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 …
Open Mike 09/11/25
42 comments on “Open Mike 09/11/25”
Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.
Comments are closed.
I happened to be reminded of the poem "On the Swag" by RAK Mason, a New Zealand poet, "On the Swag" was written during the Great Depression and I thought it was timely to be read again.
Dedicated now to the homeless of Auckland who are threatened with being moved on.
In the poem the hard-hearted cook is also the one who has the capacity to alleviate the plight of the old swagman.
"His body doubled /under the pack /that sprawls untidily/ on his old back, /the cold wet dead-beat /plods up the track."
"The cook peers out: /oh, curse that old lag /here again /with his clumsy swag /made of a dirty old /turnip-bag."
The cook is instructed to help him to an extraordinary degree. The reason for this is in the last line. It reminds me of Jacinda Ardern's comment, "They are us" referring to the victims of the Christchurch mosque massacre.
"Bring him in, cook, /from the cold level sleet: /put silk on his body, /slippers on his feet; /give him fire /and bread and meat.
Let the fruit be plucked /and the cake be iced, /the bed be snug /and the wine be spiced /for the old cove’s night-cap—/for this is Christ."
We have a 100,000 like this swagman in this country, over a 100,000 people in 2025, risen from 40,000 in 2018.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/thedetail/564850/nowhere-to-go-for-more-than-100-000-kiwis-the-worsening-reality-of-homelessness
We should give our cooks in Parliament the same message about our homeless. They are us.
The late Tom O'Connor, journalist and ex-President of Grey Power, wrote an article in 2016 on the housing situation here in New Zealand.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/opinion/80750389/new-zealand-in-the-1930s-tackled-a-housing-crisis-humanely
The reaction in New Zealand to the housing crisis of the Thirties was to build houses. I heard a lecture at Canterbury University in the Sixties by John A Lee where he said that building houses also got NZ out of the Depression, employing workers gainfully, boosting production of building materials etc, providing taxable income, reducing dependence upon the state.
Now, with our housing shortage we have 5% unemployed, production companies closing or struggling, investment aimed at ensuring tax avoidance, and a state that seems to be avoiding its full participation in recovery.
In my town we have 200 people needing emergency housing. That could cost about $10 million as one scheme showed recently.
Instead we spend $7 million on facilitating fine dining- except the bread and meat, the fruit, cake and the spiced night cap are not going to those who need it,
Same shit, different day.
NAct MPs view homeless, "bottom feeding" and "drop kick" Kiwis as eyesores and defectives – to be punished and concealed – move along, nothing to see here 🙁
https://digitalnz.org/records/35361957
It really is a "let them eat cake" moment for Luxon and it shows the rot in this governmemt goes right to the top. Seymour and Willis and all the rest are allowed to enact their nasty cruel policies because Luxury House Flipper agrees with them.
Our NZ society is good at helping those who are hungry or are the victims of domestic violence or those who are on the street because they have no money.
What we are really bad at dealing with are addicts who choose to continue in their addiction.
The church I go to runs 10 community kitchens across Auckland serving quality free meals. And every Christmas gives beautiful boxes of free food and gifts for families doing it hard in NZ and across the Pacific. This year we will distribute 30,000 boxes. But as much as we care by feeding them and clothing them if they reject any help from drug or alcohol services most just deteriorate physically and mentally. And often cause trouble on the streets or wherever they live. Solutions are few.
You’re strengthening the impression that, despite your good intentions, you oversimplify addiction and treatment/recovery; continuing in addiction and an addict’s attitudes to offers of help, specifically from particular services, are different although they can overlap. Oversimplification is unlikely to yield useful solutions but that said, I think it’s a ‘wicked problem’ that has no ‘cure’, at a societal level, and requires our ongoing attention, commitment, and dedication, which is not something I’d expect from this Coalition.
What I see is that governments (social programmes) give the addict enough money every week to maintain their addiction – so long as their food, clothing and accommodation budgets are free.
In Singapore begging is a jailable offence. And using illegal drugs has harsh consequences. Maybe implementing similar laws here would get the homeless to move away from touristed areas in NZ. But it doesn't touch the addicts real issues.
I don’t know what you see and are referring to, so you may want to expand on that with a link(s) for others to get on the same page. Anyhow, what’s your point?
