Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, August 5th, 2025 - 88 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 Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Today's Posts (updated through the day):
Hipkins just failed to rule out Labour reinstating the ban on oil and gas exploration on RNZ's Morning Report.
It was an easy answer and he fluffed it.
On another occasion he was more indicative.
Merely by explaining what they did last time. The last oil and gas ban still allowed existing consents to go ahead.
This was to ensure a certain level of predicability for investors.
This latest answer is in line with a recent trend not to state policy yet, while it was being developed.
Well, like Jacinda before him, Chris just does not have an instinctive working class response to such things.
The right answer was-yes, the ban will be back as we proceed with a massive solar and sustainable energy roll out.
+100 Tiger
I'm confused. Do you mean he wouldn't or didn't say Labour would reinstate the ban?
The Greens have been unequivocal about reinstating the ban but Labour has not been clear. The other day Megan Woods on Morning Report wouldn't categorically say Labour would bring back the ban. She would only say that the ban was put in place for good reasons and the case for the ban was now even stronger. But she wouldn't say "yes".
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018998090/labour-slams-govt-s-move-to-overturn-new-oil-and-gas-exploration-ban
I suspect Hipkins like Woods would have continued the "we're still working on our policy" line. I'm not a Hipkins fan and don't totally trust Labour. I realise they don't want to give the solution and new ideas-free coalition sticks to beat them with, but people need clear answers to give them hope that things will be different.
I think you’ve got to look at the bigger picture here. An oil and gas ban is a defining issue for only a small segment of voter, and most of them are already backing the Greens.
So while it’s high-intensity for some, it’s low-salience across the broader electorate.
That’s probably why Labour’s playing it vague. The ambiguity gives them room to manoeuvre:
It’s classic political risk transfer. Cynical? Maybe. But tactically pretty sound.
And yeah, it’d be great to see Hipkins leading with bold, moral clarity on climate. But this probably isn’t the election cycle for it. Right now, voters care more about the price of butter than what’s happening in the Taranaki Bight.
The real question is whether the Greens are ready to manage that dynamic, or if they’re going to get stuck holding the bag if things get messy.
Rubbish Res-its a defining issue.
If someone promotes fossil fuel usage they are climate change deniers.
Correction: It's a defining issue for some voters.
But a complete non-entity for others.
To allow exploration would be inconsistent with the Paris accords, would it not.
In what way?
shrug Not a lawyer. But probably.
I'm not saying that a new Labour government shouldn't re-ban exploration: only that there may be some benefit for Labour in generating and exploiting some ambiguity in its position for now.
They can do this in the knowledge that it's almost certainly going to be a bottom line for the Greens and TPM in coalition negotiations. And therefore, safely embraced after the election with little to no risk of blowback.
To allow continuing exploration would be, as that infers continuing use (unless it was determined it should all be exported to developing nations outside of the Paris Accords).
The USA is still fracking and is now exporting gas to Europe (to replace Russian gas), but then it has withdrawn from the Paris Accords.
Labour managed to allow exploration using existing licenses but banned issuing any new licenses as a move towards meeting Paris Accord commitments in the future.
Shipping gas to Europe from the USA has a worse carbon footprint than burning coal.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/exported-liquefied-natural-gas-coal-study
Exactly. There is nothing to be gained making a noise about the oil and gas exploration ban reversal at this point in time. The bulk of the population are indeed more concerned about the cost of living and with good reason.
There is no doubt in my mind that a Labour/Green/ TePati Maori Govt, would reinstate the ban but perhaps with some minor tinkering based on future expectations. No need to get involved with the Jones boy at this stage. Let him rant… people are already getting sick of him.
They do need a position. Jones, the Nats and the media will push them on this during the campaign, which may come as soon as this year
And when they do, Chippie can come out for or against it. But why jump before you need to?
The dilemma Labour faces is between being painted as incompetent and wishy-washy on one side, and as evil communists on the other.
tactically sound if you're a centrist party with no vision or ability to lead NZ into transition and don't care that much about the climate crisis.
