General Debate 9 July 2012

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment164

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (164)

Login to comment or vote

Steve (North Shore)

I think I’ve got it. Maori want to own the water that generates electricity and the water that comes out of the tap.
Free hot showers foreva bro!
The evil whitie will have to pay for this
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:01pm
Longknives

Gutless loudmouth piece of shite backtracking on his comments…

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/7248421/9-11-comments-haunt-boxer-Mundine-in-Las-Vegas

I’m amazed they let him in the Country- seeing as he actively supports Terrorism. Oh well, look forward to seeing some quality American boxer pummell the tosser into oblivion..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:03pm
Pauleastbay

O-A

If its not on Wikipedia he wont know how to cut and paste it so throwing in the book will be a waste
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:05pm
OneTrack

What’s next? Air, fire, electromagnetic radiation? Oh wait, they’ve already got that last one.

If Maori are deemed owners of the water, might that mean I have to pay a toll to go for a swim? If not, why not? Does this only mean river water, or all water (will they also own rain)? Maybe we can bill them for flood damage. In future, is there going to be a line called “Guilt Tax” on my next water bill?

When are we going to get past this apartheid stuff? One country? Not any time soon at this rate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:15pm
mikenmild

PEB
Feel free to contribute as well if you are able to sum up some of those arguments; I’m sure we would welcome the benefit of your erudition.
I have no familiarity with the details of the Nagi Tahu claims and settlement, so I should be grateful if someone could present the arguments in a concise way.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:18pm
Reid

I should be grateful if someone could present the arguments in a concise way.

We want heaps of cash, eh boy.

Chur.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:19pm
mikenmild

Re the water argument, I guess it brings us to consider ownership of water per se. Does anyone own it? Do we all own it? Does the government own it? Do you own the water that falls on your land? A bit like the foreshore and seabed stuff questions. If anyone owns its, then it has always been owned by the inhabitants, as the aboriginal owners, unless they alienated it to another party – the Crown or succeeeding landowners, I suppose.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:22pm
Steve (North Shore)

Dig even deeper. How often will you pay for this ‘water’? Seeing as the water is in circulation (hydrolic cycle) it can be solid, liquid or gas. Once it goes through the cycle do we have to pay the Apartheid People again?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:23pm
Reid

http://www.getfrank.co.nz/editorial/nz-politics/the-new-zealand-maori-council-water-rights-claim
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:23pm
Pete George

Anyone who can identify the water they owned when the treaty was signed should be able to claim ownership of it it now, although they might have to deal with whoever has jurisdiction over the location they find it in.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:27pm
Michael Mckee

MM
“as the original aboriginal owners”?
Spoken like a liberal lefty, “Didn’t they eat the other people as well as themselves who didn’t do as they wanted”?

The Maori do not own NZ (by dint of a socialist liberal UN driven to break individual coin tries sovereignties) as the so called original inhabitants, we all do as NZ citizens.
I reject completely any other position.

It is time the WT is wound up and disestablished and the racist Maori Land Courts & seats in parliament were too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:29pm
Michael Mckee

Other_Andy (1,779) Says:
July 9th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
If you’re not Maori you have no say nor representation in the Maori Court or Waitangi Tribunal.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:33pm
mikenmild

reid
Thank you for posting that. It certainly has the merit of presenting an argument, which distinguishes it from the comments made here so far.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:33pm
James Stephenson

Nobody owns water, although you may be able to own the receptacle it’s in and charge people to process or deliver it from your receptacle to theirs. In the case of a power generator, it’s not equivalent to coal into a power station since it’s water in and water out with energy extracted in between.

Even if I buy a bottle of the stuff from the Supermarket, I’m still only borrowing the water.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:34pm
Steve (North Shore)

“Anyone who can identify the water they owned when the treaty was signed should be able to claim ownership of it it now, although they might have to deal with whoever has jurisdiction over the location they find it in.”

They own the land as well Pete. It was all stolen, didn’t you know that?
Edit: any water found on Maori Land will be Tax and levy free
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:34pm
Steve (North Shore)

“Nobody owns water, although you may be able to own the receptacle it’s in and charge people to process or deliver it from your receptacle to theirs. In the case of a power generator, it’s not equivalent to coal into a power station since it’s water in and water out with energy extracted in between.”

So Maori better put in a Claim for ‘Gravity’ seeing as gravity is what caused the energy that is harvested
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:38pm
Michael Mckee

Lee01 (1,973) Says:
July 9th, 2012 at 4:14 pm

What do you call taxation to pay money to people who don’t work and for hip hop tours and the like.

