Daily review 02/02/2022

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, February 2nd, 2022 - 49 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

49 comments on “Daily review 02/02/2022 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. arkie 1
    2 February 2022 at 6:09 pm

    A group of non-governmental organisations are calling for Aoteroa's natural wetlands to be doubled in size by 2050.

    The Every Wetland Counts He Piupiuaki Ia Rohe Kōreporepo campaign was launched today on World Wetlands Day.

    Only 10 percent, or 249,000 hectares, of Aotearoa's wetlands remain untouched.

    …

    Hague pointed out that there were already countless iwi and community wetland restoration projects happening around the motu but more needed to be done to create a national, co-ordinated effort.

    "We'd like to see high-level strategic thinking about how many hectares each region will aim to restore, and discussion around which wetland restorations will bring the greatest benefit."

    He believed the 2050 goal was achievable.

    "This is urgent. We're in a climate emergency, and while programmes like Jobs for Nature are valuable, they are not enough – wetland restoration for climate mitigation urgently needs resourcing and action," he said.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/460758/nz-wetlands-climate-heroes-need-to-double-in-size-campaign

    A laudable goal and doable. More funding to employ people to work on these projects should be a given. Connecting up the workers with farmers who may not yet have had the time or inclination to do much stream restoration would also be a good way to help manage the health of our native ecosystems. Such as it is, our wetlands are valuable in ways that fail to be realised in our current system. Sadly, what is the value of a wilderness if it cannot be exploited for monetary gain?

    • Dennis Frank 1.1
      2 February 2022 at 7:18 pm

      There's a resilience angle to it, not just conservation. Maori can probably do the restoration angle better than pakeha since they'd know what species thrive & may even have inherited some gnosis around sustainability of food sources therein.

      I think political support for this kind of thing escalates over a critical threshold when people add economic values to the mix. Eventually economists specialising in bioregional consultancy will probably join with ecologists doing the sustainability leg-work. Once everyone sees a multidisciplinary nexus emerging you'd get a paradigm shift encompassing farmers too.

      Permaculture would add design innovation, so communities & regions can learn to think ahead as well as behind. For instance, raised walkways with trees growing out of the sides bring shade & wind-shelter, introducing microclimates, which escalate biodiversity. Sumeria did something similar with the Euphrates/Tigris flood-plain, although intensive farming produced too many people who failed to adapt to climate change due to getting addicted to warfare.

      • arkie 1.1.1
        3 February 2022 at 8:57 am

        It is precisely because land is viewed as a commodity that it is mismanaged

        • Robert Guyton 1.1.1.1
          3 February 2022 at 9:03 am

          That view is what I work to reform, arkie. Much patience is required. Iwi take the long view. It's difficult for an individual to think in terms of generations. Changes to the world-view you describe are occurring and infiltrating the minds of all involved; think Te mana o the wai – this is a quiet bombshell for regional councils and the farming community.

          • arkie 1.1.1.1.1
            3 February 2022 at 9:08 am

            Tautoko Robert. I appreciate that these things take time, I just worry that time is yet another resource that we are running out of, as a species.

    • Ad 1.2
      2 February 2022 at 7:45 pm

      Can only happen if the 3-Waters go through.

      That's where the stormwater controls are.

      Left to regional councils as it is the wetlands in Southland and Waikato for example are still being destroyed.

      A few more high profile public roastings like this massive private demolition of Tauranga Harbour would also be useful:
      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/127658876/tauranga-pig-farmer-facing-jail-time-over-illegal-harbour-earthworks-for-makeshift-park

      • Robert Guyton 1.2.1
        2 February 2022 at 7:49 pm

        Which Southland wetlands "are still being destroyed", Ad?

          • Robert Guyton 1.2.1.1.1
            2 February 2022 at 8:14 pm

            Well, that was published in 2018, and covers 2009 til then, so your claim isn't really supported by that document. Not to say wetland destruction isn't occurring, but the paper doesn't show what you claim.

            • Ad 1.2.1.1.1.1
              2 February 2022 at 8:35 pm

              According to ES, still happening in 2014:

              Wetland inventory and monitoring in Southland.pdf (es.govt.nz)

              Still happening in Southland after that:

              ROOT-CAUSES-OF-WETLAND-LOSS-IN-NZ_Jan-2021.pdf (wetlandtrust.org.nz)

              You can check out the woeful images of loss and damage in 2019

              Revealed: Southland wetlands are vanishing | Newshub

              And from 2001 Southland has lost apparently 4,000 hectares of wetlands.

              New Zealand's wetlands remain at risk on private land | Forest and Bird

              Still continues according to latest stats from Stats NZ:

              https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/wetland-area

              Despite losing 90% of your wetlands since European settlement, the only people who have done a farmer prosecution for wetland destruction in Southland were DoC and the Southern Rural Fire Authority – until 2021.

              PressReader.com – Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

              Still happening 2021. And finally we see ES doing a wetland prosecution.

              https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/southland-farmer-accused-of-draining-wetland/Y4O5L7OY6ZXKVI25ISRGW2H3B4/

              People giving thanks for the work protecting Waituna are like a firefighter who kept his own circle green when the entire forest was burnt to black cinder.

              Quicker this is all taken off you the better.

              • Robert Guyton …
                3 February 2022 at 8:39 am

                I've always been acutely aware of the destruction of the wetlands of Murihiku and the challenges to repairing that harm. The landcare group I'm chairman of has created a 6 hectare wetland as part of its efforts to help reverse the situation. The Maori trust I worked for for 2 years similarly developed and enhanced wide-spread wetlands in western Southland. The greatest threat, in my opinion, to wet-lands in Southland are the field-tiles; sub-soil pipes installed to drain farmland – much of the Southland Plains was wetland, pre-modern farming. Uninstalling those deep drains would help return Southland to its former, wet, state; tuna would flourish, waterfowl would proliferate, flooding would cease, the ecosystem would be hugely enriched. The farmer-dominated, agriculture-thinking dominated agencies that permitted and encouraged the installation (on-going) of those drains could be blamed for the present situation (or congratulated, depending upon your point of view) but it would be a courageous Government that would require the removal of those drains; couldn't, in my opinion, be done. I'm not sure how 3-Waters might involve any adjustments to the system of draining Southland farms either – it doesn't seem to fall within any of the work-streams, so far as I can see. Perhaps you are right though, and it's where I agree with you: the regional council is intimately connected to the present state of the environment and should be held to account for the part it played in getting to this point. Perhaps though, you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in jettisoning the council from the issue – great changes in awareness have occurred over the time I've been on council (12 years) and significant changes to practice also. The destruction of wetlands is no longer condoned nor is a blind-eye turned to it. In fact, a great deal of energy is directed toward fixing the problem, recreating wetlands, repairing those that can be repaired, advertising their worth to the community; changes to the world-view of the "council" have been profound, though the "drag" of conventional farming slows down on-the-ground action, as you would expect. As to the Waituna , it's not really a matter of "protecting" the lagoon, it's far more than that: land has been purchased, relationships forged, regimes changed, a great deal of money invested and "difficult" philosophies accepted – all that needs to happen in perhaps every instance of change to the wetland situation in Southland and everywhere else for that matter. It could be that the regional council is not up to the task, but I'd be interested to hear from you as to who or what you believe could do better.

      • weka 1.2.2
        2 February 2022 at 8:05 pm

        Will three waters mean the dairy farms are removed from the Waituna catchment?

        • Ad 1.2.2.1
          2 February 2022 at 8:08 pm

          Let's see how strong the new entities get first.

          All to play for in 12 months.

        • Robert Guyton 1.2.2.2
          2 February 2022 at 8:10 pm

          That's already in train without 3 waters. There has been a great deal of work put into that mission! Ngai Tahu, the farming community and ES, DoC, Central Government etc. have worked successfully and cooperatively on returning the mahingakai values to the lagoon for years now. Huge challenge, nuanced responses.

          • weka 1.2.2.2.1
            2 February 2022 at 9:29 pm

            I knew they were doing good things, but are the dairy farms still in the catchment?

            • Robert Guyton 1.2.2.2.1.1
              3 February 2022 at 8:46 am

              Yes. Removing all farms, dairy or otherwise, from a catchment would set a precedent that would rock the country to its agricultural core. The alternative is to improve processes on those farms to such an extent that they do not negatively affect the waterbody at all. No small challenge, but that's the present direction of travel. Limit-setting, coming up very soon, carbon farming and waterbody restoration are the drivers.

              • weka …
                3 February 2022 at 8:56 am

                that might be better than my cynical heart believes, I hope so. I don't believe it's possible to have industrial dairy farms not affect waterways (the pollution has to go somewhere). There's also the issue of even the best farms can be too many in number for a catchment. But heading well in the right direction is heartening.

                Not that I'm saying anything you don't already know 🙂

      • weston 1.2.3
        2 February 2022 at 9:17 pm

        Keeping pigs in conditions like that deserves jail time imo .The guy comes across as a greedy cunning fuckwit .

    • Muttonbird 2.1
      2 February 2022 at 7:59 pm

      I worry it lets businesses off the hook. If employers know they don't have to pay redundancy packages because employees will pay through the levy, they will jump at the chance, surely.

      • pat 2.1.1
        2 February 2022 at 8:07 pm

        Theres that and a myriad of other detrimental consequences.

        If they wish to enable retraining then provide it when needed (and free) not some bullshit insurance scheme designed to grow financial markets….this does nothing for the future unemployed .

        A more honest descriptor for “Labour” would be the ‘Financial Markets Party”.

      • Ad 2.1.2
        2 February 2022 at 8:18 pm

        Near-zero people outside the public sector get redundancy payments anyway.

        Even councils and council entities have mostly got rid of them.

    • Patricia Bremner 2.2
      2 February 2022 at 8:14 pm

      So, ACC introduced in 1974 by a Labour Government.

      This in 2022 during a pandemic. What is not to like? It covers workers and works by a levy and will operate through ACC.

      There will be a further safety net of general welfare. ACC is better than welfare. You accept that's ok? So where is the problem?

      You can submit suggestions.

      • pat 2.2.1
        2 February 2022 at 8:21 pm

        Have already submitted the solution to their non problem….provide free retraining (or better yet a job guarantee)…up to 6 months of (likely seriously defended, a la ACC) additional payment does not create enhanced employment opportunites or even the ability to retrain, it does however provide a generous income stream to the financial markets and (temporarily) protects the banks from defaults…..its a disgrace, and a policy Id expect from ACT….( or the 4th Labour Gov) they have learnt nothing.

        • Ad 2.2.1.1
          2 February 2022 at 8:50 pm

          So it protects families with mortgages. A pretty good thing since most homeowners have them.

          Gives people time away from work.

          Gives people to find the right work suited to their skills – rather than taking a big sideways leap like so many have to in New Zealand because it is such a narrow industrial and servicing base.

          Gives them time to rearrange their finances, their choices. So redundancy becomes less of a major stressor event that people and families never recover from, and more of a moment to reassess your life and what you value.

          And for sure it gives a bedrock to the middle-and-working-class people employed directly by business. So it's doing the same job as ACC's purpose, but this time it's recovery from financial injury not recovery from bodily injury. That means it adds to our social cohesion.

          • arkie 2.2.1.1.1
            2 February 2022 at 9:11 pm

            It's the same as two-tier approach taken to cushion those who lost their jobs during the onset of COVID.

            Amid questions about the adequacy of benefit payments, as well as the eligibility criteria, the government ended up introducing the higher paying 12-week Covid-19 income relief payment for people who lost their jobs because of the pandemic.

            https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/443283/unemployment-insurance-scheme-could-cost-up-to-5-billion-a-year

            As usual the Greens pointing out the obvious:

            Jan Logie, the Green Party’s spokesperson for Workplace Relations and Safety added: “The Government’s proposed Income Insurance Scheme does not replace the urgent need for a much broader and comprehensive overhaul of the welfare system. To free people from the constraints of poverty, the Government needs to prioritise changes that will benefit those excluded from working full-time and the lowest income earners. This includes a Guaranteed Minimum Income, individualising benefits, and an urgent boost to income support. A strong welfare system means people do not feel forced to take a lower paid job just to make ends meet.

            “The Green Party will continue to argue strongly for changes to be made to the welfare system so everyone has enough to live on. Now more than ever, with the risk of long COVID, we need to make sure support is equitable regardless of people’s circumstances,” says Jan Logie.

            https://www.greens.org.nz/income_insurance_scheme_risks_embedding_two_tier_system

            • Ad 2.2.1.1.1.1
              2 February 2022 at 9:21 pm

              Jan Logie can make a submission like the rest of them about the actual proposal, rather than that perennial "what about over here as well".

          • lprent 2.2.1.1.2
            2 February 2022 at 11:39 pm

            It is also a no-fault system.

            However I’d have to say that I am against this proposal at present. We need to concentrate on getting the existing welfare system to no-fault first, otherwise as the Greens say – this becomes a really stupid two tier system.

            The way our existing unemployment system operates appears to be specifically designed to lock people into being poor and making it almost impossible to break out of its cycle.

            Stand down periods that seemed to be designed to drain all savings and make people fall behind on rent or mortgage repayments as fast as possible. Arbitrary cuts in benefits because there wasn’t public transport or even the money to get to a interview. Forcing people to take meaningless courses run by the poorly untrained to get a unemployment benefit (for instance look at any write your CV course run by the MSD).

            You only need to have had a passing glance at the reality of our unemployment systems to realise just how useless that are. Fix that first. Just removing all of those useless impediments to an efficient system would probably halve the running costs of our existing system.

    • Ad 2.3
      2 February 2022 at 8:16 pm

      I see it as an incentive to shift more workers into companies and fewer within self-employed contracts: it becomes an implied condition inside a company.

      It's also going to seriously hot up competition between companies (and government departments) for staff, because someone can just walk out, take several months gardening leave still have the mortgage protected, while negotiating their new position.

      • pat 2.3.1
        2 February 2022 at 8:38 pm

        What world do you live in?

        • Ad 2.3.1.1
          2 February 2022 at 8:54 pm

          A more hopeful and optimistic one than yours.

          • arkie 2.3.1.1.1
            2 February 2022 at 9:02 pm

            Well we do know the Prime Minister models the hope approach to politics.

          • pat 2.3.1.1.2
            2 February 2022 at 9:04 pm

            A very delusional one of you really believe this…::"It's also going to seriously hot up competition between companies (and government departments) for staff, because someone can just walk out, take several months gardening leave still have the mortgage protected, while negotiating their new position."

            You may have a little difficulty having your claim approved if you walk out…but I welcome you to try when its in place.

            • Ad 2.3.1.1.2.1
              2 February 2022 at 9:11 pm

              The Great Resignation may or may not be true in Europe or the US, but here as we are heading for 2.9% unemployed it's a happy time for headhunters, from by-the-bucket fruitpickers to $180k+ construction project managers. And so walk they do.

              The Great Resignation – Fact and fiction (theicehouse.co.nz)

              It was already on the books last year for 40% of our employed people.

              https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018801478/the-great-resignation-nearly-40-of-kiwis-looking-for-new-jobs

              • pat …
                2 February 2022 at 9:33 pm

                They may walk (and good on them if they do) but they wont be receiving any insurance payments.

                But the well qualified professional and the like on a salary of 100k (who can be expected to have savings and investments) will receive over 1500 p/w (less tax) should he/she be unfortunate enough to be made unemployed, is unlikely to need to become further qualified….the unqualified minimum wage worker however who is far more likely to be made unemployed (and be less likely to quickly find employment in a recession) will receive 640 p/w (less tax)….around the median rent in Auckland and wellington….and wont be retraining for anything in 6 months even if there is a training provider (at a price)….and are those who can least afford yet another clawback on their inadequate wages.

                And God help the precariat

                It does nothing to improve the chances of anyone finding employment, nor does it support those that need it most…..and it is all temporary, a maximum of 6 months.

                'Labour' my arse.

    • fender 2.4
      2 February 2022 at 8:19 pm

      Can't make insurance compulsory anyway surely. If someone felt their job would be there in ten years time when they wanted to retire then why would they want to be fleeced some more.

      • pat 2.4.1
        2 February 2022 at 8:39 pm

        Parliament sovereign…they make the rules

        • fender 2.4.1.1
          2 February 2022 at 10:15 pm

          Sounds like an issue for referendum then.

          Implementing the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations needs attention before this.

          Those who already have income protection insurance don't need this.

          • pat 2.4.1.1.1
            2 February 2022 at 10:38 pm

            Those that want income insurance have a multitude of options….and no lack of agents willing to to promote them.

      • Ad 2.4.2
        2 February 2022 at 9:06 pm

        Most people never get their money back on any kind of insurance.

        And of course times are good now so there seems to be no demand.

        Then 1988-9 happens,

        Then the 1990s recession,

        Then the Government strips back services in the 1990s,

        Then the Asian Financial Crisis

        Then 2001 9/11 shock

        Then the 2008-9 GFC

        Then COVID 2020-2023. Check your Kiwisaver now if you thought you were safe.

        Do you feel lucky enough that the next crisis won’t kill your job?

        • Stuart Munro 2.4.2.1
          2 February 2022 at 10:05 pm

          It's not crisies that kill most jobs anyway, but ill-conceived policy decisions.

          The cheap third nations labour that was largely responsible for the unemployment rate being so high, and wages so low prior to Covid, was policy driven. Treasury wonks being irresponsible with the labour market because immigration has no downside – if you deliberately don't include housing in inflation, and are too lazy and unprofessional to collect local data.

          Income insurance is already available – but not particularly popular. There will be few takers, and a broad recognition of government attempting to step back yet again from social support.

          No votes in this one, Grant. No economic benefit either. So – why bother?

  3. Peter 3
    2 February 2022 at 9:26 pm

    High Court rejects interim application to halt vaccine to children

    "A group of eight parents has been refused an interim order to halt the vaccine roll-out for children.

    The group, whose names are suppressed, asked a High Court judge to decide the interim order last week citing that their children were being disadvantaged by it."

    …

    "The judge said while the parents’ concerns were sincerely held, they were speculative and not factual.

    The judge said a number of the impediments referred to by the applicants were the result of their own (rather than their children’s) unvaccinated status."

    I think I've got this right. A group of nutty parents want the mass of kids in the country to not be vaccinated because they themselves don't want to be vaccinated.

    In my book their concerns being "sincerely held" does not exclude them from being nutty. I mean there are many in this country who have the "sincerely held" belief that people with brown skin are inferior.

    I understand their apprehension about the world their kids are going to have to face. The biggest fear for they future of those kids though could be the parents they have.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/127622724/high-court-rejects-interim-application-to-halt-vaccine-to-children