Tenure review to get a deserved ending


On Thursday, Minister for Environment Eugenie Sage made an announcement that New Zealanders had been hoping for. After 20 odd tortured, ill thought out, highly controversial years of the land tenure review process, Ms Sage finally announced its impending demise.

When it started in the 1990’s Land Information New Zealand (L.I.N.Z.) was in a bit of a bind. It wanted – and in many respects needed – to get a host of high country properties worth millions of dollars a piece off its books, no longer being able to be the ideal landlord. So, the Government looked at a process that could discharge responsibility for the land, give the lease holders (farmers)more responsibility, which they were asking for, all the while maintaining access for the public.

The idea sounded great – the Government no longer has responsibility for land it could not really manage; the farmers who are the leaseholders would be given greater control over the land in return for making it accessible to the public as far as farming operations permitted.

But the execution of it was appalling. It quickly became obvious that the Overseas Investment Office did not really know what it was meant to be doing, if anything, in terms of regulating the sales that happened. Little screening was done of potential buyers, what they intended to do with it and how suitable as non New Zealanders they were to be in possession of some of New Zealand’s finest farm real estate.

Farmers became frustrated because the sale of properties to buyers became mired in politics. There were several high profile cases with a variety of controversies attached. They include the sale and resale of land in the Mackenzie Basin which became the subject of intensive dairying (and equally intense controversy about the spoiling of high country charateristics with false greenery in a naturally arid area). Another was the sale of the large Lillybank station near Mt Cook, which was bought of Tommy Suharto, the son of Indonesian dictator Suharto. Mr Suharto’s business partner bought a station that Mr Suharto had spent $7.5 million in 1992 purchasing.

Access campaigners also became concerned. Much of the high country farmland had access routes to key camping areas, fishing spots and tramping routes. Many of those who succeeded in deals to purchase such farms often give no hint as to whether they would permit the access to these spots to continue, or recognize the Queens chain. Some were also concerned that those spots would become degraded by non compliant land use.

Many of these concerns were well founded. Some of the buyers indicated little interest in the well being of the communities nearby or for the conservation values held by New Zealanders. As this stoked resentment it was inevitable that controversy should arise.

In the end, with so many frustrated by the way the tenure review was being carried out, the review found itself with few allies. Except for the very few people who had managed to conduct sales of property and whose finances had done very well out of them, there was little support. 30 leases are still in progress, but one has to ask whether it is appropriate for them to continue given tenure review is now at an end.

 

Chinese warned against visiting New Zealand


The Chinese New Year holiday is in progress, with Chinese tourists streaming in all directions, visiting nations across the world. With about two weeks left before most of them return to their daily routines in China, it is a busy time for the tourism, rental car, hospitality and airline sectors as well as individual tourist attractions.

New Zealand for the most part has not been an exception. Just as in previous years, the wave of tourists radiating across the globe from China has reached New Zealand no problems. However thanks to concerns by Chinese officials about New Zealand’s stance on the case of Huawei being denied the right to supply 5G broadband equipment, it is suspected that China does not want its citizens visiting New Zealand.

This has led to what appears to be a dip in tourist numbers coming from the Peoples Republic. Business in the sectors linked to tourism have been reporting steady traffic rather than the normal high level of activity.

Chinese Government officials are thought to have warned their citizens against visiting other countries, and New Zealand is not an exception. In order to maintain control and not let Chinese develop a view of the west that is not favourable to their authoritarian overlords in Beijing, an element of concern or distrust is deliberately injected into government broadcasts. Due to the lack of information in China other than what comes through official sources, Chinese do not get the diverse array of general information and news that western countries are able to tap into.

Not surprisingly, for fear of causing economic damage, National and A.C.T. are trying to claim that this is causing Sino-Kiwi relations undue stress. They ignore though the fact that National has an M.P. who trained in the Chinese military to be an intelligence officer. Jian Yang who entered Parliament. They also ignore the considerable environmental impact that tourism is having on New Zealand and that maintaining a clean sustainable environment is high on the agenda of many people.

Increasingly New Zealand is finding itself no longer able to sit on the fence regarding Chinese activity. Some would argue that the same can be said for American activity (which is beyond the scope of this article). Contrary to popular opinion China is not our friend, and we need to keep Beijing’s foreign policy in mind when we consider how to try to get the best out of the dragon without unduly upsetting the bald eagle.

Ultimately though New Zealand needs to strike out on its own direction. Politicians need to start seeing the global footprint of China and our contribution to its rapid – and unsustainable – growth. Contrary to the simplistic left-right analysis of political thought most commonly used, New Zealand is capable of forming its own.

 

National slumps; Greens-Labour could govern alone


The headline says it all – almost. A new poll out today shows National having fallen behind Labour for the first time since Labour lost office in 2008.