That is a by product of democracy when you have a majority of mikenmilds voting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:38pm
Pete George

Steve (North Shore) – Maori don’t all the land where 1840 water might now be, it could be anywhere underground, on ground, in ocean or in atmosphere.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:40pm
Other_Andy

@Steve

“So Maori better put in a Claim for ‘Gravity’ seeing as gravity is what caused the energy that is harvested”

Stop giving them ideas!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:43pm
Steve (North Shore)

I’m sure they know exactly where it is Pete. It is in storage, waiting to be paid for. The Hydrosphere (if that’s a word) is just a Warehouse.

7.23, hydrolic cycle
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:46pm
Steve (North Shore)

I am taking the pis quite a bit here but in all seriousness nobody owns the natural things on the Planet. When they think they do own these things, they are just extorting money for their own lazy arses.
Many years ago there were Wars in ‘The Land of the Long White Shroud) Maori lost. In History all Land has been taken by conquest, so suck it up Maori – you own sweet fuck all
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 7:55pm
Reid

Thank you for posting that. It certainly has the merit of presenting an argument, which distinguishes it from the comments made here so far.

You mean my 7:19 or my 7:23 mm?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:00pm
James Stephenson

So Maori better put in a Claim for ‘Gravity’ seeing as gravity is what caused the energy that is harvested

Why not? Charge the power generator to take the water at point A and give it back at point B, but don’t charge too much because a farmer might offer a better deal to send it into his irrigation. Let the market set a value on using the stuff.

Of course, as others have mentioned, if you want to own a river and make money out of the water flowing down it, you also have to assume responsibility if that river floods and damages others’ property…you don’t get to own the swings and ride the roundabouts for free.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:03pm
mikenmild

Steve
Sure. things are taken by conquest – ask the Palestinians, they ‘lost’ too. And the Maori who fought with the Crown, were the confiscations of their land justified too?
As for nobody owning the ‘natural thngs on the Planet’ – feel free to go and chop down a few kauri, net a couple of Maui dolphns and drill for oil next door, if no one owns any of those natural things. Let us know how that goes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:10pm
Other_Andy

@Pete George

” Maori don’t all the land where 1840 water might now be, it could be anywhere underground, on ground, in ocean or in atmosphere.”

Well, the Maori Council has most of it covered. As Maanu Paul said, Maori own ALL the water. Rivers, lakes AND aquafiers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:12pm
wiseowl

I see now Manu paul has said there are btoo many ‘palefaces’ on the WT.
Spare me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:13pm
Steve (North Shore)

Mike,
Maori who fought with/for the Crown were fighing for the freedom of New Zealand, not Maori ownership of the land.
Get it right sonny, those Maori were “NEW ZEALANDERS”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:17pm
mikenmild

Ok Steve, if even I accepted that (which I don’t), why did Maori fighting ‘for New Zealand’ have their lands confiscated also?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:22pm
Yvette

Now that a link has us look at getfrank.co.nz – under IWI AND RIVERS …

But the most significant implication is for the government’s planned sale of Mighty River Power. Three of Mighty River’s dams are built on land covered by the decision – land which may yet be found to be held in trust for the Pouakani people, and other iwi may yet file their own cases. That means at the least that some provision needs to be made for compensation or transfer if the courts uphold the trust, and the sale should not proceed until such provision is made. To do otherwise would be a Treaty breach, of exactly the type that New Zealand Māori Council v. Attorney-General (1987) (and the subsequent amendments to the State-Owned Enterprises Act) was supposed to prevent.
– http://www.getfrank.co.nz/editorial/media/iwi-and-rivers
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:23pm
Steve (North Shore)

Not confiscated, it was surrendered as a result of War.
At least whitie allowed them to live, because if whitie had not come and conquered, the cannibals would have become extinct
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:23pm
Other_Andy

@mm

I’ll give you a hand.

“..have their lands confiscated.”
“..have their lands confiscated.”
“..have their lands confiscated.”
“..have their lands confiscated.”
“..have their lands confiscated.”

