Sustainable Party launches

Written By: - Date published: 8:01 am, November 11th, 2019 - 99 comments
Categories: climate change, Environment, global warming, greens, national, political parties, same old national, sustainability - Tags:

This took a while.  With the advent of the Internet it is normally really easy to gather a crowd, at least if you have a good cause.  Put up the necessary website, use Facebook to promote it and gain 500 members and voila, you have a new party.

Although someone should tell the Electoral Commission.  Because the Sustainable Party is not registered yet.  Maybe the application is in the mail.

What does the Sustainable Party stand for?  Well the environment but in a way that will not threaten the interests of farmers or corporations is the nicest way to put it.

At the launch Tava listed various principles that the party ascribed to.  Audrey Young at the Herald has listed the following principles:

• Enhance and restore healthy ecosystems.

• Protect our native plant and animal species from habitat loss and degradation.

• Aim to make 2050 Predator Free.

• Partner with communities and businesses to build a team of 4.7 million New Zealanders working together to protect the natural environment.

• Wage war on weeds and wilding conifers.

• Apply the best science and modern technology to advance conservation.

• Support improved on the ground farm management to protect ecosystems.

• Extend the national network of marine protected areas.

Notice anything missing? 

At a time when the world is in a crisis caused by run away climate change there is only very oblique reference to this most pressing of problems.  It should be centre and front of any policy announcement by a so called environmentally focussed party.  That it is not speaks volumes.  And that the policy is being used to try and wedge the Greens on  Generic Engineering shows the real motivation behind the party.

As for its policies the party wants to:

• Provide $1 billion conservation funding boost over four years to restore and enhance our ecosystems:

• Extend the significant natural areas under active pest management from under 50per cent to 75 per cent plus of New Zealand’s significant natural ecosystems.

• Double core funding for Predator Free 2050 to $19 million a year.

• Increase Department of Conservation (DOC) funding to maintain, restore and protect ecosystems, habitats and species by 10 per cent or $26.374 million a year.

• Protect areas of high ecological value through purchase or covenant by doubling the Nature Heritage Fund to $12.194 million a year.

• Double the funding for the protection and management of Historic Heritage to $11.62 million a year.

• Increase funding of DOC’s Conservation in the Community programme of public education and building conservation partnerships by 10 per cent or $3.86 million a year.

• Increase the Crown’s contribution to the QEII Trust by 50 per cent or $1.706 million a year.

• Fund the SPCA to support responsible cat and dog management at $0.5 million a year.

• Wage war on wilding pines and pest plants by investing an extra $26 million a year into the delivery of Regional Council Pest Management Plans – an average of $2 million for each Regional Council shifting the burden from the ratepayer to the taxpayer.

• Spend an extra $6 million a year on wallaby control and eradication.

• Spend $60 million more a year on the National Science Challenges to advance new pest-control technologies and eco-system based management of natural resources.

• Increase the recently announced Sustainable Land Use Fund by $95 million a year for practical advice and support to implement integrated farm management plans.

Again when you refer to cat management in your list of policies but not climate change there is something seriously wrong with your policy imperatives.

Of course the reality is that this party is a puppet party, designed to cause as much grief as possible to the Greens.  Vernon Tava gave this away in his speech.  Again from the Herald:

“Until now, if you had wanted to vote for the environment, you have had to support a party that has been a clearing-house for New Zealand’s left-of-Labour activist movements, often putting social justice ahead of protecting the environment … [a] true sustainability-based party can work with either of the major parties to get the best deal for the environment. We are that party.”

And he refuses to accept that late stage capitalism and unfettered greed and growth are the cause of our problems.  That economic disparity and ecological decline are happening hand in hand because they are symptoms of the same problem.  Instead he claims that his party is  “pro-progress, pro-technology and pro-science” and seems to think that eternal economic growth is possible.

“We are at a fortunate juncture in history where clean-tech is driving the next wave of economic activity by eliminating wasteful and harmful byproducts, delivering more with less.”