It's good that this comes out now, so that L/G swing voters and activists get a sense of what the government will be like post 2026 election. The risk is if Peters fucks things up, again.
There is no election now, ever, where it's not the right time to lead on climate. Unless one thinks it's not that big a deal and we still have time.
I agree it's a very difficult thing to manage, because voters are focused on other things. And I don't think Hipkins has the ability or will to do it anyway.
Thats my point right there
I guess we have to decide: are we a political party or a pressure group? If we decide we're a political party, then the only thing that matters is getting our hands on the levers of power and implementing our policy program.
In that scenario everything else: handwringing about values or climate change or messaging is nothing more than a distraction.
wow. Addressing the climate crisis is hand wringing. Ok, so we're locked into climate collapse then I guess.
I don't have kids, but I really don't get how people manage this in themselves. I'm inclined more and more to think it's simply a matter of cognitive dissonance and people thinking the crisis isn't really a crisis.
As per my 2.1 – I do not think it is about policy, it is about process.
For mine – Labour agree with Greens on the policy of this, but as government lead, will apply a process to it.
or, it's positioning Labour to avoid addressing climate.
Did Hipkins say anything like "we're not releasing policy at this point, because x,y, z, but the climate crisis is real and governments need to take that into account"?
Then he would be asked whether that would involve any different policy than what was applied last time.
The answer is probably no. But that would be a statement on policy and lead to questions on other policy (before that had been decided)
if he avoids saying anything useful about CC just so he can avoid questions about policy, then he deservers to go.
Everyone should stop treating climate action as a nice to have. Or at least be honest about no longer taking it seriously.
I am sure Labour would see (as yet unstated) policy in other areas as important too.
of course. No-one is arguing to only have climate policy. The point is that all policy should be seen through a climate crisis lens. This was the Green Party's proposal at one point.
You can't take climate serious and want action but not talk about it, it's a nonsense.
In reply to 3.1.4.2.1 No, he didn't.
And does he deserve to go, yes. As the saying goes, if Hipkins is the answer, we’re asking the wrong question.
He is an incrementalist and I’ve never heard him offer an inspiring vision or display real passion.
the problem is who would replace him.
Hipkins' primary concern is investment uncertainty. We're too small as a developer destination to cope with more ferry cancelations, highway cancelations, water network cancelations, and mining cancelations.
He's repeatedly emphasizing Labour will honour and not break existing contracts at the change of government.
Too much investor uncertainty also means accelerated outward immigration as people plan their lives elsewhere.
He knows right now we're way too weak to make further big reverses.
It is not a "big reverse". It is a well established Labour policy that Hipkins is refusing to reinstate.
He is pandering to the Shane Jones vote and dumping on the planet in the process.
The irony is that we won’t need any oil or gas in 10 years time if all of the solar with battery proposals in the pipeline (and supported by almost all parties) are built.
https://www.chrislynchmedia.com/news-items/first-row-of-panels-installed-at-kowhai-park-solar-farm-near-christchurch-airport/
I was more explaining than defending.
If Labour did to the construction industry what National did upon gaining power, we'd lose thousands more qualified people to Australia.
Labour+Greens needed another term in government to form energy storage as good or better than the massive stockpile of coal that Genesis+Mercury+Meridian+Contact have just generated.
NZ lost most of the offshore oil workforce a while back. When various drilling found no economic reserves. So. Was actually a good time to start a ban.
Though it should have been 20 years ago when we had the skilled people to redirect and retrain. Now we are all in our 60’s or long gone to Aussie gas, or English channel and US wind farms.
Any new exploration will be with imported workers who don't live in NZ.
It will take decades to come into production if anything is found.
About the time any new fields start producing oil will be largely redundant as an energy source.
Shane Jones and the Coalition of Cockups, are talking shit.
Labours equivocation about reinstating the ban when they should be pushing the why, and the obvious current effects of AGW, is typical Labour "balking at the fence".
