Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, November 28th, 2025 - 81 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 …
Very good.
“Labour has committed to scrapping the Regulatory Standards Act in its first 100 days – but we don’t need to wait. We can do it right now, if Winston Peters is willing to walk the walk,” Duncan Webb said.
https://www.labour.org.nz/news/release-labour-to-repeal-regulatory-standards-act-winston-are-you-in/
So is ACT the only parliamentary party that still backs its Regulatory Standards
Actdog?It's all rather confusing really.
It (ACT being the only supporter) is looking that way.
We even have National suggesting they may repeal it
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/nicola-willis-suggests-national-may-join-other-parties-campaigning-to-repeal-repealing-regulatory-standards-act-its-not-impossible/PFVYD65OW5HQREXGZKL44KA2RE/
Rather interesting coalition making skills being shown here by Luxon and National to ACT.
"We will help you enact something that we will then repeal as soon as we can. We will be able to repeal it if we are not in coalition with you. We would prefer not to be in coalition with you.
"Hopefully you won't pull the plug before the election next year. We will however campaign like crazy to see you are not needed in 2026 and beyond, or are so weak that in a future coalition you will not be able to set such stipulations unwanted by us or NZF."
Went to our local beekeepers meeting last night.
Lots of concern about these hornets on the 'North Shore' and the by the book approach to managing the situation.
A common suggestion was to put a bounty on the buggers. Get schools in the wider area to compete by making traps and distributing them.
A bounty is paid $50, $100, up to $500 for out of the district catches.
Then the subject of containers getting fumigated came up. No one knows how many cross the border without being fumigated. This could be funded by a mix of user pays, ag and hort interests and the government.
The other thing to pop up was in the midst of a conversation about a lack of funding and faith in the 'system'. A forthright rural colleague expressed disgust and anger at a FB post that shows DOC releasing opposums in Northland.
A couple of us suggested it was probably fake but he was adamant it looked "real to me".
I had a look and it's clearly a piss take, the names used are Jack Toff and Hugh Manatee. It's a bit of a worry as this rooster is fairly on to it but this prank confirmed his worse biases and he swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Really, the fact that idiots are apparently unable to recognize satire when they see it – isn't an example of lack of faith in the system – but an example of credulity.
This isn't new – I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the notable Country Calendar episode of the radio-controlled dog (where there were outraged howls about animal cruelty); the Town and Around one about turkeys in gumboots, and even the BBC one (also screened in NZ) about the spaghetti trees of Switzerland. All of which were 100% believed by a section of the credulous population.
If this 'rooster' is 'fairly on to it' by comparison with his fellow beekeepers, it makes you wonder about the rest of them.
The Guardian used to do some real beauties April 1.
Here's an old classic from 1977.
https://www.scribd.com/document/87368327/San-Serriffe-1977
Yep. One of the highlights of my childhood was watching the evening TV on April 1, to see the spoof content. Some of it was excellent.
It's more than that. We aren't in Country Calendar any more Toto. More than a decade of highly sophisticated social media manipulation and fifty years of increasing antipathy towards DOC. I commented more on this below.
There is a shedload of idiots out there. Have a look at the AT warnings about vehicle congestion around Sylvia Park with the opening of IKEA this weekend. AT suggests if you want to avoid the 40 minute delay in getting off the motorway and the 60 minute delay finding a carparking space you could get the train or the bus.
Cue the ignorant and the prejudiced all hopping on to make comments about "how do I get the sofa or the wardrobe home on the train."
The answer of course is "like any other furniture store, you get bulky items delivered" but nobody reads that comment – the next dickhead repeats the same nonsense about flat packs on the bus, peppered with a few racist comments about train station signage in Te Rao as well as English.
A veritable cascade of stupidity.
We see the same thing every time there's a heavy storm warning – with the idiots out surfing.. 'because the waves are so good'
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/weather-news/300805807/aucklanders-seen-surfing-as-cyclone-gabrielle-descends-on-region
I think that many people don't read FB comments, before firing off their contribution. What would be interested (in the context of the above), is whether they continue to maintain their PoV if challenged?
If Commenter A has a whinge about needing to take the flatpak on the train, and Commenter B says 'get them to deliver', does Commenter A double down 'but that will cost more', or go quiet (and potentially have a think about alternatives)?
I have to say that the thought of fighting my way around IKEA along with thousands of others on opening day, is my idea of hell. And I'll be going nowhere near Sylvia Park. 🙂
Perhaps the best example would be "Forgotten Silver" by Peter Jackson.