And clearly he wants Genetic Engineering to be back on the table, despite the threat it poses to our clean green image, not to mention the horrendous consequences that can happen when mother nature is stuffed around with.

“The latest techniques can be likened to accelerated selective breeding. They show huge promise in the control of introduced predators and in reducing livestock emissions.”

He said gene technology was still in its infancy “yet these powerful tools are denied us based on an ideological position formed in the 1970s, before current technologies were developed.

Time will tell if Sustainable New Zealand actually becomes sustainable.  Someone should check if they actually have the requisite membership.

Update:  Someone tell the police.  There has just been a brutal beating on Radio New Zealand.  By the legendary Kim Hill and the poor victim was Tava … 

99 comments on “Sustainable Party launches ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sanctuary 1
    11 November 2019 at 8:19 am

    "…Update: Someone tell the police. There has just been a brutal beating on Radio New Zealand. By the legendary Kim Hill and the poor victim was Tava …

    Careful, the cops are likely send a black SUV full of heavily armed goons to look into it. Because you know, you can never be too safe when violence is involved.

    But seriously, I have to say Vernon Tava was utterly exposed by Kim Hill nothing more than a lightweight political chancer.

    • mickysavage 1.1
      11 November 2019 at 8:29 am

      Yep claiming they needed an environmental party that could work with both sides and conceding in the same breath that the Greens had managed to get National over the line on the Zero Carbon bill but was somehow different was rather strange.

      • Sanctuary 1.1.1
        11 November 2019 at 8:51 am

        His electoral strategy appears to be to keep launching his party every three months in the hope eventually Audrey Young will get enough free copy from kiwiblog to write a piece on him in the Herald… which fortunately is now behind a paywall so no one will read it anyway.

    • AB 1.2
      11 November 2019 at 8:58 am

      Yes – though I felt she might have pressed a bit harder on the question of where they are getting their funding from (e.g. is it from existing National-Party donors or National Party-related front organisations?) Also to ask what meetings or consultations had occurred with any National Party officials before setting up his party. It would have been useful to get the denials on record.

      Anyway – we know the intention. To con some soft Green supporters into wasting their votes on a Party that won't ever make the threshold, and thereby drive the Greens under 5%. Though if National are really bold/desperate, they might throw him an electorate seat.

      • Bu 1.2.1
        12 November 2019 at 5:41 am

        To be fair many people have been coned by the green party for years, believing they're an environmental party. Next year once again all their election ads will revolve around rivers, air and pollution.

        Trying to disguise the Marxism that is deeply embedded in their beliefs

  2. francesca 2
    11 November 2019 at 8:25 am

    Vernon Tava came across as a glib prat in his interview with Kim Hill this morning.

    I find it hard to believe in his sincerity, he's seen a niche that he can exploit

    His reassurance that capitalism merely needs to be tweaked will win him a lot of support in our fractured and misinformed New Zealand .Is this the party that will be a coalition partner for National?

    Yes he'll take votes from National but also the well heeled green voters from Epsom etc., who want nice things to view from their holiday houses , without all that low class socialist stuff… so unnecessary

    • Sanctuary 2.1
      11 November 2019 at 8:49 am

      He'll attract that tiny demographic of delusional "Blue/Green" voters who use conservatism as their figleaf for selfishly voting National, and he might start rolling around in the mud with various wingnut outfits for the totally crackers hard core Green fascists like the anti-1080 brigade and the anti-vaxxers.

      Martyn Bradbury will be paranoid about him for months, but otherwise this new party will vanish without trace because it is a textbook astroturfing political stunt.

      • Stuart Munro. 2.1.1
        11 November 2019 at 9:01 am

        fascists like the anti-1080 brigade

        It wasn't the anti1080 people who used Thomson and Clark to force their poisonous agenda through.

  3. Stuart Munro. 3
    11 November 2019 at 8:39 am

    The choice of the fish hook as party symbol looks to be a Freudian slip.

  4. mauī 4
    11 November 2019 at 9:29 am

    Well, well, well another Dunne-esque puppet politician who stands for nothing and rolls to the centre-right on everything, and gets an inordinate amount of media time to boot.