Anyone who wants a denial that AGW is happening party, will be voting for the COC, or other right wing lunatics, anyway!
Good points.
We seriously have to do better than a massive stockpile of coal for dry years.
Good solid points there.
Hipkins, and Labour ate better to sit back and let the exploration come up with nothing, then the reason that all the households on reticulated gas have to go out and buy new water heaters and cooktops is because there’s either no gas, or it’s got insanely expensive. Not because “Labour’s banned it”
Getting elected 101.
The reason for the exploration and new connection ban was to prepare the industry, and their consumers for the day when Taranaki gas ran out. We’ve been searching for replacements for 70 years and have found nothing that is viable. Nothing will change that.
If that's the case why lose votes over coming out strong?
Why not just get elected and build so much renewable into the system that oil and gas becomes uneconomical.?
would prioritising renewables and other mitigation/adaptation tech on a large scale attract investors?
They already are, with both Genesis and Mercury investing on a quite large scale in wind.
What would help is if MBIE came out with a proper regulatory framework for large scale wind turbines on our continental shelf, which NZSuper et al have been waiting several years for already.
Grey Area-He would not say that Labour would reinstate the ban. Take a listen…it’s at 6.40 minutes.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018998571/labour-on-govt-scrapping-ncea
The line "we're still working on our policy" doesn't apply here. Labour in the last government had a clear policy for several years that it would ban future oil and gas exploration. Hipkins now appears to be reneging on this. So much for the planet.
I get what you're saying about the bigger picture.
But as a resident in the area of Aotearoa NZ to most recently be devastated by extreme weather events linked to climate change, at a time when the government shows signs of climate change denial or blindness and is rolling back previous inadequate responses to it, I don't agree with your statement that the next election cycle is not the time for Hipkins to lead with "bold, moral clarity on climate".
As someone who sees the damage to rural properties, roads, bridges and forests all around them and mindful of the huge bill facing Tasman to repair this damage (just as in Hawkes Bay and Tairawhiti) my hope is that more people will look beyond the immediate cost of living crisis and realise we can't ignore the climate crisis.
https://niwa.co.nz/news/tasman-tempest-takes-its-toll-time-tally
Grey……
" I don't agree with your statement that the next election cycle is not the time for Hipkins to lead with "bold, moral clarity on climate".
Would you mind explaining what you mean in this sentence?
GA is referring to RP's comment above.
Looking at the comment layout today I'd guess people are having trouble with the reply button again.
Yep. I wondered where my reply had gone.
And you're welcome to disagree with that statement.
But we can only ever fight elections where voters are. And if you gave the electorate the choice between cheaper butter and climate change, most of them will chose the butter.
Because people don't have the time or energy to worry about struggle for humanity's ongoing survival, if they're struggling to make their paycheck last to the end of the week.
Why do we expect Labour to be a Green Party when we already have one? And a reasonably successful one at that.
Butter price is determined by the global market.
It is not influenced by how Green, or not, Labour or National's policies are.
The idea that people are tired and Labour's policies should reflect that is an apology for inertia by government while people are absorbed in daily struggle.
People are still doing their jobs and so should government.
Nice try, Nicola… Technically true, perhaps, but that doesn’t mean the electorate buys it.
Or that it lets the government off the hook.
But isn’t that exactly why we have a government? To lead? Not to mirror exhaustion, but to build a fairer society and ensure a decent standard of living for everyone?
What would you rather? That we fight the good fight while our neighbours and fellow citizens, freeze, or starve to death in cars because we are more concerned with Palestine than Papatoetoe?
Marx wasn’t wrong to argue that material conditions shape consciousness. People can’t be expected to care about the wider world if they’re too busy worrying about where their next meal is coming from.
It is is on Willis that National claimed they could reduce the cost of living all while claiming they understood markets.
Standard of living in the here and now and nothing else?
Yes. And it is right to say that wasting time and effort and resources on reviving a failing industry is wrong. And state that focus on renewable development negates the need for it.
It is their own future in that world. People already sacrifice for their children's well-being (both now and for their future).