It had me for most of the ‘documentary!’
yeah that FB account it trying to do satire I guess but it functions as anti-government propaganda (and possibly anti-woke).
There are two issues there around why otherwise fairly on to it people believe things like this. One is the long antipathy towards DOC, some of it deserved, some of it not. DOC don't help themselves in this organisationally. If they weren't underfunded, I'd be suggesting community outreach.
The other is SM distortion. That account will be getting a major push by FB. We should burn the big media companies to the ground at this point. It's not that particular FB account that is the problem, it's the long push from the techbros to use highly manipulative technology to control engagement and make money, and now to garner political power. We have a decade or more of socialisation into emotional responses as primary rather than that being balances with reasoning and rationality.
Only thing I can think of to respond is to pull the post up on a phone and demonstrate how it is fake. But pointing it out in conversation might make him think twice as well. I'm pretty sure the comments under that post were full of people pointing out it wasn't true.
They certainly were on the FB posts that I've seen on this.
And all of the people I saw were like 'oops, got me :-)'
To find one that's defending their view, in the face of others giving them a reality check, says more about the individual (and perhaps their social media environment) – than about the content itself.
I really doubt that they are 'fairly on to it' in any meaningful way.
No denying that digital film techniques have come a long way – and you need to do actual mental effort to think about what's real and what's fake. I was using the old agricultural spoofs as an example of a tradition that this one belonged to – not an exact equivalent. You might also reflect over the panic caused by the original radio broadcast of the War of the Worlds in the US in 1938.
The point being that most people get caught by these once or twice, and then develop personal filters. Of course, there are the terminally credulous, who believe that the moon landings were faked, that the earth is flat, and that Nessie inhabits Loch Ness. Not much you can do about people who would prefer to discount all evidence that doesn't reflect reality the way that they would like it to be.
I really don't think that a lighthearted spoof video is a serious attempt to garner political power.
I think about the people who are busy who see such posts in passing. They don't have time to read the comments. It sticks in their heads precisely because FB is designed to emotionally manipulate people. Attention economy works in seconds.
I agree there have always been guillible people, and those who are prone to conspiracy etc. I don't think believing the post makes someone that inherently.
It's not about garnering political power. It's about using influence to create and feed dissatisfaction and outrage. That shit works for the right. People do it for free, some get paid. I haven't looked closely enough at that post or account to have an opinion but it's not the first post I've seen from them like that, so even if it's not intentional it still functions as anti-govt propaganda by default because of the platform, milieu and context. Looking to see where the biases lie would tell us more.
Hmm. I don't think that being caught by the video marks someone as inherently gullible – but defending the position when challenged, probably does.
An awful lot of the outrage posts I see on social media are coming from the left – and are precisely aimed at increasing dissatisfaction in order to change the government. I don't see how that is benefiting the right at all.
And, I also don't think that FB cares. They're driven by profit. More clicks, more shares, more comments mean increased advertising revenue. They don't care if it's coming from the left or the right.
What would be some examples so I know what you mean?
There is a difference between dissatifcation with National or Labour governments, and dissatisfaction with government generally a la the new libertarians.
For profit, SM doesn't care. But Musk and Zuckerberg are both highly partisan politically and using their power to that end. Others too. It's not about left/right, it's about democracy vs libertarianism vs authoritarianism.
QFT
I'm not sure what kind of examples you want. But dissatisfaction/distrust for government is more typically seen on the far left (and extremists of every political variety, to be fair).
Recent examples would be Tom Phillips case (not commenting on any of the case deets). But the commentary included massive distrust of the police (claims they shot first, etc.), negative views of the family court (Phillips had no choice but to run, since 'they' were going to take his kids), outright hatred of OT (goodness knows why, since they didn't seem to be involved prior to Phillips going bush). While not overtly political – the comments were coming from a dis-enfranchised class which is more usually left than right.
Another is the Posie Parker event (debacle) in Auckland – with outright mis-statements of her views; identification of (imaginary) white supremacist symbols in a video interview, etc. Following the disgraceful events at the protest – the very active support for Eli Rubashkyn (subsequently convicted for assault on Parker). In this case the comments were coming from very definitely left perspectives, and expressed distrust of the police and the courts system, and belief that a fair trial was never possible.