    Policy taken straight from National's environmental policy too. What a wanker.

    • observer 4.1
      11 November 2019 at 10:55 am

      I hold no brief for Dunne but let's be fair: he kept winning his electorate, and did so before he became Key's add-on (2 terms supporting Clark's government).

      So the comparison doesn't stack up, because Tava can't get elected to anything. Not for the want of trying.

  5. xanthe 5
    11 November 2019 at 9:57 am

    Dont dismiss this. The greens are deeply dysfunctional and have abused their environmental support base because they could.

    If the plan now is a lot of name calling to see them off that will work just about as well as it did with Trump.

    Vernon says

    "Is this a left-wing party or is it a party that's beyond left and right and for sustainability which is always the image which has been held up, you know, the public face of the party.

    "I got the answer very clearly which is no, this is a left wing party and if you don't accept that you don't belong here. So I thought "well, let's start a new one".

    you will all be very surprised to find that there is a large base that will agree with that.

    I will wait and see and certainly not listen to a lot of "commentators" either "news"media or here.

    • Craig H 5.1
      11 November 2019 at 10:43 am

      There are definitely people who say that they think a centrist environmentally-focused party has legs.

      When I ask if they would vote for them, they probably wouldn't.

      When I ask how an environmentally-focused party can square with increased economic activity when science says we probably need to reduce activity, they don't know.

    • mauī 5.2
      11 November 2019 at 11:12 am

      Can't really see it myself, the Green voter is in an improved position since 2017. Green centrists can just vote Labour and pretend they're not associated with the hard left and still get green policy wins via Labour in Parliament. The hard left are more likely to be disgruntled, but are achieving more gains in Parliament than pre-2017 so can't complain too much.

      • weka 5.2.1
        11 November 2019 at 11:25 am

        Yep. Tava will have the same problem as TOP. Not many lefties are going to vote for a party that could support a National government, and environmentalists will be looking a who can deliver (i.e. a Labour/Greens govt). I do think he may pick up some swing votes though, like Morgan did, hopefully this wasted vote won't harm the left.

  6. weka 6
    11 November 2019 at 10:17 am

    Just listened to the Kim Hill interview and I thought he did ok. This isn't a political neophyte, and if he performs consistently well I expect he will pick up some funding and I can see him as the latest manufactured spanner in the works next election.

    Whether he is a threat to the Green vote, I'm not sure. I doubt that existing committed voters will be that interested, but he could pick up votes that would otherwise go newly to the GP next year off the back of the climate crisis in particular. I expect he will get National bluegreen votes.

    I see him more as Gareth Morgan rather than Peter Dunne. Not centrist, but pro-capitalist and willing to work with either pro-capitalist party to gain some power. Unlike Morgan, Tava is reasonable, relatively likeable, and unlikely to trash his social media presence or relationship with the MSM pre-election. Less of an ego makes him more potentially dangerous to the left vote.

    From an environmental perspective, that interview hit a number of right notes. He's a bit on the back foot with the Greens comparison and it will be interesting to see how much his framing remains as a GP alternative. But for people that aren't policy geeks, he came across well enough. If this is how he starts and he improves from here, there's potential for votes.

    He's also doing something smart there re 1080, there are lots of people who aren't vehemently anti-1080 but are pissed off at the reliance on aerial 1080 and looking for a party that works harder on other solutions (ironically this is the GP position).

    The best thing about this for the left is that NZ doesn't treat new, manufactured, single persona parties particularly well, although launching a year out from the election may give him the chance to build a party base.

    • Blazer 6.1
      11 November 2019 at 12:16 pm

      Extremely generous assessment of his character ,as displayed to date.

      'Unlike Morgan, Tava is reasonable, relatively likeable, and unlikely to trash his social media presence or relationship with the MSM pre-election. Less of an ego makes him more potentially dangerous to the left vote.'

      An oscillating Green/.Blue ,who seems very ambitious and opportunistic.