Here and now survivalism is not sentient.
It is like advocating for pay day loans and reverse mortgages when this has debt consequences.
Nicola Willis sounds more like a Fonterra spokesperson than a Minster of Government. I think she’s trying to say that what’s good for Fonterra is good for all New Zealanders. This is consistent with the Coalition’s corporate welfare that puts it ahead of people and on top of the ‘bottom’ demographic.
National claimed they could/would reduce inflation.
They did this based on exploiting what happened here as per domestic food price inflation pre the 2023 election. The impact of floods in the NI on horticulture and lack of SI supply because of a Cook Strait incapacity. That and a change in the rules of egg production.
But they have been caught out by higher food export prices.
The government is also presiding over rising rates (higher water charges), higher power and insurance costs.
All they have done is hold down the MW, block the FPA (industry awards) and then pay equity and hold down nurse and teacher salary levels.
And pushed forward the costs of the Paris Accords to stress future governments (as the health care cost of an ageing population goes up).
All while failing to deliver growth in any meaningful way apart from transitioning government into a incall/outcall service working in the interest of aggregate capital business.
I have to wonder if that is true were people told the truth about the climate crisis by parliament and other power holders in society.
yep. And I'd like to know how many voters aren't in that situation. Because there's a different between people living in poverty or having to work three jobs, and the middle classes who want to keep their overseas holidays.
because NZF keep dragging Labour rightwards? Or because Labour keep sidelining the Greens every chance they get?
On climate, we don't have time for that. The whole 'let's put transition on the backburner until the pandemic/cost of living/whatever next crisis/Palestine/rising fascism has passed' is a massive fail. It doesn't actually get any easier than this. That's what the polycrisis is.
"I have to wonder if that is true were people told the truth about the climate crisis by parliament and other power holders in society."
And it's not only politicians and other power holders. The news media did an abysmal job during the recent Tasman storms of helping people to see the link between warming oceans pumping more moisture into the atmosphere that has to come down, which is does with increasing frequency and ferocity.
I heard no-one help people to see that the atmospheric rivers devastating Tasman on this occasion are a direct result of climate change. I am sure my local community will boost its emergency preparedness given our recent experiences but I'm not so sure people carry on and join the dots about the cause of the emergency.
Some people are still stuck at suggesting solutions like dredging more gravel out of the river beds like they did on the olden days.
it's very depressing.
Interesting to see Civil Defence doing follow up on the tsunami warnings from last week. Maybe this need to happen with extreme weather events. Let the acute phase focus on getting through, and then follow up in the weeks afterwards with public education about the relationship to climate, and importantly, what transition is and how it can make lives better.
It just occurred to me that Hipkins et al might not see any good way through the crisis. Just like most other people. Pretty hard to front policy when you can't see a proactive response.
Labour at this stage in the election cycle needs to choose 3 things that it response to. Jobs, housing and health, instead of barking at every passing car, or coc politician to be more precise. That is what the Labor Party in Australia did in their last election, quite successfully.
Will it link? A very apt cartoon re back on track.
https://substack.com/redirect/d25833bf-887c-46c6-b8db-8873c80e4a66
it does! I embedded it as well, but it was good to have the link to the post and cartoonist
Thanks Weka. I don't know how to imbed.
A reminder of where the CoC started.
Great reminder of the depth of mess we're now in thankyou
It's 9 years since unemployment was this high, that's when national was in last time, back ontrack is high unemployment so they can keep wages down.
Is it time to eat them…
/
Why do so many Americans live in poverty? Because so many rich people benefit from it.
This is the thesis of the lauded sociologist Matthew Desmond’s new book, Poverty, by America. The best seller is at once a careful exploration of poverty statistics; a deeply reported depiction of the lived experiences of the poor; an examination of the ways America’s wealthy exploit the masses; and a case for ending poverty. Desmond shows how the country’s employers, financial institutions, and landlords extract money from low-income families while rich families hoard opportunity for themselves. He also demonstrates how America’s safety-net programs are not just too stingy but poorly designed.