Viewing that through my 'lefty lens', I'd substitute "far left" with 'far right'.
https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/publications/v2-summary-of-submissions/what-people-told-us-about-harmful-behaviour-and-extremism
What makes you think Phillips was left?
MRA dudes bitter about family court always strike me as anti-left. Those bloody feminists, now they're anti-woke. But in reality, it's not a left right issue. The growing dissatisfaction with government generally is new movement in NZ, and it's funded by the FR eg parliament occupation.
I guess it depends on how left wing you regard the likes of Martyn Bradbury are. Bradbury has been something of an apologist for Tom Phillips, especially referencing the family court.
In this post he is also critical of the police, which he often is: "The question isn’t can we track Tom Phillips, the question is should we" – tho he also is critical of Phillips for taking the children on that journey.
The Jackal has been critical of Bradbury on this issue:
Bradbury is leftist, but also all over the place. Afaik he's not anti-government though.
True. Bradbury isn't anti-govt.
I think Belladonna is all over the places today too. Unusually.
Anything that supports this,
If you don't like the Phillips example, then how about the Posie Parker one (above). The outrage (including the factually dubious claims) – were very strongly coming from the left.
You said,
I still don't know what you mean. We all know about Albert Park, I don't see how that was anti-government propaganda/
No argument with what you say.
I am blessedly free of social media beyond this place. As the years go by I am more and more happy with this. Some of the things folk have said to me, believing it to be true, based on FB are pretty base. These people aren't fools either. Tom Philips domestic situation being the latest notable example
Why I mentioned it was how, regardless of the facts and details of the matter, to varying degrees, the dozen or so people will leave with varying impressions.
The option of pulling out a phone and disproving his position ain't for me. Apart from not having my fone, it's way too aggressive.. It's 2 months till the next meeting and I'm sure an 'icebreaker' line will occur to me. Something like 'Has Jack Toff had any more press releases?'.
Well, since the beekeepers will be the significant beneficiaries – there's nothing stopping them from contributing to a bounty on hornets.
Certainly the coms from the local area (neighbouring suburbs) has been very positive. Ongoing briefings from BioSecurity (in corporate speak) translated by local councilors and ward representatives. People are aware, and actively searching. Hornets are being found and trapped.
I don't actually think that a bounty is going to be a significant motivator. I can flat out guarantee that no one who lives in the area wants a major (huge) stinging pest to get established in our local gardens and bush. NIMBY in a very good way.
People are caring a lot more about hornets, than they did about the Queensland fruit fly outbreak a few years ago.
And why pick on school kids? Surely the unemployed would be better placed to be hornet hunting, and need the bounty more. /sarc/
lol. WINZ would probably treat it as income, which would mean they'd be working for free.
It was a very tongue in cheek comment. I really don't think that there is a high likelihood of any random people searching finding hornets – so everyone would be working for free…..
a bounty would encourage people who see them, or see something, to do something rather than just carry on with their busy day.
There is zero evidence that people are ignoring hornets to carry on with their busy day. As I said above, locals are highly motivated to not have hornets set up in their back yard.
LOL
You love to make absolute assertions, don’t you? By your ‘logic’, the place would be crawling with thousands of people (i.e., everybody) not ignoring hornets
Do feel free to provide the evidence that people are ignoring hornets.
I've provided two pieces of information which strongly suggest this is not happening:
So, yep, the thousands of people who actually live here, are alert and watching out for them – and calling in anything which is remotely hornet-like – but better a false alarm, than missing the real deal.
So, unless you are resident in one of the hornet-infested suburbs, and have a very different perspective of the activities and concerns of your family and neighbours – I doubt that you have much to bring to the conversation.
it's a national interest thing. We're sitting in the provinces hoping Auckland doesn't fuck it up.
It isn't just the jafas that could drop the ball.
MPI with an eye/order towards frugality that can turn this into a clusterf#@*
And were we just talking about fomenting distrust in public institutions….. and is not TS, a left platform.
BioSecurity appears (from my perspective adjacent to ground zero) to be doing an excellent job.
If there is evidence (not just random feelz – and dislike of the government) that this is not the case, then of course we should address and discuss.
Gsays’ original comment? Good lord, it was mild compared to the things I was referring to, and were they even fomenting distrust in public institutions?
I’m highly motivated to stop a poisonous triffid pollinating promiscuously because it causes bad bouts of hay-fever.