The latest Newshub/Reid Poll shows that Labour are up to 47%, which would make them the largest party in Parliament at 56 seats. That is the number that National currently hold. Combined with the Greens who are steady on 5% and entitled to 6 seats Labour could govern without its other coalition ally, New Zealand First.

All parties except A.C.T. shed seats to Labour in this rare instance. The Greens lose two, to become a 6 piece caucus. New Zealand First disappear completely and National are down to 50.

This must be sobering news for New Zealand First. It has been consistently under the 5% threshhold to have a presence in Parliament without an electorate seat. At 2.9% it would suffer an even worse defeat than that which was inflicted on it in 2008. Whilst the party has seen bad luck before, much of that was not of its making but the work of dirty politicking by other politicians. That does not apply in February 2019.

New Zealand First shed supporters, including myself after it supported the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. But other people left, expressing concerns about the internal state of the party, which has had to deal with dwarf throwing, the collapse of its South Island support and also the activities of Shane Jones. On one hand Mr Jones who is Minister for Regional Development is proving popular because of his work with the regional development fund, but on the other his refusal to allow cameras on board fishing vessels has sparked the ire of labour rights advocates.

It must also be sobering news for National. For the first time since 2008 it is less popular than its arch rival. At 41% it would get 50 seats in the House. Combined with the solitary seat of its natural ally A.C.T., it would have 51 seats and be well below the threshhold of being able to govern.

National find themselves in a difficult spot. Environmental issues have clearly become more important than many National Party Members of Parliament and their constituents want to admit. The worsening effects of having so much carbon in the atmosphere and in the sea is leading to an increasing pressure for comprehensive reform, except that neither party really knows how – and the Green proposals are seen as too radical and out of touch.

But it is National leader Simon Bridges who must find this most sobering. Mr Bridges has been over taken by Judith Crusher Collins in the preferred Prime Minister stakes. This will excite her fans on the solid blue right wing of the party. Ms Collins, despite her dismissal as a Minister of the Crown for corruption and links to the Oravida scandal, remains a darling of the right wing of New Zealand politics who are itching for a deeper shade of blue than what was offered by Messrs John Key and Bill English.

For Labour and the Greens though, this must be a welcome breath of fresh air. It comes after concerns about the slowing economy, the failure of Kiwi Build and the ongoing concerns about justice, health, among other things. Labour will be wanting to build on this as it looks towards the 2020 election.

Time to regulate freedom campers


Bex Hill is a tour operator in Dunedin. The other day she saw a people mover turned freedom camper vehicle with a self containment sticker on it. The problem is, it was not self contained.

If there is an issue that divides New Zealand during the summer tourism season, it must surely be what to do about “Freedom Campers”, campers whose transport – often an old Toyota Previa or similar – doubles as their home, and who refuse to camp in regular camping grounds. For many such campers the vehicle is also where they claim to have a toilet, so that they are able to access camping grounds without sanitary facilities.

The majority of them are no problem and will comply with requests. However it needs to be said that there will always be a small percentage for whom no amount reasoning will work – they think that by some higher entitlement they can be in a particular place and do as they wish. New Zealand, contrary to popular belief – does have minimum standards for self containment in vehicles – they just are not that well known or enforced. They are set out in full below (see New Zealand Motor Caravan Association):

A SUMMARY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED SELF-CONTAINMENT

The Standard requires sanitary, safe installations:

  1. Fresh water tanks: 4 L per person per day (12 L per person minimum); eg. 24 litres is required for 2 people for 3 days & 48 litres is required for 4 people for 3 days;

  2. A sink: (via a smell trap/water trap connected to a water tight sealed waste water tank;

  3. Grey/black waste water tank: 4 L per person per day (12 L per person minimum, vented and monitored if capacity is less than the fresh water tank);

  4. Evacuation hose: (3 m for fitted tanks) or long enough to connect to a sealed portable tank;

  5. Sealable refuse container (rubbish bin with a lid).

  6. Toilet (portable or fixed): Minimum capacity 1 L per person per day (3 L net holding tank capacity per person minimum);

A portable toilet must be adequately restrained or secured when travelling. The portable toilet shall be usable within the motor caravan or caravan, including sufficient head and elbow room whenever required, even with the bed made up.  Where permanent toilets are installed, this shall be in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and comply with the sanitary requirements in section 3 of the Standard (plumbing requirements).

When these conditions are met, a portable toilet may be used externally e.g. within a toilet tent or awning, where it is appropriate and convenient to do so.