[…]
Annie Lowrey: How is poverty different in America than in its peer countries?
Matthew Desmond: We have more of it. We have double the child-poverty rate of Germany and South Korea. We have a lot less to go around with, in terms of fighting poverty. We collect a much smaller share of our GDP in taxes every year.
It’s different because it’s so unnecessary. We have so many resources. Our tolerance for poverty is very high, much higher than it is in other parts of the developed world. I don’t know if it’s a belief, a cliché, or a myth. You see a homeless person in Los Angeles; an American says, What did that person do? You see a homeless person in France; a French person says, What did the state do? How did the state fail them?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/05/poverty-in-america-book-matthew-desmond-interview/674058/?gift=R01e0F_uJG1_Fr9WIw-f3rMmxkq3PuNIBDTYSHFVKTs
All things infrastructure.
Reidy on KiwiRail's medium to long term plans.
These centre on Northland, Auckland*** and the Triangle, with Hamilton and Tauranga.
https://archive.li/nQsdO#selection-4209.7-4209.26
Infrastructure New Zealand in Canada
Practicality over formulaic.
Proper costing.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/business-reports/infrastructure-report/nz-can-learn-from-canadas-success-in-infrastructure-planning-and-execution-katie-bradford/J7JSWZMRI5HL3N3KERKUAKMFK4/
City Rail Link review
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/business-reports/infrastructure-report/city-rail-link-aucklands-55b-project-promises-lasting-benefits-patrick-brockie/TH3VQHR7FVBGLKZHSER4BGWRG4/
An interesting column by Matthew Hooton regarding the diminishing National fortunes of National and the failures of Luxon.
https://archive.ph/kCVqa#selection-4147.49-4155.155
This is about as crazy as it gets.
"Trans women should be able to access legal protections available to “pregnant or potentially pregnant women”, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner has claimed in an extraordinary submission lodged with the Federal Court."
https://archive.is/2025.08.03-104929/https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/trans-women-should-have-legal-protections-available-to-pregnant-women-court-told/news-story/ae8101d7ef2490572eb8dd2a406148be?amp
I posted yesterday about it too. It's bonkers. Unfortunately, Australian law is also bonkers, so I'm not sure Grover is going to get the kind of decision that that For Women Scotland got in the UK. One of the judges seems full genderist liberal. But let's see, and fingers crossed.
This is also bonkers as reported in The Australian yesterday on proceedings in the court – archive version
Roxanne Tickle (a male who IDs as a woman and is opposed to Sal Grover), as stated by his counsel is a woman because,
If that's the law, it's a ass because it claims he's a 'woman' by way of stereotyping, social and external presentation and subjective self belief.
The current popular belief that if you make some attempts to impersonate something, however unconvincingly, you are that something, is a production of post-modernism that future generations will laugh themselves silly over.
Would it be correct to say that post modernism thinking was promulgated at universities?
Very much so. This stuff is mostly believed among humanities/social sciences educated middle class people. Which means not just university academics but almost the entirety of the public service, the legal profession etc. That's a very powerful bloc.
There's some real book-burning mentality emerging here. It's a worry.
well that's ironic. JK Rowling's Potter books got burned by both religious conservatives and liberal genderists.
What sex realists are arguing for is a return to universities where it's ok to think and debate. You might find this interesting,
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-speech-rules-to-protect-academic-freedom-come-into-force
That arose because universities in the UK have become so full of cancel culture it's been affected fundamentals of education. People are afraid to speak. That's nuts and it harms society. Universities have a central role in promoting and protecting intellectual life in society.
One of the reasons we don't have good research on trans medicine for instance, is because of suppression in academia.
Gender realists, I like it.
The reason we don't have good research on trans medicine is because the populist, political right threaten medical practitioners and shut down institutions.
You talk about fear and cancel culture, gender critics are masters of it.
where did you get that idea?