      • weka 6.1.1
        11 November 2019 at 12:18 pm

        I don't like Tava because I think he was dishonest to the GP and public some years back about his desire for the GP to work with National. That makes him at odds with the GP's approach to politics (dissembling), but he seems within the bell curve of NZ politics generally. Ambitious and opportunistic likewise. He will probably do well with people who are currently voting National.

        • xanthe 6.1.1.1
          11 November 2019 at 3:21 pm

          "I don't like Tava because I think he was dishonest to the GP and public some years back about his desire for the GP to work with National."

          i am interested to know more of this story (is it true for instance) can you give me some more background or links.

          thanks

          • Robert Guyton 6.1.1.1.1
            11 November 2019 at 3:28 pm

            Tava supports Bill English's "social license" approach to welfare.

            End

            of

            story.

            Kim set him up, knocked him down, set him up again, knocked him over good. Too easy for her, too insubstantial for me. He'll love the Nats and the Nats will love him. He won't get in though.

            • xanthe 6.1.1.1.1.1
              11 November 2019 at 5:19 pm

              sorry what is "social license"?

              • In Vino …
                11 November 2019 at 10:52 pm

                Well, I can only tell you that 'license' is a verb, so the phrase makes no sense at all. Whether Bull English made it up or someone else has misrepresented it I cannot tell. Nor can I think what it might ever have been meant to mean.

              • Robert Guyton …
                12 November 2019 at 6:45 am

                My apologies, I was meaning Bill English's "social investment" policy. My distaste for the approach blurred my memory of its title.

                • xanthe …
                  12 November 2019 at 8:49 am

                  google still not really helping me here

                  what is in short Bill English's "social investment" policy?

                  • James Thrace …
                    12 November 2019 at 9:01 am

                    Long story short social investment was about giving government money to private sector to provide for all the things the state currently does.

                    Long term, social investment would have returned us to Victorian times with churches and other charities providing for the poor.

                    Which leads to an unrelated point that the only reason why churches were never taxed was because of their historical role in providing for the poor in their parishes. Given that role is now the purview of the state, no reason why churches should continue to maintain their tax exempt status in NZ.

                    • xanthe …
                      12 November 2019 at 9:21 am

                      eeeeeekkkk thanks James. is that somehow different to the status quo post 1984?

                    • James Thrace []
                      12 November 2019 at 11:28 am

                      Xanthe – think MSD being abandoned and people having to go cap in hand to a multitude of private sector providers, each with their own policies, to ask for financial assistance. No consistency between providers would have been the order of the day under social investment.

                      Even though MSD is shocking, at least they have one set of policies, inconsistently applied as the case may be. Better to have that rather than a multitude of policies inconsistently or harshly applied.

  7. Pat 7
    11 November 2019 at 10:29 am

    Think the target market is predominantly new voters….any dissatisfied Greens will be considered a bonus

  8. tc 8
    11 November 2019 at 10:34 am

    Saw roadside billboards on SH3 for the 'new conservatives' on the weekend. Somebody got a brief downlow on this pop up group ?

    Apologies if they've already been covered, can we get a post up like JK’s lies to keep track of them all. As mickey says “With the advent of the Internet it is normally really easy to gather a crowd ”

    There’s enough dosh on the right to create a lot of white noise in the SM Twitterati.

  9. Rrm 9
    11 November 2019 at 10:37 am

    I note how triggered you all are, but as a RWNJ I don't hold high hopes for this party. They seem to be targeting environmentally-minded people who read Kiwiblog and that's just not a very big pool.

    Still, if they can drag the Communist Fatah of Aotearoa's polling down from 5.8% to 4.9% then they are doing God's work, so good luck to them! 😎

    • marty mars 9.1
      11 November 2019 at 10:49 am

      silly econoecoidiots will lap up the party – anyone with a clue will enjoy watching it flounder

    • observer 9.2
      11 November 2019 at 10:51 am

      They might get enough votes to cost one party one MP (even Bill & Ben got 0.5% of the vote).

      The mistake you make is to believe that those votes will come from the Greens. Since the Greens of Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimmons were – if anything – more radical than James Shaw & co, then any "Save the kakapo but screw the poor" voters are long gone.