Said it another 5 times so now it must be true.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:27pm
wiseowl

I think a few people here could do with reading The Great Divide.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:27pm
Steve (North Shore)

So you don’t accept that Maori are New Zealanders then Mike? 8.18 – 8.22

Why is that? tell me/us who Maori are
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:29pm
mikenmild

It’s pointless arguing against such a fantastical construction, Steve, maybe you should go and read an easy historical account of those events and reconsider. There is no reason to think Maori would have extinguished themselves – I’m not aware of any people pursuing warfare to the extent that they all died.
So your argument appears to be that the Europeans came, saw and conquered, that even those Maori who fought with them needed to be dispossessed, and we all lived happily ever after.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:30pm
mikenmild

That’s not what I disagreed with Setve. I disagreed with your assertion that Maori who fought for the Crown ‘were fighting for the freedom of New Zealand’
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:33pm
wiseowl

M&M.You are right actually.They was every reason to believe they were on the way to extinguishing themselves.That’s exactly what was happening.
They should be grateful for what occurred
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:37pm
Steve (North Shore)

8.33 Freedom of New Zealand and allied Countries, Australia, USA and the Pacific in this part of the World, as well as the Europe War.
Snakes wriggle and you are wriggling flat out Mike. Maori wriggle as well
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:40pm
Other_Andy

@mm

“I’m not aware of any people pursuing warfare to the extent that they all died.”

Guesss which people almost died out as the result of warfare and the destruction of the natural resources up to a point where cannibalism was widespread?
Untill the evil whities arrived only 20 percent of the original population remained.
Pretty close to ‘they all died’.
(But at least you have an ‘out’ clause)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:43pm
Steve (North Shore)

Don’t get me wrong Mike. I don’t hate Maori.
I hate the direction they are taking and going. The average New Zealander owes Maori nothing but is being extorted by a bunch of lazy arseholes
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:47pm
Yvette

English common law in 1840 recognised property rights in rivers and in the use of water, so why would a claim to own water be fanciful?
Maybe that is why the Treaty itemises ‘fisheries’ not ‘waters’ – “Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess …”

e) Water has never been considered a ‘pan-Maori’ matter. If any common law or customary rights exist at all they will be for specific neighbouring iwi …
Will the outcome on the Waikato have implications for Ngai Tahu and Meridian’s Benmore Dam on the Waitaki in the South? Another round …

quotes – http://www.getfrank.co.nz/editorial/nz-politics/the-new-zealand-maori-council-water-rights-claim
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 8:57pm
Tauhei Notts

I am beginning to like this debate about the ownership of water.
I think we must encourage all the cowmatuas, and their underlings, whom I understand are referred to as heifermatuas, to pursue this matter with their utmost effort.
For, when they have done this, Waitakere Man (as that term is used by that learned blogger Chris Trotter) will say;
This is a crock of excrement.
This is absolute rubbish.
This is phucking bullshit.
This nonsense has got to be brought to an end.
Then, and only then, when Waitakere Man has finally had it forcibly put down his throat, will New Zealanders say;
“Put an end to this phucking idiocy.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 9:00pm
Other_Andy

@mm

I give you a clue, it wasn’t the South Island Maori.
Although the came close to extinction as well.

From your favourite source Wikipedea:

“Probably no more than 500 Māori were living in Canterbury when European settlement began in the 1840s. They were part of the Ngāi Tahu tribe which occupied the South Island of New Zealand, remnants of a more numerous population which may have numbered between 3000 and 4000 people at the beginning of the 19th century. Decimated by civil wars from 1810 to 1815, they were almost exterminated between 1830 and 1832 in attacks by the northern Ngāti Toa, led by Te Rauparaha.”

Now that’s only 12%. Even worse than the example I was looking for.
Imagine that, those 500 people owned the whole of the South Island (According to the WT), isn’t that amazing?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 9:03pm
Reid

The most disturbing thing surely is this is clearly less of a legal and more of a political tactic. I mean the legal analysis from getfrank + Herald stories like Donna Hall lobbying to get all this iwi leaders behind the campaign. Key’s propensity to take the easy way over the right way. The Maori Council making it plain they’ll go away if they get free shares.

Where, in all of this, is just one honest journalist, doing their homework, and publicising these sorts of facts. I’ll tell you where. It will be in a single column from Fran O’Sullivan, it’ll be the subject of a few radio shows, perhaps Laws, Leighton and Smith then JT and Willie will take a turn to “give some balance” and the rest will be wall to wall non-stop wailing from the Brown Actors Society and their paid publicists in the form of the tame media channels such as RadioNZ, TVNZ, TV3, Stuff and NZHerald which aren’t really journalists, they’re simply publicists and promoters whenever things Maori are broadcast. So in the minds of most people, this has legs and it will grow. Whether or not it has legal legs.