(and, the right are gender conservatives not gender critical. They love gender norms)
What weka said. Also, the "book-burning mentality" is the one that says anyone disputing current dogma is a far-right bigot who puts student 'safety' at risk.
Book burning is about closing down debate.
I wanted to open the discussion.
Pot, meet black kettle.
No, book burning was about fascist, nationalist, conservatism eliminating liberal, progressive values and scientific and academic research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings
This mirrors the movement by the government, particularly ACT and NZF, and their hangers-on to attack, discredit, and defund academics and universities for the way they think and for the work they produce.
It's way more traditional actually…
Lack of compliance with state dogma remains a perennial problem. Burying intellectuals alive may not have worked.
Please provide some current day examples and references so we know specifically what you are comparing.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/564946/david-seymour-defends-social-media-posts-accusing-regulatory-standards-opponents-of-derangement-syndrome
https://www.massey.ac.nz/about/news/opinion-the-free-speech-union-leaping-from-climate-surveys-to-moral-panic/
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/516282/university-campuses-increasingly-polarised-experts
https://www.craccum.co.nz/act-mp-targets-universities-in-new-proposed-bill/
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/516461/changes-made-after-criticism-of-free-speech-union-report
The resolution is correction to the 2013 law or an Australian Human Rights Act (there is none, except at state level).
Women's groups should seek some independence from wider society law as religious groups get (same sex areas etc/tradition). Perhaps the right to exclude from refuges and lesbian groups on safety grounds (as in sports and …prisons).
The other approach is to separate out gender identity and sex identity.
The relevant piece of legislation is the Sex Dixcrmination Act 1985 (a federal government law), which was introduced to address inequality for women, and specifically referenced CEDAW.
This was amended in 2013 by Gillard's government, and conflated GI and sex. Grover is arguing that the amendment broke the legislation included the importance of CEDAW.
Women have specific exemptions from discrimination law eg pregnancy. But Australian law constructs it differently than NZ. In some cases you can assume an exception but in others you have to apply. Giggle didn't apply and it's likely that Grover reasonably didn't think they had to because up until fairly recently, women only spaces and services were normal.
Women have historically had exemptions from anti-discrimination law. In the past decade or so, transactivism has push to have trans identified males included as women. There's no good reason for TW not be protected under GI provisions, unless the point is to force society to treat them as women. But this is in clear conflict with women's sex based rights. You cannot have a single sex space that includes people from another sex. As soon as you include the other sex, it ceases to be single sex. Women and lesbians in particularly are rightly fucked off at being told their rights are being deprioritised.
So yeah, separate out GI and sex, and protect women and trans people with specific exemptions.
As I said yesterday, it’s like a Monty Python movie…
The thing is, it is transgender men who also need the protection afforded to those related to pregnancy, because as biological women they can conceive and bear children.
The Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody seem to be/is saying the changes in definition of a woman made in 2013 allow the transgender woman to qualify as women – even if they cannot conceive and bear children.
Transmen are already protected for pregnancy etc. As is often the case, it's not symmetrical, and there are TW pushing to have uterus implants with the idea of having children, so I would see this numpty Commissioner as a vanguard for that. It's transhumanism.
It's not so much that, as that no TW ever can be pregnant. What's the point of the protection? So that TW who need to be seen as women can be validated. At the expense of women's rights. In this case, women aren't allowed their own social media app.
A side question on the gas thing
A few years ago there was a bit in media about a research project at one of the Govt research centres in Wellington looking at hydrogen production from household solar installations as a solution to our gas reserves running out, and a bit of climate goodness in the mix too
Does anyone know if that went anywhere, or if there’s similar things going on elsewhere? It seems to have gone dark
The big one was the Meridian Southern Green Hydrogen which was canned because they didn't believe the market wouldn't pay the more expensive price.
Would've been great to link up with Solar Zero, but it too died.
Solar Zero didn't die, it was killed.
My beef with hydrogen is nothing meaningful is happening unless big business can scale it up to make big $.
Here's a domestic scale cooker.
https://www.kinetic7.com/