      Their blue-green home is John Key's Nice National, and Bridges might irritate them enough to vote Tava. They won't even have Maggie Barry to keep them on board.

      • Rrm 9.2.1
        11 November 2019 at 11:42 am

        1Correct they will probably cannibalize national party vote.

        But I don't believe all Green voters are hard left anti-capitalists… there will be a fair few Remuera tractor driving, golf-playing, day-hiking, boat-owning boomer retiree "environmentalists" among them who might be tempted by an alternative "green" party that doesn't shout "OK boomer" and doesn't call them names for owning three houses. Can the GPOA afford to lose them?

        We saw how Green party support dipped big time when Turei confessed to benefit fraud. And when Kennedy Graham & David Clendon left, some of the things that were said and tweeted in the public arena made it pretty clear there was some bad blood behind closed doors in the green party.

        • James Thrace 9.2.1.1
          12 November 2019 at 9:03 am

          After Meterias confession GP support actually went to double digits – as high as 13% if I recall. So no, it didn't decline at all.

          It only declined after Little stood aside, Ardern ascended, and GP lost that support.

    • woodart 9.3
      11 November 2019 at 1:53 pm

      nah ,more likely some of your mates will get sucked into wasteing their votes, driven away by the nats sucking up to chinese money and out-to-pasture ex-ceo's

  10. Dukeofurl 10
    11 November 2019 at 10:39 am

    The interesting part is will the partys governance board and the possible candidates include some well known ex greens ? Or will ex TOP political groupies move over to the 'newest toy'

    Ive got a new abbreviation for Tavas group
    The SUS party

  11. weka 11
    11 November 2019 at 11:09 am

    The problem for the left here isn't Tava being in parliament (that's not impossible, but unlikely), the issue is the lost vote. I was tempted to joke that someone has to represent the wasted vote, but it's not really funny. If SNZ gets National votes, cool. If they get swing green/left votes, not cool. I guess the Greens will be taking this into account, again, next year, and I hope Labour and left wing voters are thinking more strategically re the GP's position in parliament. I’ve seen lefties in the past vote Labour not Green because they were worried about the Greens dropping below 5%, fingers crossed we understand MMP better now.

    • Sacha 11.1
      11 November 2019 at 11:56 am

      A frank ex-Green Party leader calls it thus:

      https://twitter.com/tautokai/status/1193616862254260224

      • weka 11.1.1
        11 November 2019 at 12:15 pm

        Except the GP are still to the left of Labour, and well to the left of Tava. What Jack is saying is that the GP are more to the centre than he is and what he wants. That doesn't make the GP centrist.

        Tava is right about the anti-capitalist stuff being built into the ethos of the Green Party. The reason we're not seeing this in policy development is because not enough NZers want that (i.e. not enough lefties vote Green).

        If the Greens are so centrist how come their vote dropped when they went more left at the last election?

      • McFlock 11.1.2
        11 November 2019 at 12:23 pm

        Last election MPs resigned because the Greens were too left wing.

        There does seem to be constant friction between the two sides, the ones whose environmental beliefs are a consequence of wider left wing thought, and the ones who think capitalism can protect the environment.

        Weka's correct – if the Greens are on the 5% line, this party might be a problem that takes them to 4.7%. But I'm pretty sure this is an assessment on the pessimistic side of probability. Heck, this new effort could fizzle before registration.

        • weka 11.1.2.1
          11 November 2019 at 12:36 pm

          I suspect it won't get very far either, but I think the possibility is there and we should be paying attention. Lots of mocking on twitter as expected but I hope we don't get complacent.

          They could also be the party that stops a Mojo Mathers from becoming an MP. Vote switching seemed highly volatile last election. Really hard to tell how much was Jacinda, how much the Turei speech fallout, how much the GP's handling of the whole mess, how much was people sick of National and post-FJK, how much was just let the other side have a go.

          I don't have a sense of what next year will be like, because the Greens have never gone into an election from this 'in government' position before.