I don’t see the relevance here. In any case, beggar ≠ homeless ≠ addict and you’re conflating different categories and societal issues (although they can overlap).
Again, what’s your point? I presume you’re still referring to Singapore. Alcohol isn’t an illegal drug [here in NZ], is it?
Indeed, they would end up incarcerated for a long time, by your logic. Out of interest, what are ‘touristed areas’ and why single them out?
QFT (aka self-evident and inconsistent with the rest of your comment(s)).
Singapore has a death penalty too.
It is fruitless to invoke another country's laws when dealing with a local problem.
Homelessness is a solvable problem. All it takes is political will.
There is plenty of literature connecting addiction with social alienation, inequality, and the daily oppressions of life under capitalism. Addiction is an escape from a desperate situation.
Also, the US demonised psychedelics for decades, probably because LSD/mushrooms/etc let people see that the system they are living in is completely artificial and ridiculous.
You told me the other day that you don't believe addicts choose addiction. So which is it?
Weka I have no idea whether addicts choose to be addicted or not. My point is that once they start using an addictive drug they often choose to continue using.
And we have no good ideas on how to deal with addicts whose lives are collapsing and who choose to keep using.
That's why I said that the primary cause of addiction is the decision to take the drug.
do you mean the original decision to take the drug, or the daily decision to take the drug?
Both
Only people who want to change, will change. But some countries grant health authorities legal power to section people whose addiction is going to kill them. We could do that.
But we won't, for two entirely opposite reasons:
1. The infringement of individual rights (left-wing lawyers up in arms)
2. The fact that we have nowhere to put them. Including a paucity of effective programmes, and no desire (from the community) to have them locally embedded.
Except, we do (s8(1)(b) and s8(2)(d) in the Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017; there’s also the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992).
I thought this was the purview of right-wingers such as the FSU, TPU, and ACT!? Must be different individuals and/or different rights then.
Unsubstantiated claims and your NIMBYism is showing. Why wouldn’t family & friends of an addict want to help them recover? You come across as cold-hearted.
Except we don't. This is virtually only ever used when the person has committed a serious crime – to prevent them going to jail, rather than to a mental health facility. And, even then, is rare.
But, hey, the government is planning on repealing the 1992 Act
https://www.health.govt.nz/regulation-legislation/mental-health-and-addiction/repealing-and-replacing-the-mental-health-act
Which is in line with the recommendations of the Mental Health Foundation – to remove compulsory treatment wherever possible.
file:///C:/Users/AnnR/Downloads/compulsory-treatment-position-paper.pdf
You and I may not agree – but the professionals apparently regard compulsory treatment as a bad thing (exceptional circumstances aside).
There have (historically) been extensive legal challenges over compulsory mental heath orders in NZ. We might argue over the exact position of the lawyers concerned on the political spectrum – but it is more typical for the left to challenge the government.
You seem to inhabit a pink fluffy world.
The severe scarcity of mental health (and drug addiction rehab) facilities has been headline news over the last decade or more. Ever since the removal of most asylum facilities in favor of 'community treatment' (which was mostly community abandonment) in the 1990s.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/mental-health-services/page-5
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/517750/mental-health-patients-being-turned-away-or-discharged-early-due-to-high-demand
*Every time*there is consultation over the placement of a residential mental or drug care facility in a local community – there are extensive protests. People are indeed NIMBYS. They may want treatment, but they don't want the patients as neighbours, or adjacent to the school their kids go to.
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2019/12/16/otara-residents-protest-outside-mahitahi-hq/
This isn't limited to mental health care, re-integration facilities for ex-criminals are also protested.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/11/28/locals-in-rotoruas-waikite-valley-oppose-proposed-reintegration-facility-move/
No the primary causes of addiction are complex but years of trauma, lack of support, physical pain, or being trapped in a rat race, are all prior to a decision to self medicate.
Are you deliberately trying to connect poverty to drug addiction?
Those using drugs are a subset (minority) of those in poverty. Thus most people are made better off with help – food banks, food in schools and the like.
thanks Mac1, that's an eloquent comment.
The insolvencies will continue into 2027.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/360876826/shit-has-hit-fan-business-failures-hit-small-creditors-liquidators-brace-more-pain
What those with falling mortgage costs, in 2025 floating or in 2026 term, make of it will be of importance at election time.