Your silly assertion doesn’t hold water notwithstanding that some (?) people are actively looking for hornets, and some (?) people report sightings of hornets and post their good deeds on social media, etc. – you’re making water without realising it. I took photos & video of a hornet-looking insect and realised it was a false identification upon closer inspection with the aid of the internet, so I didn’t report it, obviously.
Still waiting for your evidence.
But won't hold my breath.
How to deal with obnoxious plants who want their false premises taken seriously and discussed?
Tax dollars well spent then, with more 'efficiencies' in the pipeline.
Meanwhile:
Nope. Orcs, "green banshees“, demonic eggbeaters" and related Entities are past their ‘best before dates’ and must go – TINA sayeth the Bish.
NAct1 – govt by and for the sorted – putting the moc(k) in democracy.
it goes something like this. A busy mum sees something that might be a hornet, but rather than stopping and looking she's hurrying home to get dinner. Someone else will sort it out. She forgets to look up the number to phone until the next day and then she things, it probably wasn't a hornet.
People carry on with their lives all the time and don't stop and attend to things.
Where is this busy mum seeing this potential hornet?
Because the most likely place is either her back yard – when she will be highly motivated to not be stung herself, or have her kids stung.
The second most likely place is going to be in the bush – where the busy mum is not very likely to be hurrying home to get dinner. Busy mums are only likely to be in the bush on a walk with kids, or on a morning/evening run.
In either case, mum will almost certainly have a phone – and can easily snap a photo of the darn thing (this is what people are asked to do – and is a daily occurrence – the alert line is being flooded – mostly with pictures of paper wasps)
And, in any case, I highly doubt that a potential $50 (which she may or may not ever get), is going to motivate her, when the safety of herself and her kids does not.
People do indeed carry on with their daily lives – and ignore potential disasters. However, they rarely ignore potential disasters in their home or garden which can sting them or their families.
Hornets will basically build a nest where it suits them. Including in parks, or on built structures in public places. Busy mums do take their kids for walks and are still busy and overloaded.
Any mum (or dad for that matter) who is taking kids to a public park and sees a hornet is going to notice, and do something about it.
Or, if they are so overwhelmed that they doesn't care about their kids welfare, it's unlikely that the chance of $50 (which they may never get) is going to motivate them.
Despite the highly motivated locals a queen was able to spawn the
49(checks notes…) 27 queens so far found.This is a way more serious threat than North Shore folk not wanting hornets in their back yard.
Unfortunately we have to trust this will not go the way of the varroa mite. Ironically, in justifying deciding not to eradicate varroa, there were a lot of 'mights'.
"There was then a group discussion that focused on identifying the technical risks to an eradication attempt being successful. The primary risks identified were:
• the infested area might not be accurately delimited;
• the available surveillance tests might not be sufficiently sensitive to enable new infestations to be detected and treated before they spread further;
• it might not be possible to eradicate all infected feral colonies;
• there was potential for delays arising from public concerns over possible environmental and public health impacts of a poisoning programme; and
• there might be non-compliance by some beekeepers.
https://oag.parliament.nz/2002/biosecurity-case-studies/docs/part4.pdf#:~:text=4.%204.13%20Although%20it%20is%20not%20possible,have%20arrived%20by%20the%20sea%20container%20pathway.
The highly motivated locals have only been alerted to look out for hornets since they were identified. None of us have a time machine to go back and investigate the initial establishment.
My understanding is that varoa was much more widely established before it was discovered. Which is why dealing with an infestation while it is relatively small is the second best alternative (the best would have been for them never to have got here)
Please don't sneer (which is what your comment looks like) at the locals who are actually doing the work here.
People not wanting hornets in their back garden is a twofer. It motivates them to be highly alert to identify hornets, and prevent new nests – and it benefits the rest of the country by preventing further infestation. Never underestimate the power of the personal….
"Well, since the beekeepers will be the significant beneficiaries – there's nothing stopping them from contributing to a bounty on hornets."
Sure, but there are far bigger richer industries that depend on bees doing their unpaid thing.
Not sure why you default to "picking on school kids". Including, educating and organising are far more accurate verbs to use.
Not sure why you think that school kids need more education and organization – why not the unemployed, who could also do with a bit of educating and organizing?
Personally, I'm not in favour of unpaid labour – especially of children. But, you seem to think it's a good idea. You might want to reflect on that.
[In case of doubt, I'm not in favour of unpaid labour from either the unemployed, or from school kids.]
There are so many lenses from which to view what I wrote. Some hearts are so cold.
I'll ignore the repeated punching down on the unemployed.