          • McFlock 11.1.2.1.1
            11 November 2019 at 1:43 pm

            Yeah, mocking is deserved but complacency is dangerous.

            I'm hoping that someone other than the Greens and Labour are due an electionus horribilus in 2020. I mean, some of it was fodder for the media to spin, but those two mps quitting just before the election? That was Anderton-level crap without any benefit to anyone.

            • weka 11.1.2.1.1.1
              11 November 2019 at 1:54 pm

              I hope so too! Those two MPs, that was truly weird, and I still don't really know what happened. Never seen Shaw look seriously angry like that before or since, so I'm guessing layers of betrayal. Thing is, Turei was right. She and the Greens paid a big price, but they did shift the debate on welfare. Maybe next year is the put your money where your mouth is lefties election.

              Can NZF have its electionus horribilus next?

            • observer 11.1.2.1.1.2
              11 November 2019 at 1:56 pm

              And after everything had gone wrong, the Greens still got 6.2%.

              If there was some kind of Internet/Mana party to take left votes, they would worry. But there isn't. So we're really talking about left-Green voters saying "Oh, we could have a Labour-Green majority for the first time in NZ history, but let's try and stop that happening because … um, James Shaw?"

              Left voters in democracies everywhere shout "betrayal", when the government falls short (whether justified or not is a whole other subject, depends on each case). But to do this before the government has even existed is the ultimate 'cut off nose to spite face'.

              • McFlock …
                11 November 2019 at 2:31 pm

                The bilious auto-rhinectomy has a proud tradition amongst New zealand voters 🙂

              • weka …
                11 November 2019 at 2:42 pm

                drive me nuts too. Jack I can handle it from although I disagree with his take here. It's the lefties with no history of supporting the Greens having a go at the Greens for not being left enough that shits me. If more lefties had voted for and supported the Greens consistently for the past 15 years, we'd be in a very different position now. NZ has the political spectrum it wants I guess, despite the moaning, and we have the kind of Green Party that NZ votes for.

        • Dukeofurl 11.1.2.2
          11 November 2019 at 12:44 pm

          Most parties have that sort of see- saw over some policies, while other policies they all agree. But timing is everything, government spending cap seemed OK 3 years ago, probably wouldnt do so now, but these are for supporters deep into the issues.

          Im thinking SUS will aim to go deep into National party strongholds to capture those voters who vote green but in urban areas are the well paid living in high value homes. – the cats things seems aimed at them, along with all the DOC stuff and 'heritage' funding and so on.

          The support last week by National for Zero Carbon Act – just before SUS launched and no mention of climate- seems to be a deliberate so SUS doesnt bleed off National party votes.

  12. tsmithfield 12
    11 November 2019 at 12:41 pm

    The nightmare scenario for the left:

    If National gift the Sustainability Party a seat and they get say 3%, and in doing so they draw away enough votes to push the Greens out of parliament.

    • Dukeofurl 12.1
      11 November 2019 at 1:00 pm

      Trouble with that is places like Coromandel have a dyed in blue wool MP like Scott Simpson already there, Nikki Kaye also is far too tribal national to become the next Dunne or Seymour

  13. Sacha 13
    11 November 2019 at 12:56 pm

    Sue Bradford suggests which seat Tava may be gifted by the Nats.

    https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/is-sustainable-nz-an-endangered-species-from-its-birth-or-are-friends-in-the-wings

    One of the things which both Mr Tava and the National Party must be wondering is whether National voters in Maggie Barry’s North Shore electorate would be willing to transfer their loyalties in order to allow Sustainability NZ through.

    The question is whether National voters in places like Devonport, Takapuna and Westlake would happily accede to the same kind of arrangement as the Nats’ deal with ACT in Epsom.

    Unlike her, I'd say the most likely source of votes would be from the Nats, not Greens. However, far from the first time a party has shot itself in the foot.

    • weka 13.1
      11 November 2019 at 1:04 pm

      How would that work? National endorse Tava and don't stand a candidate in North Shore?