The RBG forecast the inflation decline to 3% in 2025 before the 2023 election, so it is not something the government achieved by being in office.
So what will they claim as their achievement?
It will not be lower budget deficits or economic growth.
They will not be able to run on their economic record.
When Heather du Plessis Allan starts to turn, you know the Nats are in real trouble with their own supporters.
https://archive.li/6XV2N
”What word would you use to describe the way the National Party reacted to the revelation of its own homelessness plans this week?
Embarrassment. Shame. Awkwardness.
It was like watching Eve fiddling with the fig leaf in the Garden of Eden, the way the party tried to first… hide, then over-explain the thing we just busted them doing.”
But, but… she's gone off them 'coz the Nats are going hard enough on our most vulnerable.
"The city centres – particularly Auckland’s – are unpleasant. They need to be tidied up. Doing that is nothing to be ashamed of."
What a revolting person with a (widely shared) despicable opinion.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/mediawatch/578304/saving-the-marriage-of-journalism-and-the-people
QFT
The ‘marriage’ between politicians and the Fourth Estate, in particular, is ‘turbulent’ for want of a better word – it is not even-keeled and often more like a malfunctioning ferry (at least, there is a ferry).
Seymour might as well have burned down half of the media after his careless slashing of $18 million out of RNZ's budget and the abrupt cancellation of subsidies that got our media companies through Covid. Including that ungrateful little shit Hosking
Are you referring to the Government media bail out? IIRC – the primary subsidy paid to Newstalk ZB, was government advertising. I'm sure that was only because they had the greatest market share in Auckland – not because of any love the government may have had for them.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300279296/covid19-the-government-media-bailout–who-got-what
I can't help but see Ruapehu ablaze as nature's response to the upon government suppressing climate change response.
This is New Zealand’s message to COP 30 and 3c warming.
Reading the local talking about weeping because of the rare alpine ecosystem being destroyed was hard. NACTF don't give a fuck. We need ot find ways to get the public to care even with the cost of living crisis etc.
I acknowledge and understand, to a point, that some people are in denial and uncaring and don’t think NZ can (and should) do much (nothing) about global warming and Climate Change, for example. However, it’s hard to fathom why others, including the Coalition, don’t even maintain a ‘neutral’ position but seem hellbent on making things (much) worse.
Anne Salmond worded it well:
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/11/08/anne-salmond-a-trumpian-accent/
it's hard for me to fathom too, but from what I can tell there are people that simply don't care. They see the chaos coming if we don't act, and they want power and money. They wanted that anyway, but the crisis doesn't seem to have sharpened their minds in a good way. And some like destruction. That's why I refer to them as a death cult.
There are others who think it's too late, we can't do anything, let's adapt instead. They are fools. There is no adaptation to climate collapse, at least not in the way they mean. They seem to think we can build better storm water in our cities kind of thing. This one I also find baffling. Looking at the Southland storms, how many times can we lose trees, powerlines, roads, bridges in a decade and be able to keep replacing them? Even for the people that don't care about trees, surely they can see that the world is finite and there are only so many gravel pits, power technicians, diggers and graders. Or helicopters and fire engines.
I find the fires the hardest. The worst thing to be happening at the worst possible time. If we were a sane society, everything we would be doing right now would be protecting forests from fire. War footing, the whole of society would be on board with it as essential.
sorry, it's doing my head end, but I do think we need to talk at least as much about what works and what can be done.
Without thinking too deeply about it, a few things come to my mind.
I think that many people do somewhat care and are willing to make changes & take steps in the right direction, individually & collectively, but they’re not necessarily convinced of the larger adaptations that they may be required and not willing to make large(r) sacrifices.
I think there are many who feel quite powerless over their own existence and who may therefore also believe the narrative that NZ is a powerless and ineffectual minnow in this context.
I think there are many who exhibit general inertia and apathy, for all sorts of reasons.
I think that none of the above are the enemy.
Of course, people have experienced (natural) disasters in the past and recovered & overcome them. And they may think that they can do it again in future. However, as you say, people, critical supply lines, infrastructure, the environment, etc., may not have enough resilience to get back up again after blow after blow. And it will be way too expensive (e.g., insurance premiums), even for local and central governments.