School children, once they learn of the importance of bees (judging by yr angle on this subject perhaps you could sit in on a class or two), the threat posed by this pest, become a great asset in the eradication.
Making traps and monitoring them. Schools in the larger are could have a competition for the amount of hornets detected and win a $5000.
But if you see this as merely an issue of me advocating for unpaid labour, we are clearly talking past each other.
Edit; I’m also close to breaking my own rule of not commenting after the third hazy…
Every argument that you've made is equally applicable to the unemployed.
If it's not OK to draft slave labour from the unemployed to hunt down hornets, why is is OK to suggest doing the same thing with school kids?
If you can't see the issue – then there really is no point in continuing the conversation.
Community spirit ≠ unpaid labour
Reserve Bank practice (not the 5-6pm Friday night drinks – practice since the building dawned on the landscape in the 70's)
Bollard suggested a mortgage surcharge – it would reduce demand from homeowners without any impact on the currency (his OCR increases led to a recession here before GFC and had a negative impact on exporters).
It would also raise a lot of money.
(disclosure, I advised this – a mortgage surcharge – to the Clark-Cullen government years before Bollard raised it publicly)
Since then there have been equity and income tests for borrowers and also stricter criteria for banks (capital ratio).
https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/360900763/reserve-bank-says-inflation-danger-passed-sees-solid-growth-ahead
A mortgage surcharge, designed to reduce demand from home-owners.
Really don't think this has a chance in hell of flying in the current economic climate. Proposing to make buying homes even more expensive is a very quick way to electoral suicide for any party.
That displays a little bit of ignorance of the concept.
It would only be applied instead of a OCR rise (or with a reduction in the OCR – depending on where the economic cycle was at the time).
There would therefore be no difference to the homeowner's total mortgage cost.
Then how would it act as you described "reduce demand from homeowners"?
If there is no financial penalty, there is no lever to change people’s behaviour.
Right back at you, you claimed a mortgage surcharge impost was impossible – when it has no more impact than paying higher interest rates to a bank, which has happened for decades.
Which one raises funds for government, so it can pay down debt when there is heat in the economy?
Suggest you read my comment again.
I said that it would be political suicide for a party to commit to increasing people's mortgages by adding a surcharge.
If you are *now* claiming at that a surcharge is fiscally neutral for the mortgagee – then I invite you to explain how it can *also* "reduce demand from homeowners" (as you also claimed).
You made the claim. You back it up.
Yes you did. And clearly it has no credibility because the cost to the home owner is no different either way.
Are you not capable of working out that with the mortgage the cost goes up and then it goes down? The same can be done with the surcharge.
Sheesh.
What is it about the Enzed neo-liberal tendency to obstruct any pathway for the government getting revenue – here, even when it costs the taxpayers nothing.
Most governments have stamp duty (1999 gone), gift duty (2013 gone) and estate tax (1993 gone) and CGT (never had). Douglas deferred on bringing in a CGT alongside the ones we had in 1984, only because he was looking at an alternative – an asset tax. Then he became a right wing applause junkie, sad.
Nihilistic.
Look. If you describe something as a "mortgage surcharge" – it strongly implies that this is an additional cost over and above the existing mortgage.
If you are now saying that this is not the case, then please explain in detail what you do mean. Airily talking about the fact that mortgage rates go up and down over time, is not at all the same thing.
You still haven't addressed how, if you claim that it's cost-neutral to the mortgagee, it can also be a deterrent.
Déjà vu all over again – your wilful one-sided ignorance is tedious.
https://thestandard.nz/open-mike-21-08-2024/#comment-2008870
Sigh. If I'm so ignorant, then perhaps you can explain the issue that SPC seems to be unable to do.
The link to the initial discussion made it clear that it is likely that this was an additional tax on mortgage holders (disguised by a claim that it would only kick in when the OCR went down).
If you want additional taxes – then propose them up front – and campaign on them.
But, my opinion, is that a mortgage surcharge is an unelectable policy for any major political party (i.e. Labour or National).
If I'm wrong then, no doubt we'll see what happens when this forms part of Labour's tax policy and campaign.
The fact that I wasn't convinced by the arguments the first time – is no reason why I should have a road to Damascus conversion this time. People are allowed to have different opinions on TS.