    • Dukeofurl 13.2
      11 November 2019 at 1:09 pm

      That electorate will decide who its National MP is , and will attract some keen as mustard to have a safe national seat. Its not being a seat which has low enough party membership for the regional HQ to provide most of the delegates ( which is how it worked in Northcote). The Party misleads by saying its not national HQ which appoints delegates – when its nationals regional HQ – which is almost the same thing. Have a large number of financial members and its all locals.

    • observer 13.3
      11 November 2019 at 1:40 pm

      The whole notion of "gifting" a seat is a well-worn myth that simply doesn't stand up.

      MPs have won a seat as Nat/Lab MPs (Dunne, Anderton, Peters) and held on in various circumstances. Others have put in the groundwork (Fitzsimmons, Hide) and benefited from a nod and wink.

      But simply sticking a pin in the map and saying "Give us that one" … that's armchair strategists who have never done any campaigning outside the front door. The voters tend to have their own opinions about who gets their votes.

      A seat with NO National candidate at all might work, but that kills off the "both sides" lie and probably damages National's overall party vote far more than they gain from Tava winning it, if he did. (Even Paul Goldsmith in Epsom gets a lot of votes when he vandalises his own billboards).

  14. Mike Steinberg 14
    11 November 2019 at 1:50 pm

    Any party that claims to be “Sustainable” would surely have to propose reducing immigration back to 1980’s levels? New Zealand’s population in 1990 was about 3.3 million. Today it is almost five million. Adding 45,000 non-citizens a year invariably will require more urban expansion. In the 1980’s the annual figure was closer to 10,000 a year. That would also be a logical step to resolving the housing/rental crisis but that's another issue.

    https://croakingcassandra.com/2019/07/04/emissions-and-immigration-policy/

    • weka 14.1
      11 November 2019 at 1:56 pm

      Tava's definition of sustainability is perpetual growth. He's a fool, and probably the biggest damage he will do is to the word 'sustainability'.

    • KJT 14.2
      12 November 2019 at 3:45 pm

      All those extra long term additions, more per capita than any other OECD country, are a problem, but even more so are the millions of tourists and 250 000 on various temporary visa's. The study for residency scam, and the short term work visa for possible residency, scam.

  15. Robert Guyton 15
    11 November 2019 at 2:57 pm

    "• Wage war on weeds " they are dead to me smiley

  16. Ken 16
    11 November 2019 at 4:50 pm

    A party created purely to be a friend for National, just to get them into government and then forget about the environment.

  17. WeTheBleeple 17
    11 November 2019 at 5:18 pm

    Vernon is a creep. Met him several times. He's a shake your hand while looking over your shoulder man. He's a reach out for a wee arm stroke if you're a female man. He's a drops his balls and shit himself with one disapproving stare man.

    A feeble fickle fucker.

    • Dukeofurl 17.1
      11 November 2019 at 6:43 pm

      A careerist , who thinks he might be a better politician than he is a small business sales broker- or was that politics might enhance his business career.

    • Robert Guyton 17.2
      12 November 2019 at 6:58 am

      So, a good fit for National then? smiley

  18. millsy 18
    12 November 2019 at 6:54 am

    No support for clean air and water legislation?

    That is basic bread and butter for an environmental party. Even one set up by National to become part of a localized version of a Chinese style United Front.

  19. Sanctuary 19
    12 November 2019 at 6:55 am

    Funny – I have heard from three different sources now that Vernon Tova is a bit of a creepy dude. I don't know if that is true but it is a bit unsettling that it has come up so frequently.

  20. Pete George 20
    12 November 2019 at 7:24 am

    It's going to be very hard for Sustainable NZ to get into Parliament, but if they do it could benefit Labour, and also the Greens if they survive.

    They would give Labour+Greens a better option than NZ First for a coalition partner.

    And of both SNZ and Greens get in it gives Labour more choice, providing they get enough votes of their own.

    More parties in an MMP Parliament is better (except maybe for parties wanting all the power on their own).

    And another party promoting better environmental policies must be better.