I think education and public-political discourse are key to making changes, as always, but there some who actively oppose such ideas & initiatives, who’re antagonistic & obstructive, who have opposing agendas, and who run active well-sourced (well-funded) campaigns to stall, divert, and deflect. There’s a very troubling and unhealthy relationship between ‘freedom fighters’ (e.g., VFF) and Climate Change deniers and they’ve built extensive influential networks that reach right up to the Beehive.
Most people are willing to make concessions to climate change – but only those that don’t lessen their lifestyle.
We are an aspirational species and we love the modern civilisation we have created. All of the concrete and steel and cellphones and laptops and cars.
We know that all we have to do is buy less stuff and the problem is solved.
The government of the day reflects the major concerns of its voters. And many proposed solutions are costly and inconvenient – so unpopular with voters.
The biggest reason climate change does not top voters list of concerns is because no politician can explain how any costly big things the government does to reduce our carbon footprint will make any measurable difference to either our climate or the world’s.
What does this even mean?
What’s your point?
Huh?
That’s a few debatable claims there. For example, some implemented solutions were so popular that instead of being fiscally neutral they were starting to be a (minor) cost to the government, not to the people. For example, the Clean Car Discount, and guess who repealed it? So, your claims seem to lack merit.
Again, your claims lack merit. Not being at the top of the list doesn’t mean it’s not voters’ minds at all. On the contrary, surveys do show that people worry about Climate Change quite a lot (e.g., Ipsos New Zealand Issues Monitor). Not everything is necessarily “costly big things” for all voters; special interest groups (e.g., farmers) scream murder and the Coalition shields them. In any case, not doing anything will be much more costly in the longer run. Your last assertion is an old chestnut; pleading helplessness doesn’t exonerate you from playing your part and making your contribution.
Are you still a Climate Change denier?
Politicians, especially the spineless right wing variety, will only do the right thing when coerced and given the correct incentives. This current lot are approaching Muldoon levels of delusion and disconnection from ordinary Kiwis, they are in for a bumpy reality check
And Firefighters.
Vegetation firefighting isn’t glamorous. It’s hard, dirty, dangerous work — a whole different discipline from structural firefighting. It demands guts, skill, teamwork, and constant situational awareness. When your crew leader or sector commander is a couple of hills away, sometimes it comes down to just you, your buddy, and your hose.
And while the officers and management running the operation are paid professionals, most of the people doing the real physical work: digging firebreaks, hauling hosepacks, stumbling through the heat and smoke for hectares at a time, are volunteers.
Ordinary people doing extraordinary work because someone has to.
If I hadn’t quit in a huff a couple of years ago, I’d probably be halfway up a hill right now, carrying a hose on my back and cursing the weight of it. My old brigade is still just down the road.
But most people don't understand (or accept) that these fires are any worse than the scrub/vegetation files that happened last year, or a decade ago, or a hundred years ago.
My Dad used to talk of the peat fires in Hamilton – which burned underground for weeks – putting the city into a permanent smog.
https://www.waikatotimes.co.nz/nz-news/360573154/days-future-past-smoking-ovens-peat-fires-plague-waikato
Is the wildfire risk actually greater now than it has been over (say) the last 50 years? Or is this a projection: i.e. if climate change drives greater temperatures and droughts across NZ, the fire risk will worsen?
And, pragmatically. What can we do about it?
Because, even if we implement all of the climate change mitigation strategies in NZ – the world temperature isn't going to drop.
What can we do to improve our management of land – to substantially reduce fire risk?
A note from the lost. TDB site has reverted, for me, to earlier pages with no posts later than 5 November. Yet there is one recent commenter (that always seems an AI response to me but that is just impression). It's strange to read this current one at the end of old ones. What do you think of the way it reads? Here are a collection of a few- it is hard to discuss rationally when others with dissonance breaking through.
This from 5 November post talking about property speculators being scumbags. A fiery heading about a real problem.
…Jed November 7, 2025 At 10:06 am
[long copypasta deleted]
I deleted the copy and paste, too long, a lot of links so your comment got caught in the Spam filter, and it made reading it in the back end a bit crazy.
I don't know what's happening at TDB. A few of us here couldn't see anything since the 5th either (although it looks fine to me now), but others could see it fine. Bomber's problem to sort out.
Bomber can write a good rant but a webmaster he is not. TDB needs professional help.
The above is a bit repetitive but I can't do better at moment. Things are not right is the point and end conclusion.