Your ‘opinion’ is weightless because it’s based on ignorance & bias (and you don’t want to hear & listen). As such, it would waste time to take it seriously and engage with you. However …
The idea of a mortgage surcharge is that the RBNZ adds a levy to mortgage repayments instead of raising the OCR when the economy is at risk of overheating. This would cool inflation by targeting households, which are most sensitive to OCR/interest rates, without raising lending costs across the whole economy (i.e., for businesses and people who rent!).
Arguably, the OCR is too blunt and a mortgage surcharge is too sharp.
It has been explained. A dead cat bounces with more acuity.
Your opposition to increased taxation (whatever it is) is clearly your motive.
Thank you for your explanation, I understand, now, what was being proposed.
Although I still don’t see how it can reduce demand for mortgages from homeowners (if it results in no change to their mortgage)
I shall wait, with interest, to see if it is included in the Labour tax campaign policy.
If not, then I suspect I may be right about it being an unelectable policy.
Generally, and somewhat simplistically speaking:
When OCR/interest rates go up, demand for mortgages goes down.
When OCR/interest rates go down, demand for mortgages goes down.
In the above, replace OCR/interest rates with mortgage surcharge.
Nice pun, but I don’t know why you think it might be under consideration by Labour or being “proposed”, let alone be included in their tax campaign policy. So, I suspect you made a straw man.
You seem quite obsessed on being right – if that makes you happy? – but it’s terribly flawed logic and based on the false premise above.
She says she now understands
Then writes this
This is why there are emojis.
What about
is hard to get as an alternative methodology to achieve a restraint on demand?
Tactic, the constant refrain tax increases or any new tax makes a party unelectable.
Troll.
@spc, kiwisaver is the way to take heat put of the economy, compulsory membership, need to cool spending up the contribution rate, need money in the system lower it, simple , people get to keep the money !!
Yeah na.
First there is no heat in the economy at all at the moment.
Making it "compulsory" for more people to be in poverty in the here and now is not good policy.
The Australian government made it compulsory for employers to pay (and took it all the way to 12%). Any contribution by the worker was and still is voluntary.
From where we are, I would advise maintaining a base contribution rate of 3% with a one year opt out, if a partner was taking parental leave.
And increasing the employer contribution to 4% on the current schedule. And then to 6%.
If the government had the money it might incentivise employee saving.
A mortgage surcharge would provide the money.
We need a Fair Pay Agreement Industry Award era to boost wages to enable people to save.
Good old fiscal policy is the way.
Not only can you take money out of the economy, you can also redistribute it to where it is most required.
Taking the heat out of the economy while helping to address poverty and inequality. Which, will bring widespread benefits
Lake Rotorua is being cleared of a weed that has built up and created a stench: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/580144/rotorua-lakefront-stench-lingers-as-decomposing-weed-and-dead-fish-pile-up
Not a good advert for “clean, green New Zealand”, is it? I suppose as far as the Tourism NZ people are concerned, the problem, like crime and pollution, doesn’t exist.
I think this has been happening since the 60s – introduced water weeds are a significant pest in most of the volcanic plateau lakes.
https://niwa.co.nz/lakes/freshwater-update/freshwater-update-65-may-2015/weeds-and-rotorua-lakes
I really don't think that it weighs heavily on the minds on those running tourism marketing campaigns.
It's only a problem if one looks and can see (or smell) – maybe not even then 🙁
Disturbing to see how little regard some NZ pollies have for nature conservation.
https://www.forestandbird.org.nz/petitions/make-denniston-scientific-reserve
https://www.ecan.govt.nz/get-involved/news-and-events/2025/taking-action-on-nitrate
https://maps.greenpeace.org/maps/aotearoa/know-your-nitrate/
Saints be praised, there is a lakes water quality society:https://lakeswaterquality.co.nz/about-lwqs/
Looks like some good work being done on weeds, pest fish and other things.
I see that Seymour has tied funding of school lunches to school attendance. As usual, it's going to effect the most vulnerable kids the most – if you're unlucky enough go to a school with kids who don't make it to school then you get punished with poorer food quality or poorer educational opportunities as the school has to divert time and resources to make up the shortfall in funding.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360901661/lunch-funding-be-tied-attendance-hundreds-more-schools
Again my internal cynic tells me that this is a cunning way to reduce expenditure in schools attended by the most challenging students and, much worse, an invitation to those who don't mind fiddling with statistics to do so- like 30,000 driving breath tests- or those who fiddle their taxes, their driving licences, their immigration data, or those who break the law in other ways like our world-beating speedsters on the roads, our drink-drivers and did I mention our lying politicians?