    • McFlock 20.1
      12 November 2019 at 3:54 pm

      You are assuming they're not just a nat sockpuppet pretending to be an environmental party. The sort of crowd who will ok coal mining and fracking, but then arbitrarily decide that roundup shouldn't be sold to home gardeners (but it's still cool for farmers).

      Nothing about SNZ has suggested they are a suitable coalition partner for anyone other than the nats.

  21. Sanctuary 21
    12 November 2019 at 7:51 am

    Getting a new party into parliament only appears hard because by and large the people who have tried have been rich and lazy political chancers looking to buy their way to 5%. The list of political parties that have failed because they were ultimately astroturf vanity projects for chancers is impressive. Gareth Morgan, Kim Dotcom, Colin Craig, and now Vernon Tova to name but a few.

    They fail because of a fundamental misunderstanding of politics. Being rich and/or arrogant and/or out of touch fuckers they assume that all politics is procedural and therefore simply an exercise in elites manufacturing consent with money. They assume that getting into parliament is the beginning of an exercise in power process rather than the end of a democratic journey.

    I would guarantee you that if you were prepared to do the hard yards and started a political MOVEMENT with a clear message, and take the time to build it into a nationwide organisation with a coherent political agenda, focused policies and a well defined and supportive political hinterland then after a decade or so you'd easily exceed the threshold and get people into parliament.

    But that would take effort, time, and being broke a lot – none of which appeals to entitled wannabes like the four gentlemen mentioned above.

  22. Ad 22
    12 November 2019 at 8:36 am

    The main reason this is going to be hard work is because Shaw has done such assiduous work with the top end of town over the last two years engaging over his Carbon Zero law.

    If Shaw had treated them with the antiseptic disdain for business you see repeated too often here, there would be a good gap in the political market for Vernon to go for.

    Otherwise the likes of the Sustainable Business Council and even the lesser Sustainable Business Network would have a new political champion for their purposes and their potential donations.

  23. That_guy 23
    12 November 2019 at 10:55 am

    The reason that they'll use GM as a wedge issue is because it exposes the reality: the Greens are only an evidence-based party when it suits them.

    Of course, the same could be said of any so-called "Green" party that fails to mention climate change once in its policies. That's ignoring the evidence in a much more dangerous and stupid way, so despite the Greens not really being that consistent on GM I'll keep voting for them.

    As an aside, what is it about NZ, that we're willing to try a immature, untested, young GM technology that involves mass releases of GM animals into the wild, but we're not OK with decades-old, mature, extensively tested GM food?

    This is madness.

    • weka 23.1
      12 November 2019 at 4:06 pm

      what animals released in the wild?

      We'd be better off if science used the precautionary principle.

    • Robert Guyton 23.2
      12 November 2019 at 4:27 pm

      The Greens are being consistent on G.M. They oppose its deployment outside of the lab. Very wise too. That_guy might be referring to the release of CRISPER rodents into the wild community to mate and produce nothing in the way sterile moths disrupt levels of reproduction when released into the orchard.

      • Incognito 23.2.1
        12 November 2019 at 4:58 pm

        CRISPR

      • weka 23.2.2
        12 November 2019 at 5:13 pm

        I suspect he means something like that, but I'm not sure that NZ has widespread support for that.

      • That_guy 23.2.3
        13 November 2019 at 9:39 am

        Yes, I'm talking about gene drive as opposed to GM foods. GM foods, in my opinion, are now the safest and most tested type of GM product on the planet. Gene drive technology is simply less mature and more inherently risky. I'm in the industry and aware of the discussions going on, and it very much seems like gene drive is being considered much more seriously than allowing growing of (for example) low-methane GM ryegrass. So my point was that NZ seems to be heading for the use of the less mature more risky technology while staying away from the more mature less risky technology, which is a typical NZ thing to do.

        No, the Greens are not being consistent on GM, which is why the issue keeps popping up. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists think climate change is real and human induced. A similar majority of biological scientists think that GM food is safe. That's the inconsistency; it's in how they respond to scientific consensus.

        Still voting for them.