I had time for them, but now my patience – and I think that of many many New Zealanders – is running out. It is time to regulate their vehicles as being supposedly fit for over nighting in places where camping is generally forbidden is often not what one thinks it is. Far too often we now hear of campers becoming aggressive when challenged about the suitability of their vehicle to be parked in a non camping area. Far too often we find freedom campers parked in parts of towns and rural areas where they should not be.

Aside from being disgusting and unsightly in the extreme to see other peoples faeces, it is a particularly poor look on the part of a country that prides itself on being clean and green. Yes everyone needs to answer a call of nature at some point and that there will most certainly be cases where it cannot be done in a proper toilet.

Is it inappropriate to remind them that they are in New Zealand and are therefore expected to comply with New Zealand law (which admittedly needs to be clarified and tightened up, but that is beyond the scope of this article)? I think not. When other campers cannot get access to a particular site because it is blocked and the campers are aggressive, whose fault is that?

I do not believe I am being unnecessarily harsh when I say that the only vehicles that should be permitted for this purpose should have an enforceable certificate of self containment. But before we do that, there has to be a regime with appropriate agencies involved and a way of making the enforcement stick. This will require the co-operation of rental car and other rental vehicle agencies, the N.Z.T.A. and local councils.

Then, may be people like Bex Hill will not have to see such sights again.

Answering questions about becoming a Republic


As I watched coverage of the Duke of Edinburgh’s car crash I was reminded that this is a man who is in his late 90’s. I was also reminded that his wife, and New Zealand’s head of state Queen Elizabeth II is also over 90. With their great and advancing age, one must assume that they will be starting to wind down their official engagements.

And as they contemplate whether to, or how to wind down their engagements, New Zealand needs to be stepping up its national conversation about our constitutional arrangements once they depart.

I have never seen the need for a foreigner as New Zealand’s head of state. As a grown up nation that has a degree of civility lacking in many others, I believe New Zealand is more than capable of having its own head of state. However I know many people who do not believe New Zealand is ready to become a Republic, or that it is not needed or welcome.

I have mentioned my reasoning for a Republic, the process I believe would be necessary to achieve it and what it might look like in past articles. This article is more about addressing public concerns about how a Republic might look and function. This is part of the debate that is necessary to have in order to inform public opinion prior to any attempt at changing how New Zealand determines its Head of State.

What will happen to the Treaty of Waitangi and the settlements reached under a Republic?

Under a Republic, New Zealand will transfer responsibility for the Treaty of Waitangi from the Crown to the Head of State. The Treaty itself and the settlements reached with Iwi will not be affected in any way by this change. This is commonly acknowledged by the Monarchist League as well as the Republican Movement.

Will New Zealand be made to leave the Commonwealth should it become a Republic?

No. Most nations in the British Commonwealth are already Republics – India, Pakistan, South Africa, Singapore, Malaysia, Nauru, to name just a few. There are 52 nations in the Commonwealth and 36 of them are Republics.

New Zealand’s heritage is British

This is a fortunately dying tunnel vision argument that ignores the fact that New Zealand is now a multicultural nation with large Pacific Island and Asian communities. Nothing about becoming a Republic will change our culture – we will still play cricket and aspire to one day win the Cricket World Cup; Queen’s English will still be the dominant language and New Zealanders will still be as welcome as they have ever been in the United Kingdom.

Should New Zealand become a Republic, what are the types of Republic?

There are several types of Republic. The one that New Zealand is physically closest to in terms of governance is the Parliamentary Republic. This type means that the President would largely be a figure head with mainly ceremonial but also constitutional powers – greeting Heads of Government and Heads of State, appointing and dismissing Cabinet members and – heaven forbid this happen – enact any necessary declaration of war on a foreign power.

A Presidential Republic is more like the United States, where the President has a large role in the day to day running of the Government and may make key foreign policy decisions. This is in addition to the ceremonial and constitutional roles as mentioned above.

There are other types of Republic including Semi-Presidential Republic, where the Head of State takes responsibility for foreign policy whilst the Head of Government looks after domestic policy. Examples include France and Taiwan.

Other types exist as well, but these are the three types New Zealand would be most likely to vote for a number of simple reasons. New Zealand is not Islamic so therefore we cannot have an Islamic Republic. The best known such example is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Peoples Republic and Democratic Peoples Republic are typically aligned with Marxist-Leninist politics and with the exception of the Peoples Republic of China and Laos Peoples Democratic Republic, all have failed.

Republics are unstable, so why have one?

So are Monarch’s. Tonga, one of the worlds last Absolute Monarchy’s was plunged into devastating riots in 2006 as a result of widespread anger at the lack of democratic progress in the Government.

Swaziland (now Eswatini) is another. King Mswati III is well known for leading a luxurious lifestyle that is increasingly the cause of internal unrest, as well as international criticism. He holds all the powers of the state, as well as holding control over the legislature and the courts.