him onto the pyre?
10. Te Reo Putake 10

    24 July 2013 at 10:47 pm

    Oi, Yes. You’re banned for being a dullard. Why don’t you do one.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/keeping-it-in-the-family-commission/#comment-667103
    • McFlock 10.1

      24 July 2013 at 10:51 pm

      also known as “yeah – nah”
11. logie97 11

    24 July 2013 at 10:51 pm

    Anyone hear Mr Deaker on The Panel this afternoon (referring to the security bill) – but to the opposition in general. I paraphrase – … this Labour voice of opposition is pathetic and if Shearer cannot start articulating some meaningful leadership in the proud tradition of the Anti Apartheid/Nuclear/Vietnam/Manapouri movements, perhaps he should step aside and let someone else who can …
12. Rodel 12

    25 July 2013 at 10:26 am

    I have always associated Anton Oliver with the word ‘integrity’, something that tories don’t seem to know about.
13. unicus 13

    25 July 2013 at 1:04 pm

    What neo-libs hate most of all is protection of any “right ” allowing contra interests to influence “their” economy -to a modest degree the RMA does that . Although most decisions are simply rubber stamped in favour of the applicant – communitys and individuals affected by crap development get a say – for developers and the neo-lib swine who support them even that is to much .

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS