Open mike 20/05/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, May 20th, 2013 - 212 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 link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

212 comments on “Open mike 20/05/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BLiP 1
    20 May 2013 at 6:09 am

    ***** Greetings

    I am still having trouble with The Standard’s email address for submissions (probably all the embedded links ???) so, herewith, submit the following for your consideration.

    I know its going to end up in moderation so you might as well delete it from here – no need to clutter up “Open Mike” with this as the first post. I am happy to be identified as the author. Feel free to make what ever edits you wish, this might make a good illustration (I swiped it off thejackalman site), this is a good one too.

    If you choose not to publish this submission, no worries, but I would be grateful for any feedback you might provide as to how I can improve the material for subsequent consideration, if at all.

    Kind Regards

    BLiP *****

    Its not that long ago when, under the heading “ Practical, balanced plan for the environment”, Prime Minister John Key announced

    . . .Our environment is a valuable resource that we must preserve and protect. It’s a big part of our quality of life and it’s central to our international reputation, primary sector, tourism sector and wider economy. National’s practical environmental plan will see cleaner rivers and lakes, more trees, more renewable electricity, cleaner air, better management of our oceans and more recycling . . .

    Well, he’s a known liar but just what exactly has the John Key-led National Ltd™ government been up to when it comes to the environment. In short, the exact opposite of what John Key promised. For the long version, read on. Since its election in 2008 National Ltd™ has:

    been caught out repeatedly lying in the run up to and during the election campaign about its real intentions in relation to the environment

    celebrated the opening of the foreign-owned Pike River Coal Ltd mine on DOC land adjacent to the Paparoa National Park from which 1 megatonne of coal will be extracted per year for the next 20 years – Pike River Coal Ltd has announced that it has found additional coal in the national park

    cancelled a proposed efficiency standard (MEPS) on incandescent lightbulbs

    reversed a moratorium on building new gas/oil/coal power stations

    removed the bio fuel subsidy

    scrapped the scheme that would have penalised imported vehicles producing high emissions

    removed regulations for water efficient new housing by Order in Council

    renewed leases on sensitive high country farms which were meant to return to DOC

    reversed restrictions on the freeholding of vast swathes of land on the edge of the Southern Lakes

    arbitrarily excised 400 hectares from the brand new Oteake Conservation Park, including the most important and, ecologically, the rarest part of the new Park, the tussock and shrubland that went right down to the banks of the Manuherikia River, to enable future access to lignite

    said nothing to say in regard to the World Commission on Protected areas of IUCN’s severe criticism of its intention to investigate mineral resources and mining opportunities in protected conservation areas including our three UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Te Wahi Pounamu-South West New Zealand, Tongariro National Park and the Sub Antarctic Islands

    approved two prospecting permit applications lodged by Australian iron-ore giant Fortescue Metals Group subsidiary FMG Pacific lodged in June – areas covered by the two-year permits include an 8204-square-kilometre area of seabed adjoining the west coast from Cape Reinga to the Manukau Harbour and a 3798-square-kilometre prospecting area of land from Cape Reinga to the Kaipara Harbour including Ninety Mile Beach, the west side of the Aupouri Peninsula, Kaitaia and the Hokianga.

    approved an additional prospecting permit for Fortescue Metals in relation to 3568sq km right next door to the Kahurangi National Park where the Heaphy Track is

    was forced to release its Ministry of Economic Development (MED) report under the Official Information Act that proclaims “significant mineral potential” in the Fiordland, Kahurangi and Paparoa national parks – the report said the Waitutu area of the Fiordland National Park had sufficient petroleum reserves to be “worthy” of inclusion in a review of conservation land protected from mining

    secretly granted the minerals industry the right to veto proposed National Park boundaries and permission for any such vetoes to be kept confidential – in spite of recommendations from its own officials against any such a veto

    called for caring New Zealanders to halt their “emotional hysteria” and recognise that conservation land should be mined for minerals and went on to say “Mining in a modern, technological way can have a negligible effect”

    rubished the Department of Conservation (“Canterbury Farming” June 2010 issue – now offline) suggesting it was incapable of looking after the high country reserves and parks under its control

    gutted the home insulation scheme

    pulled $300 million out of public transport, walking and cycling schemes and added it to a pot of $2 billion to ‘upgrade’ state highways

    changed the law to provide billions of dollar in subsidies for polluters via the ETS casino

    begun a process of gutting the Resource Management Act to make it difficult/impossible for the public to lodge appeals against developers

    removed the ability of Auckland to introduce a fuel levy to fund planned public transport upgrades

    left electrification of the Auckland rail network up in the air without promised funding commitments and then came through with a dodgy loan scheme and then unilaterally reorganised the local government structure before finally setting about the privatisation-by-stealth model when busting KiwiRail

    removed the programme to make Government Departments ‘carbon neutral’ and also began its first wave of public sector redundancies starting with the Ministry for the Environment which was responsible for the scheme

    removed funding for public tv advertising on sustainability and energy efficiency

    pulled funding for small-town public litter bin recycling schemes

    displayed cabinet ministers expressing public support the bulldozing of Fiordland

    reduced Department of Conservation funding by $54 million over three years

    cancelled funding for the internationally acclaimed ‘Enviroschools’ programme

    usurped the democratic role of local Councils of determining policies for their citizens by requiring the abandonment of the efficient and well-established tree protection rules for urban areas

    set about revamping Auckland governance in a way that is likely to greatly reduce the ‘Environmental Watchdog’ role of the the current Regional Council (since completely fucked it up with the SuperShitty)

    removed Auckland’s metropolitan limits and opened the gateway for unfettered urban sprawl

    defended internationally the importation of rain-forest-wrecking palm kernel and stood silent while Federated Farmers called Greenpeace “despicable” criminals, traitors, and robbers

    stood silent while Godfrey Bloom, a Member of the European Parliament and infamous Climate Change Denialist, publicly rejoiced in the 1985 bombing of the Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior – who was doing so while standing on a dock next to the replacement vessel

    took a 0% emissions reduction target to Copenhagen. Yes, seriously, that isn’t a misprint – that was the lower bound of their negotiation platform – then missed the 01/02/10 deadline for commitment to action it had agreed to – meanwhile 55 of the 80 countries which attended did make the deadline

    secretly cancelled the internationally recognised scheme for the mandatory labelling of exotic woods to ensure the timber has not been taken from rain forests in direct contradiction of its own statements made at the 13th World Forestry Congress in Argentina

    supported the Department of Conservation’s decision to open up the pristine Cathedral Cove to an ice-cream franchise

    gave the Department of Conservsation $1.7 million to further develop commercial activities on DOC land and started an “off set” plan allowing company’s to damage the conservation estate if they agree to improve land elsewhere – no monitoring regime has been suggested on put in place

    left DOC director-general Al Morrison to announce that DOC is to charge for services that had been free and, to soften the public up to the idea that there will be more “energy generation schemes” operating on DOC land

    took no action to reduce existing pollution pouring into the Manawatu River and is “leaving it up to industry” to come up with solutions to heal the river which was described by the Cawthorn Institute as “one of the worst polluted in the Western world”

    announced a $1.69 million industry subsidy to kick start marine farming without identifying no-go areas nor putting in place a consultation process for individiuals, communities, and other general coastal users

    been forced to release documents under the Official Information Act which confirm that DOC has “giving up” on ecologically valuable high-country land in the Mackenzie Basin because of funding cuts. The released documents cite “statements made by ministers”, “diminishing funding” and the Government’s new high-country policies as reasons for the changed stance – the comments from DOC were made after Land Information New Zealand (Linz), which manages the tenure review process, ignored DOC’s previous conservation recommendations for the farms

    used former National Party minister and current director of Open Country Cheese – a company convicted of filthy farming practices and found by the supreme court to be a dodgy employer – Wyatt Creech to head up an enquiry into Environment Canterbury which had been standing up the dairy farmers’ demands for more and more water resources and less and less regulation. The Creech report recommended the Environmental Canterbury be sacked and replaced with government appointments and the voters of Canterbury do without democracy until the water situation had been resolved. The Canterbury area holds 50 percent of New Zealand’s fresh water reserves and 50 percent of the water required for hyrdo energy. The Creech report said Environmental Centerbury put too much focus on the environment

    been subjected to international condemnation for knowing next to nothing about the parlous state of the New Zealand fisheries

    bucked international trends and poured more acid on the 100% Pure brand and increases the bluefin tuna quota

    squirmed when New Zealand is subject to international criticism for its backing of commericial whaling which National Ltd supports

    funded Government-owned company Solid Energy runs an essay competition entitled “ The role of coal in sustainable energy solutions for New Zealand” for school children. First prize is a trip to New Zealand’s largest coal customer, China.

    supported access fees for entrance onto DOC walkways – fee introduced following cuts to DOC’s budget.

    pressed on with PR bullshit about how New Zealand’s environment would profit from mining national parks, Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson says.

    Department of Conservation director-general Al Morrison said the conservation estate created “opportunities to do a whole lot for a lot of different people . . . we’ve got to get away from this idea that somehow we have to protect one-third of New Zealand for a certain constituency and put it in a jar of formaldehyde and leave it

    created random fantasies of abundant wealth to promote all forms of mining

    ignored reports on sustained non-compliance with resource consents and worsening pollution of water ways.

    ignored its own Ministers possible conflicts of interest

    done nothing as both its own SOE Meridian and the Department of Conservation to withdraw appeals against an 85m high damn with a 14km long reservoir on conservation land.

    granted Energy Resources permission to ship Australian yellowcake uranium ore through New Zealand.

    apologised but does nothing else for breaching the Treaty of Waitangi by granting a mining exploration permit to Brazilian company Petrobras

    continued to remove environmental protection powers from local authorities

    totally reversed gains made in the protection of National Parks and other high-value conservation areas in the South Island.

    commenced a divide-and-rule strategy by attempting to paint New Zealanders interested in protecting the environment as outside of the “mainstream” and in defence of the fact that the media is catching to its bare-faced lies in the lead up to the 2008 election

    carried on with more lies by talking about modern mining like that at Reefton being carried out by Oceana Golds as being like “key hole surgery”

    appeared to believe that the tourists it is attempting to bring to New Zealand are all blind and won’t see for themselves the impact of the dairy farming it is subsidising to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars

    appeared itself to be blind when it comes to the Chairman of Fonterra

    forced the Commissioner for the Environment to delay the release of a report into the ramifications for climate change in regard to lignite mining and proposals to convert the lignite into diesel

    employed financial sleight of hand in shuffling funds towards business interests and away from community groups looking to protect the environment

    made more empty promises when a report showing that a third of New Zealand lankes have poor quality water is released

    backed down on promises to protect New Zealand children (and the environment cleaner by more informed disposal) from harmful chemicals by improving labeling and imposing mandatory standards on containers

    Ignored the findings by attacking the messenger when a World Health Organisation report confirms that New Zealand’s main centres have the worst air in Australasia and Auckland is the most polluted with twice the concentration of damaging airborne particles as Sydney.

    studiously ignored so as to take piss about dire warnings concerning the quality of drinking water in Reidstone

    failed to mention in its 100% Pure promotions that visitors to the Kerikeri Basin near the Stone Store – one of Northland’s iconic tourism and heritage sites – could come face-to-face with warning signs telling them the water is polluted

    failed to mention in its 100% Pure promotions that tourists in the Coromandel could come face to face with New Zealand’s environmental standards when finding hundreds of dead snapper washed up on Beaches

    presented bogus evidence concerning air pollution

    made more empty promises in relation to air pollution while also extending deadlines for local councils to reduce air pollution

    extended deadlines for businesses previously require to reduce air pollution by 2013

    put tourism operators in Akaroa at risk by refusing to make the harbour a marine reserve . . . and then rubs salt into their wounds

    done nothing after the United Nations finds that National Ltd™’s targets for reducing pollution are not consistent with the measures put in place to achieve those targets

    attempted to defend the Emissions Trading Scheme from comparisons with the Australian model while Environment Minister Nick Smith indicates there’s little chance of the two schemes being integrated any time soon

    then further slowed down the implentation of New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme

    allowed major retailers to reap the benefits of its earlier and secret decision to abandon the mandatory labelling of exotic woods after it is found that the retailers are contributing to the death of native Australian forests despite an independent, year-long investigation which finds otherwise

    tried to keep a meeting between John Key and mininng company Anadarko’s boss secret. The company is responsble for a massive oil spill and is looking to to start drilling off New Zealand soon

    continued to ignore yet more evidence of farmers failing to comply with environmental regulations

    handed over $400 million to farmers to extend water storage and allow for more land to be used for dairy farms. No mention or provision is made for additional protections required to deal with the increased pollution

    failed to point out in its 100% Pure promotion that tourists (and locals) should avoid the Opihi River along State Highway 1 because of the risk of exposure to toxins from phormidium

    failed to point out in its 100% Pure promotions that tourists arriving at New Zealand’s “nuclear free” sea ports will be sharing the environment with up to 5,000 tonnes of radioactive yellow cake uranium

    lied about how bad the RMA is

    ignored top scientists and academics who point out that its underfunding of the Department of Conservation will send more species into extinction and hurt its 100% Pure image.

    Ignored John Key making an international arse out of himself in regard to New Zealand’s 100% Pure image

    carried on with its lies as New Zealand is identified as jeoparising its good name by allowing us to become one of a small number of states stalling progress in forming an international climate agreement
    kept stringing us along even after Next thing, New Zealand received the 2nd place Fossil Award for “proposing the most Flexible Mechanism imaginable with no oversight or review. Bring on the wild west. They want to be able to use any market mechanisms they wish with absolutely no oversight or international review! There would be no way to ensure that the units from one mechanism have not been sold two or three times to another such mechanism. This would likely unleash a wild west carbon market with double or triple counting of offsets and a likely increase of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.”

    stood silent when Fonterra was caught out lying by overstating its farmer’s compliance on excluding stock from waterways by 100%

    put World class surfing waves and Maui’s dolphin’s at Raglan at severe risk by encouraging a proposed iron ore seabed mining in New Zealand’s coastal waters

    never followed up after the scientific models created by New Zealand and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to allow fishing are called into question

    set the scene for our children heading down to the park to find an overseas’ owned company had set up a dairy farm in one corner. Over time the shit builds up

    ignored data which shows the expansion of fish-farming in the Marlborough Sounds could cause unacceptable changes in the coastal environment

    strategically removed the word “environment” from the lexicon of local and central government

    failed to tell the tourists it hopes to attact with its 100% Pure campaign that every year, New Zealand drops huge quantities of poison-laced food into its forest ecosystems; enough poison to kill its human population 4 times over, every year. No country has ever done anything remotely similar, on such a scale

    failed to tell the tourists it hopes to attract with its 100% Pure campaign that more than a third of Auckland’s beaches fail water quality checks and are closed for swimming

    ignored the closing of the beaches, this time as extremely high concentrations of the bacteria enterococci are identified
    ignored Ministerial conflicts of interest, this time involving John Key who is identified as shareholder in the Bank Of America which is backing mining in New Zealand and Australia . . . even when more information is made available . . . and more information . . . and more information

    pressed on with additional policies that move away from the protection of the environment towards exploitation

    limited , as part of its effort to cash-in on the environment, access to some of New Zealand’s most endangered species and isolated islands only to those who those who contribute financially displacing conservation staff and scientists

    ignored a World Wildlife Fund report, Beyond Rio, which makes clear New Zealand now risks some of the highest rates of biodiversity loss on Earth unless urgent action is taken

    continued to give confidence to Fonterra director Colin Armer being convicted and fined $72,000 for “fouling” a Bay of Plenty waterway after a judge found he could have prevented the pollution were it not for his “systemic” failure to monitor what was happening on his company’s farm

    lied when it said New Zealand has the environmental laws and regulations to control oil and gas development on the continental shelf because there is no equivalent of the Resource Management Act to control oil and gas activity outside of the territorial sea (12 nautical miles offshore).
    lied when it had already agreed coastal plans to allow marine farming consent holders in the Waikato and Marlborough to move from mussel farming to finfish farming without considering the additional environmental effects imposed

    placed short-term business interests ahead of long-term consequences to New Zealand’s environment, particularly biodiversity by allowing damage in one area on the condition that it be “off set” in another creating a dangerous precedent in that such a provisin means that one part of biodiversity can be wrecked in return for “protecting” an area that was never under threat anyway.

    promoted proposals that include include a plant producing about 2 billion litres of diesel per year, using at least 12 million tonnes of lignite per year and another producing 3 billion litres using 12-17 million tonnes of lignite annually. A further project would produce by 2016 1.2 tonnes of the nitrogenous fertiliser, urea, using 2 million tonnes of lignite annually

    tried to hide the fact that its Department of Conservation was ordered to permit Meridian to to build a damn on the Mohikinui River despite its position that “the public conservation land within the Mokihinui River has such high value that it is most unlikely to be suitable for exchange at all

    continued to ignore the slow-motion extinction of Maui’s dolphins:

    gone into hiding after it was discovered that significant cuts to the Ministry for the Environment in the 2012 Budget are not publicly detailed or announced

    continued to ignore its international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to “protect and preserve” the martime environment

    refused in the face of repeated calls to set national standards for water quality despite mounting evidence of the need to do so

    further weakened protection for wild rivers in Canterbury with the ECan Act and indicates that further weakening provisions will follow.

    rubber stamped a motorway project with no economic benefit and likely to waste over $1 billion of tax payers’ funds.

    been forced to admit that it has spent $1.67 million in a survey of minerals on the West Coast of New Zealand, including within the Te Wahipounamu South West New Zealand world heritage area. Te Wahipounamu is one of 183 natural heritage

    secretly ordered that world heritage sites on the West Coast be surveyed as part of a $3 million mineral study spanning more than 16,000 square kilometres. The survey was only puiblicy revealed after Green MP Catherine Delahunty asked for details in a parliamentary question

    appointed thoroughtly unsuitable but politically useful members to the Establishment Board for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    facilitated by neglect the employment of inexperienced managers, making poor policy decisions resulting in additional threats to New Zealand’s biosecurity.

    under resourced New Zealand’s biosecurity system to such an extent that it is fundamentally flawed preventing any way of identifying how the Kiwifruit killer virus got into New Zealand and, thus, no way of preventing it from happening again.

    handed over a further $80 million to business and farmers to subsidise their pollution.

    ignored its own guidelines to provide consent the Milford Dart tunnel and Fiordland Link Experience which would otherwise never have been granted.

    appointed an advisory group to recommend a significant rewrite of the Resource Management Act to remove references to the protection of coastal areas, wetlands, lakes and rivers and indigenous flora and fauna.

    splashed tax payer cash around its consultants considering conservation and environmental protection of the Mackenze Basin and Waitaki Valley

    further weakened the resource consent process for foreign-owned mining companies,

    locked New Zealanders out of the consultation process on the alloting of areas being made available for resource exploration.

    ignored the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and scrapped government grants for solar water heating

    used the Navy along with police and Crown Law to bully environmental protesters in a legal case they knew could not be won

    put 23 massive blocks of deep and wild waters east of Wellington and Dunedin on the international market for exploratory oil drilling

    allowed its own consultants do a u-turn on the economic benefits of additional roading and then handed them a $200 million contract for further consultation work

    Supported the Department of Conservation into granting foreign-owned multinational mining company OceanaGold permission to destroy 55 hectares of beech forest so as to extend its Reefton mine to a total 81 hectares without public notification

    envouraged the Minerals Industry Association to bully local authorities to step aside from what little environmental protections they are able to impose

    reduced its environment agencies to little more than a ramshackle collection of underfunded and ineffective small back offices with no direction or policy for dealing with the vast marine resources of New Zealand

    eroded New Zealand’s bio-security to such an extent that Christchurch Airport is found to have failed at a basic level

    removed the directive terms “protect”, “preserve”, “maintain” and “enhance” from the RMA fundamentally weakening the legislation and deliberately introducing confusion as to its overall intent.

    futher ensured that New Zealand tax payers continue to subsidise 95% of big polluters’ emissions

    drastically reduced the size of proposed marine reserves off the West Coast so much so that one advocate says they are “an insult” to those who spent years trying to establish them

    instructed its delegates at the world’s largest conservation conference , the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s conference in Korea, to oppose any further measures to protect Maui and Hector dolphins in defiance of 117 other countries and 460 environmental organisations requesting New Zealand ban gill and trawl nets in waters up to 100 metres deep

    lied about the environmental impact of fraking

    refused to enforce its own legislation to protect the environment

    ignored concerns about fracking which has seen the practise banned around the world

    twisted the knife by exploiting news of redundancies at Solid Energy in a statement which claims opponents to a proposed mine are “getting in the way of” potential jobs as part of an effort to discourage legal action

    changed to law allowing a consideration of the effects on climate change to allow Australian-owned mining company Bathurst Resources (also known as Buller Coal) to build a 200-hectare open-cast coal mine on the plateau and excavate 80 million tonnes of coal that, when burnt, will release about 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

    further ensured the extinction of New Zealand sea lions by failing to extend necessary fishing restrictions

    failed to protect the New Zealand marine environment and ignored international obligation with its Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act oil drilling legislation

    continued to obfuscate and dither while More than half of monitored recreational sites on our rivers are declared unsafe for swimming

    ignored its own scientific evidence and advice from its own authorities to lock-in tax payer funding of business which pollutes New Zealand’s air

    refused to enforce its own laws in respect to water pollution

    changed the law to make it more difficult to build a deck on a house than it is to drill for oil

    avoided its international obligations “to ensure the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use” while its fishers carry on with the barbaric practise of shark finning.

    ignored public support for conservation by ordering another round of cuts to the Department of Conservation.

    stood alone at the world’s largest conservation summit and voted against more protection for species at risk

    further gutted environmental protection legislation to speed up the building consent process for developers

    vancelled without notice the five-yearly State of the Environment report put together by the Ministry of the Environment, the report is the largest stock-take of trends relating to land, water, air, plants and animals

    abandoned the Kyoto agreement completely

    allowed its on lobbyist to publicly attack a prominent New Zealand scientist for speaking truth about New Zealand’s environment in an effort to silence the accurate reporting of scientific evidence

    attracted international mockery for the fact that the pristine landscape featured in The Hobbit and used as the basis for the 100% Pure New Zealand campaign as fantastical as dragons and wizards

    remained “relaxed” about the fact that New Zealand is now the 18th worst out of 189 nations when it came to preserving its natural environment

    pulled out of Kyoto just weeks after the OECD reports that global greenhouse gas emissions could rise 50 per cent by 2050 without more ambitious climate policies, as fossil fuels continue to dominate the energy mix

    laughed when New Zealand received two “Fossil of the Day” – first-equal and second place – awards on the first day of international climate talks in Doha, Qatar

    used Hobbiton – Waikato – as the centrepiece of its 100% Pure campaign when the area is the country’s major source of pollution to the Hauraki Gulf

    handed over responsibility for the monitoring and reporting of fraking activity , for which it has inadequate legal protections, to the foreign-owned multi-nationals which are carrying out that activity thus totally ignoring its own Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

    lied, obfuscated and used government resources to attack and undermined local authority plans to improve water quality
    sanctioned an unnamed foreign-owned multinational to go ahead with a major road through pristine South Island National Parks

    employed disingenuous gobbledeegook to defend its decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Agreement.

    turned a deaf ear to calls for New Zealand to assist pacfic island nations by taking a stronger position on climate change

    displayed contempt for existing agreements and Environment Case law by approving new salmon farms in recreational areas within the Marlborough Sounds

    refused to investigate the impact on increasing use of neonicotinoid pesticides which is likely to be a major contributor to the sudden and dramatic decline (aka colony collapse disorder) of the New Zealand honey bee population, National Ltd™ also refused to consider the development of a strategy to protect what is left of the honey bee population.

    lied about its commitment to addressing climate change

    failed to monitor Sanford Ltd’s pollution resulting in an international embarrassment

    allowed foreign-owned multinationals to proceed with oil exploration without the financial resources available to mitigate any environmental damage should it occur

    been caught out ignoring its own advice on implementing environmental monitoring procedures

    used changes to the Resource Management Act to remove local authorty’s rights and planning for the protection of trees

    commenced removing local authority’s rights to plan for housing

    allowed more than 53 percent of Canterbury’s major water users to avoid having meters installed

    mixed the cooperative model of climate change negotiations with the competitive model used in trade negotiations, thus putting outcomes in both areas a risk

    ducked questions asking for evidence as to the safety of genetically engineered food

    ignored the fact that New Zealand carbon credits are no longer the unit of choice in the New Zealand’s own carbon market. Figures from the official Emission Unit Registry show that emitters who initially supported NZUs are now using a range of international units to meet their carbon obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme

    used highly dodgy figures in calculating the reduction New Zealand’s net carbon emissions by including trees due to be harvested in the next few years

    ignored news that New Zealand’s first glyphosate resistant weed has been found and the resulting call for the use of glyphosate (Monsanto’s “Roundup”) to cease

    stayed silent for five months after being advised that Fonterra’s milk product were contaminated with dicyandiamide (DCD) and now face an international backlash.

    set no maximum level of contamination of dicyandiamide (DCD) (AKA cyanoguanidine) in milk products for consumption by New Zealanders, stood silent while the farming industry says the withdrawal of dicyandiamide (DCD) will result in yet more pollution of New Zealand’s waterways

    stood silent as NIWA announced findings of research which showed 20 per cent of marine life in the Milford Sounds port area could be killed off as a result of copper leaching from anti-fouling paints on boat hulls

    secretly without consultation and any right of appeal used a short-term draconian law to ammend a water conservation order for the Rakaia River

    been locked out of the international carbon market because of its trucculent attitude

    continued in its efforts to eliminate tree protection of any kind in Auckland and elsewhere

    stood alone as the only developed country not to have tabled an unconditional single number target as part of the international climate change negotiations

    cut funding into research about protecting the last remaining giant kauri

    continued to endanger the 100% Pure brand

    been unable to explain how genetically engineered mould escaped from Massey University laboratories and remains unable or unwilling to provide further information

    introduced foreign species without a consideration of the risk to human health

    allowed oil companies to ignore breaches of resource consent and set neihhbours against neighbours

    obfuscated on the negative economic benefits of major raod works

    obfuscated on the level of cuts to the Department of Conservation

    disengaged the previously widely held concept of environmental protection from any consideration of economic development

    sacked 140 staff at the Department of Conservation

    inserted last minute changes to environmental legislation that were not announced and, thus, not considered during public submissions and earlier readings of Bills.

    lied about the practise of fracking going on in New Zealand for the past 30 years

    funded its Economic Development Ministry’s membership of the Coal Association lobby group

    staged a consultation process on the restructuring for the Department of Conservation and then completely ignored any submissions generated

    proposed handing over recreational paua gathering areas to commercial operators

    opened a further 190,000 square kilometers of New Zealand’s coastal waters for oil exploration

    allowed the Minister of Energy’s own political adviser to make public calls for the boycotting of the environmental iniative Earth House

    held secret meetings with oil company executives known international as irresponsible and mendacious

    exposed Auckland beaches to the unmonitored risk of oil exploration by companies unable to afford any clean up operations if required

    breached international law and used parliamentary urgency and ignored international guidelines to rush through legislation depriving New Zealanders of the right to protest against drilling for oil within 350 miles if New Zealand coast

    given permission for oil drilling to take place over earthquake ridden continental plate fault lines just off shore from Wellington

    stood idle while water quality used by households continyes to worsen

    ensured that the MacKenzie Basin is turned from a conservation estate into a development area

    used parliamentary urgency to avoid public notification, consultation and/or consideration of a law allowing companies with no experience nor financial resources to drill for oil on earthquake-ridden fault lines lying in New Zealand coastal waters

    . . . but wait, there’s more!!

    • Paul 1.1
      20 May 2013 at 6:41 am

      Wow – quite a list.
      That makes for depressing reading on a Monday morning.
      Then there’s the whole “we’re changing the law and you’re not allowed to see it, change it or ever complain about it.”
      http://publicaddress.net/onpoint/what-andrew-geddis-said-but-shorter-and-with/

      Fascism is creeping into NZ…..and the media doesn’t care because it’s owned by people who got given nice cars and nice houses for looking the other way.
      Don’t notice any democracy under attack headlines at the moment.
      Shame on the editor of the Herald and the other quislings who have betrayed their country for a pittance.

      • Ugly Truth 1.1.1
        20 May 2013 at 7:42 am

        “Fascism is creeping into NZ”

        While it’s good to see that some people are waking up to the problem, this isn’t anything new. The evil empire has had its agents here since the Treaty of Waitangi, if not before.

        The Canadian residential school genocide.
        The misrepresentation of Maori sovereignty in the English text of the Treaty of Waitangi.
        The false claim of sovereignty over New Zealand.
        The unlawful confiscation of Maori land.
        The Kenyan concentration camps.

        • Paul 1.1.1.1
          20 May 2013 at 7:47 am

          Does your comment ‘this isn’t anything new’ meant to infer that we should not concern ourselves about this?
          A direct question. Do you think that the government is acting in an authoritarian and undemocratic manner through such actions as highlighted in the public address article?

          • vto 1.1.1.1.1
            20 May 2013 at 9:18 am

            Yep, the fact that bad things happenned in the past means we should be right on top of these matters today. We must be vigilante to ensure that robust parameters are put around our society and that they are followed with utmost care and attention.

            We do have a fascism in this country, yet we turn a blind eye watching tv.

            We do have an attack on democracy on various fronts in this country, yet we turn a blind eye sitting on our fat bums.

            We do have weak and weakening practices around best practice all over the whole place, yet we turn a blind eye, wandering around the warehouse.

            People need to wake up.

        • prism 1.1.1.2
          20 May 2013 at 9:34 am

          Ugly
          We’re talking about NZ Don’t try to diffuse and confuse the attention to the fact about fascism here.

          • weka 1.1.1.2.1
            20 May 2013 at 9:56 am

            S/he is talking about NZ though. The Canadian and Kenyan examples both happened here too, in their own way.

            • vto 1.1.1.2.1.1
              20 May 2013 at 10:26 am

              (Hi weka, you may recall our elongated discussion the other day. Would be interested in your view on an issue raised there (as you requested), just below where you left off. Was on openmike 17/5).

              • weka …
                20 May 2013 at 6:09 pm

                Hi vto, I’ve replied down thread

                http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-20052013/#comment-635628

                I didn’t see the rest of the convo the other day, and I am glad. There would have been no point for me in being in a discussion where the pejorative ‘cunt’ was being used do often. I hope you can now see how offensive that was.

                Marty’s response was a beautiful demonstration of the gap between our cultures, but also was a gift of healing that gap too if we wish to receive it (thanks Marty)

                on another point your excessive use of the word cunt – it reminds me that there are no demeaning terms for ‘woman’ in the Māori language, and that the first human was a woman – Hine-ahu-one, and that as all come from women at birth, at death the same occurs through Hine-nui-te-pō, and that Papa-tū-ā-nuku is our earth mother and sustainer of life and that women are mediators of tapu. Thanks for reminding me of these things vto even though you were trying to insult.

                • vto …
                  20 May 2013 at 9:05 pm

                  Over it here weka. Does it occur that offense is a two-way thing?

                  The insults stand.

                  Out (on this).

                  • weka …
                    20 May 2013 at 9:24 pm

                    I can’t know how I have offended you if you don’t tell me.

                    • vto …
                      20 May 2013 at 9:36 pm

                      not you sorry, that other person who the insults were directed at.

                    • weka …
                      20 May 2013 at 10:09 pm

                      Well of course, but I wasn’t talking about you offending marty, I was talking about you offending women, myself included (although it’s not offense I feel exactly so much as just wanting to avoid).

            • Populuxe1 1.1.1.2.1.2
              20 May 2013 at 1:42 pm

              Care to find me an example of a Maori concentration camp? Even the mooted “native reserves” were dropped early on. And the Canadian residential schools horror, and the stolen generation of Australian Aborigines as well, revolting in postcolonial hindsight, are only “genocide” if you accept the UN definition’s inclusion of the removal of children based on race for placement with another race to indoctrinate them (to me race and cultural identity are seperate concepts). It’s certainly barbaric and shameful, though considered enlightened at the time, but facists abide by another definition of genocide entirely #endlösung

              • Tim …
                20 May 2013 at 5:01 pm

                Well there was at least one Populuxicle – though temporary in nature (so that’s alright then aye!). It occurred relatively recently at the foot of the Uraweras.

              • JK …
                20 May 2013 at 5:12 pm

                A Maori concentration camp, Populuxe 1 ? Maybe these examples are not strictly concentration camps as we envisage them from WW2, but they could fit that criteria with a stretch of the imagination :

                1. The incarcenation of Maori men at beginning of WW1 (Tainui I think) because their leader Princess Te Puia said none of her Maori men would go off to fight other people’s wars so soon after fighting their own battles to retain their land. They were imprisoned at the bunkers now known as Fort Takapuna, Devonport and put to hard labour. This is recorded in Michael King’s book about Princess Te Puia.

                2. The sending of Maori men down from Parihaka (Taranaki) to live in caves along the Dunedin waterfront and build the road (don’t know what its called) that leads out of Dunedin to Larnarch Castle. These men worked in horrendous conditions – in the sea water – to build this road. There’s some sort of memorial to them, somewhere along that road. I was told this by a tour guide when I was in Dunedin.

              • weka …
                20 May 2013 at 5:36 pm

                Pop, I don’t think it’s any secret that the ideology of the day was that Maori should be assimilated into European culture, and would die out as a race. There were govt policies that aimed for that.

                Then there are histories like this (the Dunedin prison labour camps)

                http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/221295/truths-far-greater-myths

                • Populuxe1 …
                  20 May 2013 at 8:15 pm

                  Yes, I am well aware that the philosophy was one of smoothing the death bed pillow up until the early years of the twentieth century and thence agressive assimilation. But I am disquieted when people play fast and loose with some terminology that carries some very heavy baggage.

                  A concentration camp is very specific – a place to basically pack people in and for the most part let them to starve to death. It is not a place of punishment, per se, but a particularly brutal method of slow execution. And basically they exist for cramming in people of a specific type to get them out of the way, which is not quite the same as a work camp or a prison camp in the usual sense. Given the Portobello example, I’ll back off that point somewhat, but people generally only use an expression like that when they want to invoke the Holocaust (rarely the Boer War for some reason, where the British invented the concept). Likewise (to be fair the only example in this thread is in relation to Canada, but the principle still holds I think) bandying around words like genocide (still worse, holocaust) which implies the systematic, co-ordinated extermination of an entire race of people – something quite different from assimilation. Even saying “cultural genocide” would be more accurate. When your definition is what the Turks did to the Armenians, what the Hutu did to the Tutsis, and what the Nazis did to the Jews, even what the US did to the Native Americans, it’s not an accurate analogy.

                  • weka …
                    20 May 2013 at 10:19 pm

                    Hmmm, well yes and no. I do agree that words of such weight need to be chosen and used carefully. I would like to know what Ugly Truth was thinking about.

                    I had to look up the Kenyan example. Try this

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#Kenya

                    “During the 1954-60 Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya, camps were established to hold suspected rebels.”

                    Tariana Turia’s infamous use of the word Holocaust, from what I remember, was actually a reference to the impact on her people of colonisation. She wasn’t suggesting that Maori had been put in concentration camps and sent to gas chambers. She was talking about how the impact of colonisation had been so devastating for her people. She was told she shouldn’t use that word, but in a country where we still cannot tell the truth about what has happened here, maybe such words are warranted.

                    “the systematic, co-ordinated extermination of an entire race of people – something quite different from assimilation. Even saying “cultural genocide” would be more accurate.”

                    Except that ‘assimilation’ was the Pakeha word for making the intended genocide acceptable. Sure, they didn’t round up and execute people in sufficient numbers to wipe them out in a short space of time (besides they had white peoples’ viruses for that). But if you believe that a race of people are savages and your intention is to change that race into white people, and you want to take away their land, their economy, their language, their culture, their religions, really what is left? Sure, you have actual individuals left for a generation or so, but after that, if they are all Pakeha, then that *is* genocide.

                    I do agree with you that genocide is not the best word to use, but again, we don’t have the language to discuss this properly, which is why those words end up being bandied around. I doubt that anything other than a very small percentage of Pakeha really understands NZ history well enough to understand what has happened here (myself included, I’m still pretty ignorant).

                • JK …
                  20 May 2013 at 9:25 pm

                  thanks for the extra info, Weka. I didn’t know the full story of the Portobello memorial – its a gruesome history from our colonial background.

    • just saying 1.2
      20 May 2013 at 8:38 am

      Outstanding work Blip.
      Devastating to see it laid out in black and white.

    • marsman 1.3
      20 May 2013 at 8:40 am

      Wow BLiP that’s a formidable bit of work on your part and a despicable record of NActs nasty meddling. Hopefully Labour and the Greens will take your list and as soon as NAct have been ousted will reverse ALL of their nasty legislation under urgency within the first week of their Administration.

    • David 1.4
      20 May 2013 at 8:49 am

      Sobering reading, we need an intellectual revolution in this country. Too many boofheads are in positions of power, we need to entice back all the smarties that have left, and give more voice to the ones still here. The lack of critical thinking and ethics in this country is just astounding. Funny thing is, our pollies with the suspect ethics (I’m looking at you here Judy Collins) are fucking lawyers who are supposed to have a high ethical level and the ability to look at the evidence impartially… Well Ms Perfume Steamroller, you fail on all counts, mustn’t have been a very good lawyer really.

    • ianmac 1.5
      20 May 2013 at 9:36 am

      Great work BLiP. And underlying it all is an ominous disregard for democracy and for the rule of Law.

    • ghostrider888 1.6
      20 May 2013 at 11:38 am

      GREEN PARTY launch The Kiwi Bid

    • fender 1.7
      20 May 2013 at 11:49 am

      Nobody does lists like BLiP, great work.

    • Mr Burns 1.8
      20 May 2013 at 12:48 pm

      Good stuff BLiP.

  2. Morrissey 2
    20 May 2013 at 7:33 am

    LIARS OF OUR TIME
    
No. 8: SIMON BRIDGES, Minister of Energy and Resources

    SIMON MERCEP: But, but, but—-
    SIMON BRIDGES: I don’t mean to duck the question…. We have not, if you properly understand this law, taken away the right to protest.

    Radio New Zealand National Morning Report, Monday 20 May 2013, 7:23 a.m.

    See also….
    No. 7: Nigel Morrison: “Quite frankly, they’ve been VERY tough.”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-15052013/#comment-633295
    No. 6: NZ Herald PR dept: “Congratulations—you’re reading New Zealand’s best newspaper.”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13052013/#comment-632598
    No. 5: Rawdon Christie: “…a FORMIDABLE replacement, it seems, is Claudette Hauiti.”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13052013/#comment-632594
    No. 4: Willie and J.T.: “The X-Factor. Nah, nah, there’s some GREAT talent there!”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06052013/#comment-628803
    No. 3: John Key: “Yeah we hold MPs to a higher standard.”
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06052013/#comment-628703
    No. 2: Colin Craig: “Oh, I have a GREAT sense of humour.” (TV3 News, 24 April 2013) http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-25042013/#comment-624381
    No. 1: Barack Obama: “Margaret Thatcher was one of the great champions of freedom and liberty.”

    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19042013/#comment-621738

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1
      20 May 2013 at 9:44 am

      The article contradicts the headline: there is no such study. Perhaps it’s still in peer review, but four years is a long time to wait for publication.

      If it gets published it will indeed be interesting, like the other peer-reviewed studies that have shown, for example, correlations between brain structure and progressive/conservative political attitudes, and that low IQ predicts for conservatism and racism.

      • Winston Smith 3.1.1
        20 May 2013 at 9:46 am

        Not that I’m suggesting left-wing men are girlie-men

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1.1.1
          20 May 2013 at 9:56 am

          That’s correct: you are merely recycling a claim made to a conference in 2009 that appears to have been abandoned by its author.

          • Winston Smith 3.1.1.1.1
            20 May 2013 at 10:07 am

            sometimes a funny study is just funny… 🙂

            (or rather shows some people have too much time on their hands)

            • ghostrider888 3.1.1.1.1.1
              20 May 2013 at 11:52 am

              there are always counter-examples to neo-darwinian theses;

              Strong body, strong mind.

              When mind is weak, situation is a problem
              When mind is balance, situation is a challenge
              When mind is strong, situation becomes opportunity.

              Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.

            • ghostrider888 3.1.1.1.1.2
              20 May 2013 at 12:36 pm

              and “by living your life one day at a Time , you live ALL the days of your life”.

    • Anne 3.2
      20 May 2013 at 9:47 am

      Oh well, the answer to that revelation is obvious:

      All brawn and no brain.

      • Winston Smith 3.2.1
        20 May 2013 at 9:53 am

        Way to buy into outdated stereotypes 🙂

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.2.1.1
          20 May 2013 at 10:04 am

          Indeed. If right-wingers were stronger than lefties, we’d have lost the second world war.

          • BM 3.2.1.1.1
            20 May 2013 at 10:10 am

            Exactly, thanks to the United communist states of America the left was triumphant.

            • Arfamo 3.2.1.1.1.1
              20 May 2013 at 10:17 am

              FDR was a social democrat and the Western Allies were indeed a help to the USSR which did finally triumph over the Nazis.

              • Colonial Viper …
                20 May 2013 at 11:46 am

                Although it’s a worthwhile question to ask how the international banks and financiers were involved in Germany’s economic collapse and mass unemployment post 1929, creating the environment which let Hitler gain power in the first place.

                As a side note, I notice that support for Greece’s neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party is now up to 15%.

                • Arfamo …
                  20 May 2013 at 12:00 pm

                  Absolutely. The Wall Street Crash was instrumental in fuelling Hitler’s rise to power.
                  http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weimar_depression_1929.htm

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    20 May 2013 at 1:29 pm

                    Classic economic hit man theory. Indebt a country, make it exceptionally reliant on international capital flows and credit provided by the major private foreign banks, life feels good for a while as everyone gets a bit of a sense of getting richer, politicians dream that they are economic miracle workers, then suddenly pull the rug.

                    – Decline all applications for new credit.
                    – Call in all loans to be payable in full, immediately.
                    – Increase margin requirements for all share and commodity trading accounts.
                    – Increase collateral requirements for all other existing debt and lines of credit.
                    – Halt all forex transactions, effectively freezing an entire nations international trade.
                    – As businesses close down and mortgage payments are missed, force immediate foreclosures and drive down asset prices.
                    – Allow unemployment and beneficiary payments to skyrocket as government tax revenues collapse, making governments even more reliant on private bank provided credit.
                    – Apply credit downgrades which force credit interest rates up: suck remaining liquidity out of the economy and force debt defaults.

                    etc etc

                    Suddenly an economic boom turns into a depression inside of 12 months. Governments fall and political careers end, unless they co-operate in full with the banksters.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      20 May 2013 at 1:52 pm

                      +1

                      There’s more than one reason why a country should be self-sufficient as possible and removing the dependency on the private banks is high on the list.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.2.1.1.1.2
              20 May 2013 at 10:19 am

              I don’t think you could call the New Deal a communist policy.

              • Arfamo …
                20 May 2013 at 10:47 am

                Any party which favours policies preventing the wealthy elite from simply pillaging the rest of the population gets called “communist”. Right wingers who chuck the communist label about these days just get laughed at for being ridiculous.

            • Pascal's bookie 3.2.1.1.1.3
              20 May 2013 at 10:30 am

              Pretty accurate description of how modern rightwingers would view FDR.

              • prism …
                20 May 2013 at 10:34 am

                Ayn Rand Rules – should be written on the inside of door of every toilet in the USA. But then are they are up to irony at this level?
                It’s been noted in the Discworld that dwarfs, good solid blokes (and blokesses) they are, are better at understanding iron than irony? As the USA reverts to dwarf thinking, this may be observed too.

                Background on discworld dwarfs – http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Dwarfs

            • tricledrown 3.2.1.1.1.4
              20 May 2013 at 11:32 am

              Big
              Mouth
              Put your foot in it again!

    • Murray Olsen 3.3
      20 May 2013 at 4:35 pm

      Steroid usage causes small dicks, erectile dysfunction, and right wing thinking. No surprises there at all.

  4. Monique Angel 4
    20 May 2013 at 9:33 am

    Well, hello left wing friends: I’m thinking that the biggest oversight of the media is why are they throwing 14.5 million dollars at the New Zealand School Trustees Association when it can’t even file it’s annual accounts:

    http://nowoccupy.blogspot.com/2013/05/show-me-money-nz-school-trustees.html

    The same NZSTA that cosied up to National during the National Standards campaign.

    • millsy 4.1
      20 May 2013 at 11:18 am

      Im going to go off and slash my wrists now, I find myself agreeing with Monique.

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        20 May 2013 at 11:51 am

        The same NZSTA who represents a small minority of school boards of trustees and who seem to have a love affair with National Standards.

        • ghostrider888 4.1.1.1
          20 May 2013 at 11:56 am

          personally, knowing a Chair, and members of boards of trustees, sigh.

        • millsy 4.1.1.2
          20 May 2013 at 10:14 pm

          …and privatisation, bulk funding, competition between schools, performance pay, etc and so on.

    • ianmac 4.2
      20 May 2013 at 12:45 pm

      Yes Monique and I think most schools do not belong to STA. Why the big bucks? Mmmm. They have often been against the general interests of schools. Ironic?

    • Tazireviper 4.3
      7 June 2013 at 6:27 pm

      Now go back to the link and see the reply from NZSTA, makes the original allegation a nonsense, any retraction Monique??

  5. prism 5
    20 May 2013 at 10:12 am

    Don Nicholson ex Fed Farmers now ACT. On Radionz this morning about Zespri that has some questionable business practices. The kiwifuit industry needs to be ‘squeaky clean’ says Nicholson, which is a reasonable comment. Zespri has been dealing in murky waters it seems.

    The Sunday Star Times 19/5 had a report and documents that support the claim that Zespri is double invoicing and it is said this is common in the fruit trade. It’s called transfer pricing which I understand exporting companies often use to enable movement of profit to where they can advantage themselves and usually to pay lower taxes overall.

    ACT says that Zespri is a monopoly, and that government mandates this so should act. Nicholson announces that monopolies become bloated and arrogant and the biggest example in NZ is the Government. ACT is a strange bunch, bloated and arrogant themselves and ready to try shenanigans where necessary to advance their purpose which is that ACT wants to overthrow our democratic regime. As scary as communists were considered – why don’t people recognise this?

    And with Don Nicholson types in Fed Farmers we could have again that hardline violent confrontational approach from farmers attacking townsmen holding up their produce in the docks. Of course we have seen individual examples – the women protester for employment in Christchurch being blatantly run down by a 4WD motorist who was let off by the Court. She was blocking his egress and there were angry men with sticks around that could damage his paintwork.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport
    ACT calls for inquiry but Zespri say ‘double invoicing’ common
    The ACT Party has renewed its calls for an urgent inquiry into the kiwifruit marketing company Zespri’s international operations, saying it had full knowledge of a scam in China – and tried to sweep it under the carpet. (4′18″)
    Download: Ogg Vorbis MP3 | Embed

    • tricledrown 5.1
      20 May 2013 at 1:00 pm

      Not to mention that allan Gibbs ACT member has been trying to undo zespri , while his former company turners and growers runs a monopoly of fresh fruit and vegetables in NZ supplying 95% of all fruit and vegetables to our duopoly of super markets!

  6. marty mars 6
    20 May 2013 at 10:58 am

    Some may have noticed a series of exchanges between vto and me. I’ve posted on this and what I believe we can learn from such exchanges

    Sometimes an internet exchange can reveal the machinations of deeper issues and show why some issues are difficult to resolve. The example I will detail below (I can’t include everything so I suggest you read the threads on the links if you wish to see the full context) gives us an insight into how race baiters introduce their memes into society and the tactics they use to shift the debate when cornered, and how ultimately it is always about them and their disguised views of indigenous people. This is just one example of one person but I think it tells the story.

    http://mars2earth.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/i-dont-tolerate-race-baiters.html

    • vto 6.1
      20 May 2013 at 11:56 am

      And here is a typical example of the intellectual lightweight marty mars refusing to answer a specific issue (that he demanded no less) and attempting relentlessly to make the issue about something else, namely me. You will need to excuse the language but no apology as it was the result of unending baiting and I am now out with this buffoon. For good.

      It is very specific and I would welcome any feedback (on the issue).

      http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-17052013/#comment-634448

      • David 6.1.1
        20 May 2013 at 12:23 pm

        aaahh shush ya cunt

      • Tim 6.1.2
        20 May 2013 at 5:17 pm

        can I ask vto – what does v.t.o. stand for? (jiss curyiss)

        • vto 6.1.2.1
          20 May 2013 at 9:02 pm

          Tim, it stands for Vote Them Out and it seems to apply all over the political spectrum.

          It is also interesting to note that of the 9 responses to the nuclear ding-dong linked to above all 9 discuss the language and other irrelevant matters and a full 0 discuss the actual issue.

          I guess this is proof sufficient for why newspapers put pictures of newborn lambs on the front page and page 3 girls just inside. We just rate real issues unimportant.

  7. Poission 7
    20 May 2013 at 11:23 am

    Oh dear ,the effect of the gfc on nz puts us on a par with greece ie the second worst performer.

    The employment rate not reflecting the true statistics due to the large numbers of contractors.

    http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2013-Inequality-and-Poverty-8p.pdf

    • ghostrider888 7.1
      20 May 2013 at 12:00 pm

      You always provide effective antidotes to RW venom Poission

    • Rob 7.2
      20 May 2013 at 4:21 pm

      Very interesting reading and there is alot more depth and analysis to the single point you are making. One interesting point is that the net loss of household income was reduced by tax relief (ie tax cuts) things would have been a lot worse for Kiwi families without it.

  8. prism 8
    20 May 2013 at 11:34 am

    For those who have heard of bartering in business and want to get a reasoned opinion about it I found this:
    http://www.energise.co.nz/blog/bartercard-is-a-waste-of-money-time/
    Good points –
    1 there is a lack of attention drawn to the costs imposed on every transaction.
    2 ‘Most people I’ve spoken to who use Bartercard struggle to find ways to spend their trade dollars as a business expense.’ (I found similar when I was in the community based green dollars.)
    3 The Bartercard use an FTT (Financial Transaction Tax) system. Clever eh – just what many have been recommending for our main trading system. Bartercard –
    5.5% transaction fee on any sale or purchase in cash (real money).
    1% transaction fee on any sale or purchase in Trade dollars.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax
    The European Commission thinks it would be good.

    Through the FTT, the financial sector will properly participate in the cost of re-building the economies and bolstering the public finances of the participating Member States. The proposed Directive will reduce the number of divergent national tax regimes in the EU, will generate significant revenues and help to ensure greater stability of financial markets, without posing undue risk to EU competitiveness.

    http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/other_taxes/financial_sector/

  9. ghostrider888 9
    20 May 2013 at 12:41 pm

    Roll up, roll up, get your ‘free’ “Gifts Galore” with your new bank loan, although you will “be buying your business with your money”.- Bernard Hickey

    or,
    pack into the “sardine’ effect on Auckland buses where the tourist view and direction is obscured by window advertisng.- Brian Rudman.

    • muzza 9.1
      20 May 2013 at 2:00 pm

      The housing market is keeping the banks afloat in NZ – Housing market goes, banking system goes, in comes the OBR on the playing field, and there goes your deposit (loan) money!

      Look out, *exotic derivative*, has been given the signal to warm up!

    • Winston Smith 9.2
      20 May 2013 at 3:42 pm

      Ain’t no different to political parties bribing the electorate before an election…

      • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1
        20 May 2013 at 3:53 pm

        There’s only one type of party that does that – right wing.

        • Rob 9.2.1.1
          20 May 2013 at 4:23 pm

          Oh yes interest free student loans , introduced in the leadup to the election had no political bribery about it all, yeah right.

          That ranks as one of the most contrived, transparent & expensive bribes NZ has ever witnessed.

          • TheContrarian 9.2.1.1.1
            20 May 2013 at 4:39 pm

            Draco: “Exactly, because Labour is a right-wing party”

            In 5..4..3..2…

          • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1.2
            20 May 2013 at 4:55 pm

            That wasn’t a bribe – that was the minimum that was needed. Education should be free.

          • Murray Olsen 9.2.1.1.3
            20 May 2013 at 5:14 pm

            Muldoon would have beaten interest free student loans easily with his dismantling of contributory super and possibly even his Springbok tour.
            Key would have beaten it hands down with his tax cuts to the already rich.
            And Labour is a right wing party.

            • TheContrarian 9.2.1.1.3.1
              20 May 2013 at 6:21 pm

              “And Labour is a right wing party.”

              Of course they are, sweetie. I look forward to you informing the vast majority of political scientists, journalists and politicians of their error.

              • Murray Olsen …
                20 May 2013 at 8:56 pm

                I can see how someone who gets their lines from Paula Bennett might consider Labour left wing. The fact is that they have been dragged to the right by National as they go after the same swinging voters, just as Tories were dragged to the left when Keynesian economics was in vogue. Of course, it’s far easier to just think in terms of labels and go with the flow, but not particularly contrarian.

              • Colonial Viper …
                20 May 2013 at 9:28 pm

                I look forward to you informing the vast majority of political scientists, journalists and politicians of their error.

                Seriously, what the fuck help have the majority of them been to society in the last 20 years. Also add economists to the list.

                • TheContrarian …
                  20 May 2013 at 10:32 pm

                  You are right. Fuck them. Much better to just define things how we want to define them. Instead of relying on people who study, analyse, work in, understand or educate on the topic.

                  Labour as a left wing party? Fuck you everyone. They are rightwing…just trust me on this.

                  • weka …
                    20 May 2013 at 10:50 pm

                    Do you know what happened to the left wing academic economists in this country in the wake of the 1980s neoliberal take over? Go watch Someone Else’s Country.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    20 May 2013 at 11:09 pm

                    The Contrarian: yep. Sometimes not utilising that expertise is a far safer course of action.

                    Look where “financial engineering” and “rational economics” has got our civilisation.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:34 pm

                      neoliberalism is just the current virulent strain of capitalism.

                      The strain of capitalism present during the Industrial Revolution was just as capable of fucking the working and peasant class over, and keeping them the working poor.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    21 May 2013 at 8:11 am

                    I’ve been studying economics and politics for better than ten years, just not being paid for it.

                    How long, in your opinion, does it take for someone to become a political scientist?

                    I’ve given my reasons for Labour being a right-wing party and it mostly has to do with their support of capitalism and the free-market.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      21 May 2013 at 9:24 am

                      Capitalism does not automatically equal right-wing Draco. The ‘wing’ or ideology of a party is much more than economic ideals.

                      The only evidence you have given for Labour being right-wing is graph which is so poor as evidentiary support that it would funny if you didn’t take it seriously.

                      The overwhelming consensus among those who spend their lives studying, reporting on, advising others, teaching and writing about politics do not consider labour to be a party of the right.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:19 pm

                      Capitalism does not automatically equal right-wing Draco.

                      Yes, it does. It is the focus on private ownership of capitalism and control of the economy that gives it its right-wing slant. Left wing is more a government centred economy with private business making up a small part of it.

                      Labour bought in to the private control of the economy back in the 1980s and hasn’t let that BS go.

                      The only evidence you have given for Labour being right-wing is graph which is so poor as evidentiary support that it would funny if you didn’t take it seriously.

                      A graph produced by a reasonable test, which I said at the time wasn’t perfect, answered via Labour’s actual policies.

                      The overwhelming consensus among those who spend their lives studying, reporting on, advising others, teaching and writing about politics do not consider labour to be a party of the right.

                      Really? Got any evidence for that consensus?

                    • TheContrarian …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:32 pm

                      “more a government centred economy with private business making up a small part of it.”

                      Which can operate quite comfortably under capitalism, Draco. See the Nordic model for example. And State Capitalism. You are once again mistaking neo-liberalism for capitalism. All neo-liberals are capitals but not all capitalists are neo-liberals. Capitalism is an economic system which can be used by the left and the right – it is not an ideology.

                      “A graph produced by a reasonable test, which I said at the time wasn’t perfect, answered via Labour’s actual policies.”

                      Reasonable test? Bollocks. No methodology was given, you don’t know who plugged in the answers, where they were from or how if they answered the questions correctly. As evidence it stinks and is evidence of nothing more than “the answer the person who did it got”. I got something completely different when I tried doing it via Labours policy.

                      “Got any evidence for that consensus?”

                      Labour is considered by encyclopedias, textbooks and university professors to be a social democratic, centre left party which tends towards third way economics. You are making the claim to the contrary of this that it is right-wing and you have never shown anything to support that outside your own opinion which is not the be all end all particualry when you consider you have been wrong about what constitutes right-wing in the first place.

                  • Clockie …
                    21 May 2013 at 9:58 am

                    Can you tell us why you would define Labour as a left wing party? What exactly you mean by “left wing” and where (more or less) you would place them on said wing. While making those judgements, would you be considering Labours place on the political spectrum internationally or just in the NZ context?

                    • Clockie …
                      21 May 2013 at 11:29 am

                      While I’m waiting for a reply I’ll state my position which is simply that of a “Joe Bloggs” who has watched from the side lines for the last forty years and made personal judgements along the way. In the NZ context it seems perfectly obvious that the current incarnation of the Labour Party is centre left (purely on the basis of fitting this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-left definition pretty well) ) and by that I mean just left of the dividing line between centre left and centre right. One step further right and they would occupy the ground National is currently settled on. To try and say they are far left ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_left ) is patently ridiculous even if you are only talking about the NZ political scene and leaving the international political spectrum out of it. To try to paint NZ Labour as far left is dog whistling tripe of the first water in my opinion. I wait to be convinced otherwise.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      21 May 2013 at 12:26 pm

                      I don’t and have never considered labour ‘far left’ and as you already discovered Labour definitely occupy the centre left

                • Clockie …
                  21 May 2013 at 8:19 am

                  On this subject: Labour’s ideological position is stated to be social liberal in wikipedia. I think this is more or less equal to Blairite “third way” politics. Although I can instinctively see how that conclusion is reached (and agree with it) I’m ignorant as to precisely how professional political analysts, academics, pundits etc actually make these judgments and would be interested to learn more. I presume it’s a combination of analysing policy and observing the way that is turned into governance when in office. When people insist on calling the NZ Labour Party left wing or often at the moment, extreme left wing my own reaction is to curl my lip and ask, rhetorically, “since when and in what way and compared with whom”?

                  • Clockie …
                    21 May 2013 at 12:39 pm

                    “I don’t and have never considered labour ‘far left’ and as you already discovered Labour definitely occupy the centre left”

                    Fair enough. I realised after I commented above that I’d been both a little hasty and inconsistent. The haste came about through being repeatedly pissed off lately by a stream of wankers describing Labour as a party of the far left, which is just crap. The inconsistency stems from my own uncertainty about how to measure “leftness”. I tend to agree with Draco that Labour’s political economy for the last thirty years has been undoubtedly right wing / neo liberal in essence. Their social policy is basically centre left / social liberal. Put them together and I would have said they’re a centrist party. Taking their social or economic policies as individual measures would tip them to one side or the other of the centre line. Am I wrong and if so how?

                    • TheContrarian …
                      21 May 2013 at 12:49 pm

                      Ideology or ‘wing’ isn’t based purely on economic OR social ideals. Labour is most certainly centre left, all things considered. The previous nine years of Labour were fiscally left wing, socially left wing and operating closer to third way as opposed to straight neo-liberal.

                    • Clockie …
                      21 May 2013 at 12:55 pm

                      All of which adds up to the fact that you agree with the wiki definition that they are social liberal which in turn puts them on the cusp of centre left / centrist. They certainly aren’t about to scare the horses with Chavez style socialism are they?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:00 pm

                      Labour is Centre Left only because Keith Holyoake would be considered hard left in todays politics.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:02 pm

                      “They certainly aren’t about to scare the horses with Chavez style socialism are they?”

                      Not at all.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:17 pm

                      Actually I have to run with Clockie here. Labour is an economically centrist pro-capitalism party with socially liberal leanings.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:19 pm

                      “Actually I have to run with Clockie here. Labour is an economically centrist pro-capitalism party with socially liberal leanings.”

                      Which isn’t right wing.

                    • Clockie …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:34 pm

                      And is only just left wing by the skin of it’s teeth..

                      And I’m using Social Liberal in the sense defined under the wikipedia entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism ) rather than the popular sense of being terribly PC and lovey dovey about every cause looking for a supporter under the sun.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:36 pm

                      There is a vast grey center, my man.

                    • ghostrider888 …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:40 pm

                      with the Viper, Clockie; The Contrarian, as usual, not so much. (in-offs often leave the table).

                    • TheContrarian …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:42 pm

                      “with the Viper, Clockie; The Contrarian, as usual, not so much.”

                      Despite the fact we are all in basic agreement? That’s some double-think you got there

                    • ghostrider888 …
                      21 May 2013 at 5:09 pm

                      ’twas ‘payday’ Contrarian, maybe an off day; moving along. 😀

          • felix 9.2.1.1.4
            20 May 2013 at 5:17 pm

            Rob & Winston, some sort of definition of “bribery” would be helpful.

            I assume you don’t just mean “any money the govt spends”.

          • millsy 9.2.1.1.5
            20 May 2013 at 10:17 pm

            So making tertiary education more affordable for New Zealanders who want to upskill is bad then. If you had your way, our universities would be slammed shut to all except those lucky enough to get s scholarship and the rich. The rest of us can all go and get fucked eh.

            • Colonial Viper 9.2.1.1.5.1
              20 May 2013 at 11:12 pm

              Upskill for what end? The only thing extra a shelf stacking new graduate has compared to the school leaver doing the same job is a $20,000 student debt.

              In the USA continuous economic decline has now meant that having a college education is not protective of being unemployed.

              And surprise surprise…student loan defaults in the USA is skyrocketing.

              • McFlock …
                21 May 2013 at 12:38 am

                Only thing is a twenty grand debt?
                So you’d have the income and unemployment stats on hand to back up that claim then.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  21 May 2013 at 12:58 am

                  Fuck you love your lagging data. Worse than useless.

                  • McFlock …
                    21 May 2013 at 11:53 am

                    oh, okay, so the data we have might not back up your claim, but you know better based on the power of your imagination.

                    I can see why you don’t like research or education, all them folks believing the real-world data that might not back up your assertions.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:22 pm

                      Oh, very snide. Maybe take a look at the Honours, Masters and PhD students around you who have no chance of getting work in their field at the appropriate level, anywhere in this country.

                      Ask those students around you why they decided to do honours after their undergrad. Then decided to do Masters or PhD after that. The usual answer – there weren’t any decent jobs around so I decided to stay at university.

                    • ghostrider888 …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:45 pm

                      freakin academics in this country! we hold up Gluckmans press releases for the prosecution; jeez, a 15-year-old boy in the U.S produces an incredibly cheap and effective cancer diagnostic after refusal from 200 requests for research facility. ffs.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:46 pm

                      Well, the first thing I can do is look in the mirror. I did honours because I found the topic interesting. I got my current job at least partially due to that degree (in combination with other related work experience). Not to mention being a better person for the experience.

                      Looking beyond the mirror:
                      My boss is in work directly related to their phd thesis several years ago. My colleagues all have advanced qualifications in related fields. Most of my classmates are in good employment, mostly with a reasonable link to their qualifications.

                      Anecdata? True. That’s what you asked for, given that “employment outcomes in tertiary education” might give you empirical data that’s a touch out of date (the fact it might contradict you is irrelevant to your motives, I am sure).

                      But you know better, because you have the Power of Imagination.

            • Rob 9.2.1.1.5.2
              21 May 2013 at 9:51 am

              Yes Millsy, because in your head all students are brave wee souls with no resources to fall back on. We guess what, some arnt, in fact a lot are pretty well off and they have had a huge interest free access to funding gifted to them. Good strategy team.

              • Colonial Viper …
                21 May 2013 at 1:24 pm

                Clark, Cullen, English and Key got their university educations for free, but they were all more than happy to make the younger generation pay so that they the established middle/upper class could keep cruisin’ on.

              • millsy …
                29 May 2013 at 11:39 pm

                One day, Ill kick the shit out of you. That is what happens to bullies that try and take weak kids lunch money,

  11. NickS 11
    20 May 2013 at 2:18 pm

    Derp:
    http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/israel-demands-french-tv-change-13-year-old-report-boy-s-death-5442543

    Two words: Streisand Effect

    Also the original story is embedded in Palestinian culture and combined with strong distrust over official Israeli reports means this action by the Netanyahu government will not have the effect they want it to. Which leads me to think that the entire point of this report was as a political favour to one of his party’s coalition partners.

  12. NickS 12
    20 May 2013 at 2:41 pm

    http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/05/17/a_little_ranbaxy_example.php

    …

    And as per usual the fuckheads behind this do not get any jail time, despite the fact they sold low quality anti-retroviral drugs that lead probably to numerous very early deaths and further spread of HIV.

  13. emergency mike 13
    20 May 2013 at 3:52 pm

    Flashback to 2006 in this ‘who is John Key’ article.

    He was less than upfront when quizzed about whether he believed in God on Agenda in April.

    “That’s an interesting question.

    “Do I believe in God? I don’t believe in life after death.”

    Asked again he said: “Well I don’t believe in life after death; I don’t know.”

    Asked for a third time: “Well if you’re asking me if I’m religious it depends how you define religion.

    “I look at religion as doing the right thing; I don’t define that as someone that goes to church necessarily on a Sunday.

    “I mean I go to church a lot with the kids, but I wouldn’t describe it as something that I … I’m not a heavy believer; my mother was Jewish which technically makes me Jewish. Yeah, I probably see it in a slightly more relaxed way.”

    Somehow this articulate deep thinker became the ‘leader’ of this nation. We dumbed-down many.

    • ropata 13.1
      21 May 2013 at 1:43 am

      he picked up enough to make moronic devil beast comments in parliament

      god save nz from its smart mouthed pm (and wipe that smirk™ off johnny’s face)

  14. mickysavage 14
    20 May 2013 at 4:50 pm

    Mighty River Power’s shareprice just hit $2.49 a share.

    Whats the bet that Meridian’s float is a flop?

    • felix 14.1
      20 May 2013 at 5:15 pm

      Doesn’t matter anymore, the vultures have made their quick cash and unloaded. Job done.

      Only a matter of time until the mums and dads who got suckered in by English and Key remember the 80s and bail too.

    • Colonial Viper 14.2
      20 May 2013 at 6:14 pm

      Yep. MRP represents the absolute high water mark of the Government’s asset sales programme. Should be a nice global equity crash coming on later this year as well which will turn Meridian into a proper damp squib.

  15. Morrissey 15
    20 May 2013 at 4:55 pm

    “And things are getting HAIRY in Venezuela…”
    ZM Morning Crew, Monday 20 May 2013

    At 8 o’clock this morning I found myself listening to the news on the ZM Morning radio show.

    After the news reader had skated over a few car crash stories, pretending to be serious, the tone suddenly took a light-hearted turn….

    “And things are getting HAIRY in Venezuela! People are stacking up on emergency supplies of TOILET PAPER as a severe shortage hits the country! Oh NOOO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O!!!!”

    This little propaganda gem was read out in a tone of high hilarity. I have no reason to believe that the newsreader had any awareness of what he was reading, or more importantly, why he was reading it.

    • Paul 15.1
      20 May 2013 at 6:25 pm

      Stories like that really depress me.
      How dumbed down is our population?

      • Morrissey 15.1.1
        20 May 2013 at 6:54 pm

        Stories like that really depress me.
        How dumbed down is our population?

        Expect to hear this light-hearted but deadly serious little story repeated for the next few years. Like rust, the U.S.-led propaganda campaign against independent states never stops.

        Still, it’s a positive sign in many ways. A couple of generations ago, this is what they would have done to the democratic government of Venezuela….

        They don’t have the political power in the region to do it again.

  17. Neoleftie 17
    20 May 2013 at 6:00 pm

    An interesting article on expanding the monetary supply and solve looming debt crisis.
    http://www.voxeu.org/article/helicopter-money-policy-option#.UZmlPo_wKA0.twitter

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      20 May 2013 at 6:10 pm

      We need to substantially shrink the financial and banking system as a % of the global economy and I can’t see how the proposals in that paper are going to do anything of the sort.

      It seems to me that it’s trying to find ways to kick the can a bit further down the road by finding ways to get newly printed money directly to people, without addressing the problems which have been directly created by both private and central banks.

      • Neoleftie 17.1.1
        20 May 2013 at 7:30 pm

        Artificial means to generate growth at any cost to keep the system stable until capital labour productivity growth kicks back in from expanded world demand.
        Isn’t it better the state control expansion and creation of monetary supply side than the bankers and bingo wealth investment sector.
        We face a challenge looming easy resource scarcity, over populated and artificial method of stimulation until the next big phase of economic devolepment kicks in….

        • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1
          20 May 2013 at 7:35 pm

          Indeed. We should also note that population growth is a key element of economic growth (alongside productivity changes). This applies to towns and cities as well as whole nations.

          Once world population growth starts significantly declining, the concept of economic growth as we know it will be over, permanently.

          In advanced countries like Japan where there is noticeable population decline, the economic end is basically nigh.

  18. weka 18
    20 May 2013 at 6:02 pm

    At the risk of masochism…

    vto post this the other day and today has asked for my comment –

    “In Christchurch Ngai Tahu is now exercising a form of governance over all the residents by way of decision-making in the RMA process in the central city rebuild. However, all of the residents do not get representation in Ngai Tahu, that is the preserve of those of Ngai Tahu descent.

    Governance without representation.

    Flawed in the extreme and unsustainable in every society”

    Hi vto. First, let me say that I disagree with your basic premise. Ngai Tahu are treaty partners with the Crown (who represent the likes of you and me). NT also meet contemporary standards of democracy within their own organisations (let’s leave aside the value of contemporary standards of democracy today).

    Second, it’s disturbing to see how you twist what is really going on. Ngai Tahu aren’t exercising a form of govt over all residents. They are exercising their treaty rights to be partners in the areas that they are entitled to exist within with their own autonomy.

    (I did know about their role in the Canty rebuild, but I don’t know how that role was negotiated. Does anyone know?).

    I think you provided this link the other day

    http://www.ngaitahu.iwi.nz/News/Media/Media-Releases/2013/Leadership-Recovery-and-Rebuild.php

    That is a very good explanation.

    “Like any large enterprise, Ngāi Tahu has measures in place in order to maintain a clear distinction between its tribal representative body and commercial activities.”

    Tā Mark accepts however, that he and others need to work hard at explaining some differences. ‘Ngāi Tahu’ is a term that can be used to mean a number of different things, from the corporate structure, to an individual marae-based community (Papatipu Rūnanga) through to individuals of Ngāi Tahu whakapapa (genealogy). “We always attempt to be clear,” says Tā Mark.

    He says the tribal representative body, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, along with its statutory partners, the Christchurch City Council and CERA, each appoint a member to panel hearings to consider resource consent applications made by property developers in the Central City. The Christchurch City Council manages all applications and the convening of the panel. The panel is made up of professionals who provide independent decisions on property developments and urban design matters in relation to resource management applications. Ngāi Tahu professionals such as Dr Hirini Matunga, Dr Rawiri Te Maire Tau, and Huia Reriti (architect) have sat on a panel hearing over recent months.

    Vto, this is how the treaty was supposed to work. Crown and Iwi as partners. You seem to believe that the treaty doesn’t afford Maori this degree of partnership, that instead they should be ‘subjects’ like non-Maori. I doubt that we will ever find a meeting point on this – I believe that Kai Tahu and other iwi have the right to be full partners, not subjects. I also believe that this will benefit NZ as a whole, and enrich Pakeha culture. It’s not perfect by any means, and there are plenty of things that Ngai Tahu does in various sectors that I am critical of, but the basic structure of the relationship is sound.

    But even if you don’t accept that soundness, I think there are some pragmatics here. Kai Tahu aren’t going away. They are in their ascendancy at this point in time and their influence will continue to grow within their various rohe. Best to get used to that and learn how to work with it to your advantage, rather than trying to oppose something that you cannot hope to take down. Otherwise you will entrench race hatred and undermine a potential flowering between cultures. If it’s any consolation, you can consider how it has been for Ngai Tahu these past couple of hundred years, losing sovereignty in ways that far surpass the perceived democratic injustices that you are complaining about, and take lessons from their resiliency and capacity to adapt under great duress. I would think that alone would make them valuable allies in the post-quake recovery.

    • vto 18.1
      20 May 2013 at 8:51 pm

      Thanks weka, this is all I was after – some discussion on this issue. (Just like there is with other governance without representation issues such as Ecan, which everybody jumps up and down all over the place about)

      Your points above miss the issue I raised. You speak of Treaty rights and perhaps other means of establishing such a position. You should be able to notice that my point did not refer to this. It referred to an overriding parameter that needs to be incorporated into basic society no matter where it exists. That is the principle of no governance without representation. (the governance in this situation is the decision-making under the RMA. This is governance.)

      You do not cover this issue above, you seem to imply that because the position that is held in Christchurch has been arrived at in a certain way (under the Treaty, and legislation(?)) then the actual position must be ok. This does not follow. (compare similar Ecan position – legal too but wrong, unhealthy and unsustainable)

      Has it occurred to you that while the route to this position may be fine under existing law and the treaty, the actual position is not fine (and this feeds directlty into one of the reasons the Treaty is flawed – it creates some outcomes which are unsuitable for a healthy society, as this so amply proves, and as I keep trying to point out).

      You suggest that I don’t agree that the Treaty permits them to achieve this position they have. This is not correct (and I have never said that). I have said on countless occasions that the treaty does seem to confer this type of position (hence why it has flaws). But that is not my point here.

      Please think again on the principle of no governance without representation and whether you think it is important in any society (remove the dicussion from the NZ situation if it makes it easier – probably a wise move to enable true reflection on the principle and humankind’s characteristics and the history of governance without representation).

      The No governance without representation principle has been breached with Ecan. The No governance without representation principle has been breached with Ngai Tahu in Christchurch rebuild. Both are legally established. Both are wrong and unsustainable in any society.

      (your other points about Ngai Tahu have been acknowledged on several occasions. The issue does not concern those. It is specific to the principle. Once it is considered in isolation then other surrounding matters and principles can be looked at to see how the puzzle goes together in full).

      You view on the application of the principle of No Governance Without Representation in any society would be appreciated. Then we can look to where the conversation goes next. (thanks, appreciate it, this has been %@#$ing draining……)

      • Murray Olsen 18.1.1
        20 May 2013 at 9:12 pm

        Ngai Tahu doesn’t govern Christchurch. They have some input into decisions. Everyone in Christchurch theoretically has representation on the City Council and the same holds for the government which put CERA together. If you live in Christchurch, you are not being denied your representation by Ngai Tahu. They are ensuring their representation.

        Te Tiriti doesn’t give Maori governance of Aotearoa. It gives them, often in the breach rather than the observance, some degree of partnership with the rest of us. This scares the shit out of Ansell and his mates, who will never be happy. In their eyes, there are two types of Maori – bludgers up North who should all be in prison, and uppity business types in the South who should just learn their place and stop being successful at what they set out to do. It’s hard to know what role they actually see for Maori, except maybe as soldiers and All Blacks.

        • vto 18.1.1.1
          20 May 2013 at 9:24 pm

          Hi Murray. Ngai Tahu does not have merely input into decisions, they are part of the decision-making panel on resource consents in the central city rebuild. This is governance. Sure it is not governance over everything, like how much we pay to go to the dump or what our rates are etc, but it is a form of actual governance.

          This is a relatively new development and I am not aware of other places it has happened (perhaps Tuhoe re Ureweras).

          It is governance. If it is not then please somebody prove me wrong and put me out of my misery. But even colonial viper acknowledged this fact couple days ago.

          This fact needs slotting into the above discussion.

          • weka 18.1.1.1.1
            20 May 2013 at 9:36 pm

            I’m not sure vto. I think you use the word somewhat differently than I do. But I agree this is a good thing to explore, and we probably need to see a better explanation of the actual structure, the body, what it can do etc, and even how it came about.

            • vto 18.1.1.1.1.1
              20 May 2013 at 9:45 pm

              The structure is simple resource consent application and decision. Resource consent decision-making is a form of governance.

              It is specific to the central city rebuild. The decision-maker for resource consents in there has been changed from the Christchurch City Council to, jointly, the Christchurch City Council, Ngai Tahu, and CERA. It is a first in NZ. It was introduced without fanfare or announcement (as to the aspects I refer at least). I don’t know how it came about (but would be interested to know).

              … me head’s a-noddin’
              me brain’s a drainin’…

              hasta manana

              • weka …
                20 May 2013 at 10:02 pm

                I’m not sure that is totally correct vto. I’m just doing some research, but if you have your own links, can you please post them.

                • weka …
                  20 May 2013 at 10:05 pm

                  A three-party urban design panel will consider every building consent application in central Christchurch.

                  Under the terms of the Christchurch Central Development Unit’s central business district blueprint, the Christchurch City Council, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and Ngai Tahu will each provide urban design experts to the panel.

                  One of them must be available at all times, and the group must turn around applications in five working days.

                  The panel will not deal with building specifications, such as height and size, only how it fits with surrounding buildings.

                  (my empahsis).

                  http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/city-blueprint/7380200/Design-experts-set-standard

                  I know that NT have been involved in more the recovery than that, but so have many business and other organisations. Have NT been given any particular power above that?

            • marty mars 18.1.1.1.1.2
              21 May 2013 at 7:36 am

              I asked the Iwi for more background and when I receive it I’ll post it up.

          • Populuxe1 18.1.1.1.2
            21 May 2013 at 12:48 pm

            They are one of the single largest land owners in Christchurch, DUH!

            • weka 18.1.1.1.2.1
              21 May 2013 at 1:23 pm

              What is your point Pop? CCC own land in Chch too, as does the govt.

              • Populuxe1 …
                21 May 2013 at 3:57 pm

                Hence their rather significant role in the consultation and planning. DOUBLE DUH!

                • weka …
                  21 May 2013 at 6:25 pm

                  hmm, are you saying that any organisation that owns lots of land should have more power over others in decisions about how other people’s land/chattels get developed?

      • weka 18.1.2
        20 May 2013 at 9:57 pm

        It referred to an overriding parameter that needs to be incorporated into basic society no matter where it exists. That is the principle of no governance without representation. (the governance in this situation is the decision-making under the RMA. This is governance.)

        But Ngai Tahu do use a representation model (I assume you understand how the iwi operates at that level??). What you mean is that the kind of representation that Ngai Tahu has is unfair on you as a Pakeha (I am assuming you are Pakeha, you can correct me if I am wrong). This is where we disagree, or perhaps it that it just doesn’t bother me. I see NT as an asset to the South Island and NZ in general. I suppose this is where you could argue your principle – what if NT were evil, would I then be opposed to them having this position of power? Not sure, but only to the extent that I would oppose the CCC if it were evil too. So I do get what you mean by the principle I suppose but I think that (a) the treaty partnership principle is more important, and (b) there are bigger things at stake here. Hmmm, I haven’t been very clear there but I’m saying that I get the principle you are arguing in the abstract, but for me it doesn’t play out in reality.

        (compare similar Ecan position – legal too but wrong, unhealthy and unsustainable)

        I’m not arguing that the situation with NT is legally right. I’m arguing that it is just and ethically right. I don’t know enough to judge the legalities. And of course we know that the law often gets justice wrong *shrug*.

        The situation with Ecan is wrong because it breaks an existing agreement, and denies those pre-existing democratic rights of Canterbury people, and does so for nasty neoliberal greedy reasons. NT are not doing either of those two things, and I don’t believe their rationale is evil.

        Has it occurred to you that while the route to this position may be fine under existing law and the treaty, the actual position is not fine (and this feeds directlty into one of the reasons the Treaty is flawed – it creates some outcomes which are unsuitable for a healthy society, as this so amply proves, and as I keep trying to point out).

        Well it’s not that it hasn’t occurred to me, it’s that I just disagree with you. I have thought about these issues long and hard, and I don’t see what the outcomes are that are unsuitable for a healthy society. Can you please be specific and give some examples?

        There is no ‘proof’ in your argument, just assertion of your belief. There is nothing wrong with you asserting your belief, but you have yet to provide the evidence of proof.

        You suggest that I don’t agree that the Treaty permits them to achieve this position they have. This is not correct (and I have never said that). I have said on countless occasions that the treaty does seem to confer this type of position (hence why it has flaws). But that is not my point here.

        Actually I think that is very useful to have clarified that, thanks.


        You view on the application of the principle of No Governance Without Representation in any society would be appreciated. Then we can look to where the conversation goes next.

        I liked the example someone gave the other day about the old boys’ network. As one of the marginalised people in society, and as a woman, I know exactly what governance without representation feels like. That’s why I disagree with your view on NT. They are open, transparent and democratic as an organisation. Unlike the old boys’ network, which is anti-democratic, secretive and ultimately disempowering for the community (as a gross generalisation, there are aspects of the OBN that do good). What I would be looking for with NT isn’t whether they represent *me*, but to what extent they are promoting the sharing of power with their partners (in this case the CCC and CERA), and whether they are operating with integrity (I would of course place the same scrutiny on the other partners).

        (thanks, appreciate it, this has been %@#$ing draining……)

        You’re welcome.

        • vto 18.1.2.1
          21 May 2013 at 8:21 am

          weka ….. “But Ngai Tahu do use a representation model (I assume you understand how the iwi operates at that level??). What you mean is that the kind of representation that Ngai Tahu has is unfair on you as a Pakeha (I am assuming you are Pakeha, you can correct me if I am wrong). This is where we disagree, or perhaps it that it just doesn’t bother me. I see NT as an asset to the South Island and NZ in general. I suppose this is where you could argue your principle – what if NT were evil, would I then be opposed to them having this position of power? Not sure, but only to the extent that I would oppose the CCC if it were evil too.”

          It seems we have agreement that there is in fact governance without representation.
          I understand that NT use a representative model, but that is within their members only. If governance is to be exercised over people outside of that membership then those people must also get representation. This is the principle.

          Regarding the existence of ‘evil’ or ‘good’ within the organisation, that is somewhat immaterial. Humans have a tendency to all manner of things over all sorts of timeframes. The principle has developed for very good reason. It is part of our history. My own ancestors have suffered under its lack of application, as have you as maori and a woman, which you acknowledged. The principle is crucial.

          I also understand and appreciate the asset that NT is to us, and have acknowledged this many times before. I am on their side (subject to this and other minor kerfuffles around the treaty).

          weka….. “we know that the law often gets justice wrong *shrug*.” Agreed. But we mustn’t shrug at these things imo.

          Much of your post weka appears to acknowledge the validity of my point, but then continues on to justify this breach of the principle due to the nature of NT, the ethics around their position as tangata whenua and of course the reality of the treaty. This is where we disagree…

          In my opinion there are principles which should override a society to ensure long long term health and justice. Such principles include, for example, one person one vote, equality before the law, no governance without representation, etc. There are others. There may well be some from te ao maori which could apply, though most of these high principles exist consistently across all cultures in some form…..

          Once the principles are established then other matters fall underneath them and must comply with them. These include NZ legislation, the judiciary, and of course the treaty. (this leads to my contention that the treaty has some flaws – this particular principle highlights one such. A discussion for another day).

          You know, once while wandering the empty vaults of my mind it occurred to me – honour the treaty, then improve it (or fix it). Who is to blame for this situation is immaterial at the moment – once the problem is identified then it is possible to move to repair. Then on we go.

          I had more to expand on those points but a manic day looms in front of me. Will be keen to look back later today and see what has popped up, around both the principle and the technicalities of this particular Christchurch circumstance.

          • weka 18.1.2.1.1
            22 May 2013 at 9:37 am

            “It seems we have agreement that there is in fact governance without representation.”

            No, that is where we are in disagreement. NT does use a representative model and I’m happy with the kind of representation NT has.

            “Who is to blame for this situation is immaterial at the moment”

            I also disagree with this. Unless the Crown’s role in this situation is acknowledged, including how they use their power, and the institutional racisms involved in that, then the ‘problem’ can’t be solved.

            “In my opinion there are principles which should override a society to ensure long long term health and justice. Such principles include, for example, one person one vote, equality before the law, no governance without representation, etc. There are others. There may well be some from te ao maori which could apply, though most of these high principles exist consistently across all cultures in some form….”

            Well we don’t have equality under the law, and governance with representation at the local body level hardly meets any quality of standard in many places. We also have situations like with the Regional Councils where certain parts of society are over-represented (farmers). You can make that argument for national elections too. Why pick on one small piece of power that NT have when there are so many inequities in society?

            • vto 18.1.2.1.1.1
              22 May 2013 at 11:22 am

              “No, that is where we are in disagreement. NT does use a representative model and I’m happy with the kind of representation NT has.”

              There seems to be some misunderstanding. NT does not use a representative model in this circumstance. The representation is only for iwi members, the governance is over all Christchurch residents. The governance and the representation do not match up. I don’t think this is a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact which is quite easily measureable.

              Your point around similar governance without representation in other areas of our land somehow excusing this circumstance imo holds no water either. Two wrongs do not make a right. And I am sure you will have noticed my vehemency on other such issues (in fact greater vehemency) such as Ecan and other regional councils as you mention.

              Clockie below also describes some background to the issue and the principles. The history heshe outlines is worth considerable consideration. It is only a short number of generations since many people escaped persecution and oppression in europe and other faraway lands. The culture is imbued with this and it should not be underestimated.

              There is a point made around the Treaty conferring a partnership in governance and that people just have to get used to it. I don’t think that approach is evenly remotely wise (people being told to just get used to something they do not accept). This will not happen. This is why the Treaty is flawed – it creates things which, imo, are unhealthy and unsustainable. I do not see a happy future if these things are created (such as this Chch example). There will be resistance. There is resistance. I will not be ruled over by an organisation I have no representation in. It was resisted in our history, it has been resisted by Maori, it was resisted by the suffragettes, it is resisted at Ecan, it is resisted everytime the politicians in Wellington accrete more power to themselves and away from the people, it is resisted in this Christchurch NT example.

              Expect the noise to get louder.

              …… weka, please give this idea consideration …… honour the treaty, then fix it.

              • weka …
                22 May 2013 at 11:09 pm

                I wasn’t talking about ECan, vto. I was talking about the lack of representation on ordinary local bodies despite the one person one vote thing you espouse. You value one person one vote as supreme. I don’t, I see the inherent lack in the way that system operates here.

                “I will not be ruled over by an organisation I have no representation in.”

                And yet we both live in a country that is run by such an organisation. I have no representation in NACT, and they are literally ‘ruling’ over us, rather than running a government that is representative of the people.

                I would also point out that CERA are appointed, not elected.

                It’s an interesting choice of term. I don’t believe that the situation we are talking about is an example of NT ‘ruling’ over you. This is why I think you and I use the term governance differently. And I suspect that this is in part about fear of Maori and what ‘they’ might do if ‘they’ had power over ‘us’.

                I am curious though, how do you see the Crown and Iwi being able to be in partnership, how would that structure work?

                • vto …
                  23 May 2013 at 7:58 am

                  weka… ” how do you see the Crown and Iwi being able to be in partnership, how would that structure work?”

                  I don’t. This is one of the reasons there are flaws with the treaty. It creates unsustainable situations. But I don’t have a solution to this either.

                  If you imagine that the crown and iwi jointly ‘run the country’ in some form then this is completely unsustainable and will not be accepted for all the reasons previusly outlined in this dicsussion. Perhaps see if you can look at it in this way…..

                  When iwi signed the treaty it appears that governance was very important to them. They did not want to be run by others who they had no say in. Which is understandable isn’t it. And is in fact exactly what I say in this thread in the Christchurch example.

                  Why was it so important as a principle then, yet now you turn a blind eye to it, or consider it to now be of less importance? To me that change in outlook illustrates the exact fear that exists and the exact reason for “no governance without representation”, namely that humankind has a tendency to consistent behaviour over the eons. And when it comes to power people will not hesitate to use it to their own advantage – this is the human character. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

                  As for this … “And I suspect that this is in part about fear of Maori and what ‘they’ might do if ‘they’ had power over ‘us’.”….
                  I do wish people would stop saying this. There is no fear of maori, there is fear of humankind. Please note the difference.

                  • weka …
                    23 May 2013 at 11:19 am

                    Why was it so important as a principle then, yet now you turn a blind eye to it, or consider it to now be of less importance?

                    Likewise the reverse is true. If the principle is so important, why do you not support Maori sovereignty?

                    weka… ” how do you see the Crown and Iwi being able to be in partnership, how would that structure work?”

                    I don’t. This is one of the reasons there are flaws with the treaty. It creates unsustainable situations. But I don’t have a solution to this either.

                    Ok, so just to clarify, you think the treaty should be done away with because at its base it has no validity nor solution? If that’s not true, can you please explain what value you see in the treaty and the bits that might work?

                    • vto …
                      23 May 2013 at 2:24 pm

                      Hi again weka. I have no problem with maori sovereignty. It is intensely valuable for any community to be sovergeign. It creates strength and goodness. I have never said that I do not support maori sovereignty. It is to be encouraged.

                      The problem comes with mixing maori sovereignty with the requirements of other people to also be sovereign. And this is where the Christchurch example of Ngai Tahu comes into play as an example of this problem. It is a big problem.

                      “Ok, so just to clarify, you think the treaty should be done away with because at its base it has no validity nor solution? If that’s not true, can you please explain what value you see in the treaty and the bits that might work?”

                      I have never said the treaty should be done away with, nor that it has no solution or valiidity. What I have said is that it is flawed – that doesn’t mean the parties should walk away. What it means is that it needs to be re-written, taking into account those things which were promised, those things which in hindsight don’t work, and re-draw it so that it does work. That is why I say honour the treaty and then fix it.

                      There should be no problem in acknowledging if an agreement does not work. This happens all the time in life – circumstances change, parties change, things morph, the world goes to wars, new peoples arrive, the parties may not even contemplate all that they should, the parties may simply have an understanding that differs from that written, all sorts of things. That is why there is a piece of legislation called the Contractual Mistakes Act – it sits there to provide remedy in these circumstances (not that the act is applicable here and I don’t suggest that. But the act is an indicator of the reality that contracts are entered into at times which do not work in some way).

                      So how do we mix maori sovereignty with the sovereignty of others in our land? Now that is a good question and the question which imo should be concentrated on ……

                      i genuinely don’t have an answer to that despite some application of limited brain cells…. do you have any ideas? i think this is getting to the crux – mixing the treaty with other requirements of our society… this it it.

      • marty mars 18.1.3
        21 May 2013 at 7:28 am

        I think your argument is flawed vto.

        There is governance via Central Government and Local Government which all citizens can vote for and your name even acknowledges this “vote them out”. This is where the governance lies and this is where your beef is, or rather should be. There are plenty of people fighting the undemocratic nature of the governance of the region since the earthquake they’d probably appreciate your support. You actually acknowledge this in your comment to weka where you say

        Your points above miss the issue I raised. You speak of Treaty rights and perhaps other means of establishing such a position. You should be able to notice that my point did not refer to this. It referred to an overriding parameter that needs to be incorporated into basic society no matter where it exists. That is the principle of no governance without representation. (the governance in this situation is the decision-making under the RMA. This is governance.)
        You do not cover this issue above, you seem to imply that because the position that is held in Christchurch has been arrived at in a certain way (under the Treaty, and legislation(?)) then the actual position must be ok. This does not follow. (compare similar Ecan position – legal too but wrong, unhealthy and unsustainable)

        The position has been arrived at via The Treaty/settlement and legislation and that is where the argument is based imo. In other words it is not the Iwi’s fault and they are not to blame because they must follow the legislation too.

        It is fair enough that you don’t like the Treaty legislation because it empowers Iwi and gives them representation but once again the focus should imo be on the legislation not the Iwi. The arguments around the advantages and positives of having Iwi empowered by Treaty legislation have been covered by weka and Murray.

        Personally I don’t have any problems with it and I’d like to see more of this because it actualises, in a small way, the intent of the Treaty (intent is very debatable point I know) which was to create equality between the crown and tangata whenua.

        • Colonial Viper 18.1.3.1
          21 May 2013 at 8:50 am

          Ngai Tahu’s scope in Christchurch is to look after and answer to the interests of only their members, and not of the entire Christchurch community (even though we might agree that in some instances they may be one and the same thing).

          As you say, you/weka are fine with this situation and VTO is not.

          • marty mars 18.1.3.1.1
            21 May 2013 at 8:58 am

            Yes but my point is if you are not okay with their appointed role, blame central or local government not the Iwi.

            • Colonial Viper 18.1.3.1.1.1
              21 May 2013 at 9:15 am

              You mean Iwi didn’t proactively seek the larger role but only took it on reluctantly due to governmental pressure?

              • marty mars …
                21 May 2013 at 9:36 am

                No I meant what i wrote, that if there are issues with the role of Iwi then those issues should be directed at the legislation that gives them the roles. Don’t you agree with that?

                • Clockie …
                  21 May 2013 at 9:45 am

                  Did the legislation not come about because of activism to honour the treaty since the late 1970’s? Understand, I’m not picking a fight or choosing sides, just trying to understand the parameters of the discussion.

                  • marty mars …
                    21 May 2013 at 1:09 pm

                    Yes that activism was the sharpened stick that prodded action but as the Iwi website states

                    “Ngāi Tahu made its first claim against the Crown for breach of contract in 1849.”

                    http://www.ngaitahu.iwi.nz/About-Ngai-Tahu/Settlement/Claim-History.php

                    I would still argue that any legislation that empowers Māori in regards to rights of equality (promised in the Treaty) and decision making (vto’s example in chch) should be where any dissent (with that empowerment) is focused rather than specific Iwi or Māori in general.

                    • Clockie …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:22 pm

                      I think vto is using the specific (as requested) to point to perceived problems with the general. It is just a tiny bit cute to tell people who’re not pleased with the role Maori have been given as partners in governance to go back and argue it with the Govt. when all the Govt have done is give expression to what was demanded by Maori in the first place. I guess I’m saying that tiresome as it may be, Maori have an ongoing role in explaining WHY they get to have that special place by RIGHT as treaty partners not through normal democratic processes.

                      Whether or not vto is on the right track, I have some sympathy with him over the way the argument has gone. he has a point that this is an area of discussion where angels fear to tread. It’s just too easy to make a slip in semantics and one side or the other winds up in the poo..

                    • marty mars …
                      21 May 2013 at 1:35 pm

                      I think you are being quite generous considering his example came well down the thread and without any context or preface to the original discussion. In fact it just popped out of nowhere after his original point about the Treaty not being discussed on RadioNZ was dis-proven – but I’ve already blogged on it and I’ve moved on.

                      For any discussion there has to be good faith and that copes with semantics and misunderstandings as many commenters here, including me, have found.

                    • marty mars …
                      21 May 2013 at 2:50 pm

                      Just to clarify my position Clockie

                      The rights of Māori to equality are based upon the Treaty signed by the Crown. The Crown disregarded their obligations and have not fulfilled their promises. They breached their promises from the word go.

                      imo Māori don’t have to explain anything (but may choose to do so) including why they are given partial responsibilities in any processes in chch.

                      Any perceived ‘special treatment’ or ‘extra rights’ such as the chch example are based upon delivering (most often inadequately and partially) the equality promised in the Treaty and it is up to others to get their heads around that, especially if they disagree with it. The role of the government should be to help with that process by explaining why they are doing what they are doing and how what they are doing are meeting their Treaty obligations. This is why I say the beef is with central government not specific Iwi.

                      Please don’t get offended by anything I’ve written – it is not an attack on you.

                    • Clockie …
                      21 May 2013 at 3:10 pm

                      Not offended at all Marty. As you can probably tell from my very deliberate use of language, I believe I have had a reasonable grasp of the issues. I didn’t mean to suggest that the onus of explanation lay completely at the door of Maori, however it is in their interest to keep engaging, especially with those who are at least potentially capable of being allies and partners. You have to keep reminding yourself that most of us who are of British / West European extraction, are the inheritors of a system that was hard won in the wake of the enlightenment which came at the end of many centuries of oppression and servitude for ordinary people. We value democratic ideals. I know most Maori do too, but there seems to be an inherent tension between representative democracy as we know it and the system that has been developing in NZ for the last couple of decades where successive Govts have concluded that they should try to honour the original intent of the TOW. The two things sit a little uneasily next to each other and I think you are right to say that we have been poorly served by all Govts and the various estates of our establishment when it comes to having a sustained, organised, comprehensive programme of education and discussion about everyone’s rights duties and obligations under this emerging system. Many people still “don’t get it” and under those circumstances you just need to keep trying to help them get it. With increasing emigration of Kiwis and immigration from elsewhere the issue is only going to get more prickly as time goes by.

                    • marty mars …
                      21 May 2013 at 4:08 pm

                      Democratic ideals are in tension with the reality of colonisation – where a country is taken from its inhabitants and then, over time, those original inhabitants become a minority within their own country, democratic ideals then work for the colonisers because they are the majority. Indigenous peoples around the world have suffered the same tyranny in the name of democracy. To me the inequality of that scenario is more important than democratic ideals and until that equality is there any democratic ideals are just words used by those in privilege to continue oppression of the minority peoples.

                      I m not saying democracy is bad but rather that until there is equality there is actually only pseudo-democracy.

                      Morgan has a nicer slant on it here

                      http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/21/constitution-to-the-people-fix-me/

                    • weka …
                      21 May 2013 at 6:22 pm

                      Interesting discussion.

                      You have to keep reminding yourself that most of us who are of British / West European extraction, are the inheritors of a system that was hard won in the wake of the enlightenment which came at the end of many centuries of oppression and servitude for ordinary people. We value democratic ideals.

                      And yet that democracy that came to NZ was by no means universal when it arrived. Further, a great many people arrived here from the glorious centre of the British Empire, having been disposed in many and various ways. Looking at the histories of the Scots, Irish, Welsh, it’s hard to argue the value of some kind of purist democracy in the context of colonisation of this country.

                      Don’t get me wrong, I think democracy is a useful enough tool for where we are at the moment, but we could do so much better. How many consider where we might be had the Crown honoured the Treaty.

                      As I am about to comment to vto, I don’t see how Iwi being in partnership with the Crown denies or undermines democracy. At the worst, you could argue that Maori are getting two goes at the pie, but it’s a pitiful analogy when you consider how much Maori lost/had stolen in the last two hundred years, and when you consider that it’s the Crown that is largely responsible for the current state of affairs including the structure of the partnership.

                    • Clockie …
                      22 May 2013 at 8:15 am

                      Composed lengthy reply to Weka and lost it when I submitted just as the server crashed. Can’t be bothered re writing it but basically finished with “be careful what you wish for”..

                      The older generation (my age and up) are not going to be involved in sorting this out anyway so my input doesn’t count for much. Good luck with it guys.

                    • weka …
                      22 May 2013 at 9:23 am

                      That’s a shame about your comment Clockie (do you use Firefox? There is a plugin that recovers lost text).

                      I wasn’t aware that I was wishing for anything 😉

                      How old are you?

                    • Clockie …
                      22 May 2013 at 10:36 am

                      I use Chrome Weka. Usually copy before submitting just in case of gremlins, but sods law applies and the one time I didn’t the server goes down again, bugger..

                      I’m 55 and I know that’s not terribly old by modern standards but the fact is that on this matter (and many others) it is younger people and our burgeoning immigrant population who will have the debates and make the final call on how the TOW is honoured in such a way that everyone’s needs are met (or not). As many people keep pointing out, the future is young and brown. There is a significant irony (which should appeal to the descendants of first peoples everywhere) that the colonizers have become the colonized and our rapid success in improving living standards in 2-3 generations has led to below replacement reproduction so we are an aging and diminishing population who will be a minority everywhere including our original homelands within the next generation or so. Such is the wheel of history..

                      My warning about “what you wish for” related to the possibility that if you throw the democratic “one person one vote”, system out with the bathwater and people lose faith in it as a consequence, what are you left with?

                      You and Marty made some valid points about how democracy did not serve Maori (or the Celtic neighbours of the English) very well up to and during the colonial era. My previous (lost) post made the point that the Reform Act of 1832 which ushered in the system that led to universal suffrage and full representation for all that we refer to as “western democracy”, was a very new and novel concept in 1840. Democracy as we know it didn’t exist for anyone except qualifying males at the time. The age of enlightenment which itself paved the way for that reform act, had taken root but was yet to really take hold and spread it’s influence through our culture in 1840. I would argue that although it took time, it was those things (among others) which eventually allowed for the social liberalism that allowed for the Maori renaissance and the gradual acknowledgement by the Crown that honouring the treaty and addressing land claims etc was the right and necessary thing to do.

                      The problem is a difficult one and unlikely to just get sorted quietly in the immediate future. The people like me who are descendants of the original colonists may be on the wane, but there is the potential problem of the rapidly growing immigrant population I mentioned before. At some point I wouldn’t be surprised if they start asking some pretty pointed questions about the same sort of issues that vto raises.

                      Donning flak vest and diving for fox-hole now. 🙂

                    • marty mars …
                      22 May 2013 at 12:58 pm

                      Clockie I’m 51 so the age thing isn’t an issue and I think we, at our tender ages, do need to discuss it and keep discussing it.

                      There is a fallacy around that the role and status of women within Māori society was subordinate or inferior to men but the evidence shows something quite different. In fact western culture, when it arrived, deliberately and systematically minimised and denigrated the traditional status of Māori women and it did this because that status was considered a threat to christianity and the colonisation enterprise, and it was a threat because it didn’t conform to the patriarchal notions being introduced. Western culture is not the pinnacle of human development – there are many pinnacles, especially within indigenous cultures, that unfortunately have been disregarded by the dominant culture of our time.

                    • Clockie …
                      22 May 2013 at 1:22 pm

                      I don’t mind having a bit of a korero about things but frankly I doubt if anyone is interested in the opinion of an aging european nzer like myself. My demographic (I’d be amongst the youngest baby boomers) will be around in large but increasingly irrelevant numbers for the next twenty years and then we’ll be gone and our kids will be present in much reduced numbers. They might pay a bit more attention to you because you’re tangata whenua and have an ongoing interest in “fighting your corner” on behalf of your people.

                      I read your second paragraph but can’t see how it relates to anything I said other than a possible implication that you thought I had implied that the enlightenment and modern democracy were somehow the greatest achievement humankind would ever attain. I certainly believe no such thing (although I certainly think they are notable landmarks in human civilization) and I won’t be drawn on doing cultural comparisons. 🙂 If you see nothing of value to be learned and retained from western culture (and I presume you know its ancient lineage) then by all means reject it and cast it to the winds. Nothing lasts forever.

                      PS. Apropos of nothing I came across this interesting little factoid while reading up on the various dates for universal suffrage on wikipedia:

                      “With the extension of voting rights to women in 1893, the self-governing British colony became first permanently-constituted jurisdiction in the world to grant universal adult suffrage.,[1] suffrage previously having been universal for Māori men over 21 from 1867, and for European males from 1879”

                    • ghostrider888 …
                      22 May 2013 at 1:39 pm

                      even a little weary I have enjoyed reading the exchanges between weka, marty mars and Clockie; open-mindedness, conscientiousness and balance one rarely encounters when these issue are raised.It’s the Asian century now anyway.

                    • marty mars …
                      22 May 2013 at 1:47 pm

                      Fair enough.

                      There are of course many positives derived from western culture and I am grateful for them. There are also many positives derived from indigenous cultures too. Sadly when these cultures have met and interacted the dominant culture has generally subsumed anything they deem positive and made it their own, whilst denigrating the indigenous culture deliberately to further the positive perception and dominance of the dominant culture.

                      It was great the western culture advanced enough to give women the vote. I like the fact that that culture finally decided to treat people (at least partially or perhaps visibly or tokenly is more accurate) equally and if that was due to the enlightenment and the reform act then praise is due. I’m pleased to whakapapa to that tradition.

                      The two paragraphs above are mutually exclusive.

          • Populuxe1 18.1.3.1.2
            21 May 2013 at 12:54 pm

            That’s actually not particularly accurate. Kai Tahu has vested interests in Christchurch as a whole through it’s investment portfolio and as one of the largest and most strategic property owners in the city. Kai Tahu has always cooprated with and invested in the entire community as a strategic partner. Structurally they also run things quite differently from other iwi, employing a lot of non-Maori. They are not just out for themselves.

  19. The Al1en 19
    20 May 2013 at 6:40 pm

    In your head, Zombie.

    Don’t look like reconciliation to me, and the way vto has been roundly picked on here for stating an opinion, is well, a little distasteful.
    Way to get that understanding and consensus you seek.

  20. Dv 20
    20 May 2013 at 6:41 pm

    Oops Mighty river below issue price!!

    • McFlock 20.1
      20 May 2013 at 6:48 pm

      bodes well for meridian 🙂

    • Arfamo 20.2
      20 May 2013 at 6:48 pm

      Nothing to worry about. Things will improve. Brighter future on the horizon for investors. Trust Jonkers. Man of his word. When has he ever not delivered?

      • kiwicommie 20.2.1
        20 May 2013 at 7:05 pm

        Don’t worry, the free market* solves everything.

        *When the free market fails, just bail out your corporate friends and give taxpayers the corporate welfare bill.

      • Arfamo 20.2.2
        20 May 2013 at 7:09 pm

        My broker says its still too early to invest in Guillotine and Tumbril futures.

        • kiwicommie 20.2.2.1
          20 May 2013 at 7:20 pm

          A good documentary on the wall street collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogaERyc44WE
          “Greed and recklessness by the titans of Wall Street triggers the largest financial crash since the Great Depression. It’s left to US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, himself a former Wall Street banker, to try and avert further disaster.
          Meltdown is a four part investigation into a world of greed and recklessness that brought down the financial world. The show begins with the 2008 crash that pushed 30 million people into unemployment, brought countries to the edge of insolvency and turned the clock back to 1929.
          Doc Zone has traveled the world – from Wall Street to Dubai to China – to investigate The Secret History of the Global Financial Collapse. Meltdown is the story of the bankers who crashed the world, the leaders who struggled to save it and the ordinary families who got crushed.”

        • Colonial Viper 20.2.2.2
          20 May 2013 at 7:38 pm

          My broker says its still too early to invest in Guillotine and Tumbril futures.

          I lol’d

        • ianmac 20.2.2.3
          20 May 2013 at 10:45 pm

          Hoots 🙂

  21. Pascal's bookie 21
    20 May 2013 at 9:00 pm

    Outrageous that people would suggest that UKIP is racist:

    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/05/19/more-ukip-horror-as-investigation-exposes-racist-abuse?

  22. emergency mike 22
    20 May 2013 at 9:17 pm

    ht QoT

    So the taxpayer is paying the Church of Scientology to disseminate anti-drug information in our schools.

    Oh well done NAct, by all means do keep the ridiculous madness coming.

    • NickS 22.1
      20 May 2013 at 9:46 pm

      /shudder

      Oh great, why have actual evidence based preventment and treatment when you can just let religious nuts at it?

      • weka 22.1.1
        20 May 2013 at 10:23 pm

        Because the government isn’t responsible for people’s health silly. That’s what private do-gooders with money are for.

    • muzza 22.2
      21 May 2013 at 8:47 am

      Funding for satan….classy!

  23. Poission 23
    21 May 2013 at 9:38 am

    One problem that has been overlooked is the real reason for the increase in fuel and RU leavies(the so called funding for roads of national significance).

    It is also important to note that without the increase the budget surplus disappears.

    The most significant factor is the decrease in revenues since the GFC (without price increase) due to a number of factors such as heavier trucks,increased rail,decreased vehicle usage etc’.

    The underlying information is that NZ has reduced its petroleum consumption by around 9000 bbls per day which is around the difference in revenue recapture( the increases),

    An oxymoron situation a paradox.