But of course, the publicist-journalists will never ever focus on the legal aspects, apart from superficially, but will spend hour after hour after hour interviewing elder after elder, law lecturer after law lecturer, researcher after researcher and so convince the public that Key will simply roll over, like the vapid pathetic weakling he has always been, lest he not be remembered by all as “the second most popular PM after Hulun,” or whatever the hell he hopes is his legacy.

http://www.chelsey.co.nz/power-and-inspiration/career-business-and-politics/will-the-claims-ever-end
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 9:03pm
Steve (North Shore)

No joke at 8.00 nasska? disapointed 🙁
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 9:12pm
wiseowl

Well said Reid.
A true leader would grab this thing by the you know whats and tell them where to stick it.
That would be a legacy to leave.
A true leader would say enough of this WT shit.
A true leader would say one law for all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 9:14pm
Reid

From the link in my 9:03, rather good I thought.

In the 1986 radio spectrum claim, where Maori successfully argued that they had a Treaty right over a resource that was unknown in 1840, an argument was used that would cover all new developments into the future – namely that “where any property or part of the universe has, or may have, value as an economic asset, the Crown has no authority under the Treaty to possess, alienate, or otherwise treat it as its own property without recognising the prior claim of Maori.”

In other words, the claims process will never end unless there is the political will to stand up to the tribal aristocracy and say enough is enough. By their own assertion iwi are sitting on assets worth many billions of dollars. But disadvantaged Maori are worse off in terms of child abuse, educational failure, welfare dependency and crime, than they were thirty years ago when Labour first embarked on this social experiment to alleviate Maori deprivation through empowering tribes with financial settlements. All that has happened in the interim is that the tribal elite have become extremely rich and powerful, while the poor remain poor – or go to Australia…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 9:16pm
Other_Andy

@mm

Seeing that those 500 (Ngai Tahu) people can lay claim to the ownership of most of the South Island and places they never lived or even set foot on, what keeps them from laying claim to the other landmass further South? How does it work mm?

I have another question. What about the WT claim from Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga? They invade the Chathams, enslave, kill and eat most of the Moriori and then lay a claim to the Chatams against the crowm. How does that work mm?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 9:17pm
Tauhei Notts

Just to add to my 9.00 comment; Getfrank put it more eloquently;
“Mulkting a sucker ends only when the sucker revolts or runs out of capacity.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 9:19pm
Steve (North Shore)

No no no Other_Andy.

You have to think like a Maori and then you are Maori, so even the whitest of whitest that rooted a Maori chic, or the Bro that rooted a Whitie; will always be able to claim.

Fuck, we are running out of people who work and have money to pay for the Claims.
Hone and Turia will sort it Bro
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 9:24pm
wiseowl

If you haven’t signed the petition on the Foreshore and Seabed get cracking.
Another 10,000 signatures are needed before the 14th July.

Go.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 9:46pm
wiseowl

Woops, another 50,000 needed.Tweet,Facebook, anything.Get the word out now!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 9:51pm
Yvette

What was it Peter Dunne said about asset sales not involving water rights?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 9, 2012 10:54pm
Pete George

United Future policy (and Peter Dunne statements) were strong against selling “the supply of the water”:

Asset Sales

Water. UnitedFuture does not intend to wait until it is on the asset sales agenda. New Zealanders would never – or should never – accept a sell-off of the supply of the water, or any of the aspects around it.

But it was also made clear that United Future would support the right of National to promote one of it’s major policies which specified the four energy companies:

UnitedFuture on Asset Sales

As a party we had therefore ruled out ever supporting any sales – partial or whole – of Kiwibank, Radio New Zealand or our water supplies.

We further said (on 1 November 2011) that in the case of the four energy companies and Air New Zealand, which National was proposing to sell a portion of, that we believed the Government should retain a minimum of 51% control, and that there should be limits on the holdings able to be purchased by individuals or entities, and that New Zealand household investors be given preferential purchase rights at time of issue. (See http://www.united.future.org.nz/asset-sales-1/).

UnitedFuture’s confidence and supply agreement, negotiated with National after the election, confirms all these points and is therefore consistent in every regard with our pre-election policy. That is why UnitedFuture will support the Government’s plans to introduce a mixed-ownership model for the four energy companies and Air New Zealand.

So a clear differentiation has been made between energy companies and supply of water.

Dunne clarifies UF policy on water rights:

What we were essentially referring to was privatisation of high country rivers, lakes etc that would lead to restrictions on public access.

We were not talking about hydro dams, for example, so Labour’s attempts to hook this into the MOMs debate is at best specious, at worst dishonest. If one looks at our overall approach to preserving public access, the overall policy fits into place neatly.

Reference: http://yournz.org/2012/06/23/is-peter-dunne-breaking-a-promise-on-water-assets/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 10, 2012 6:43am
Manolo

Higher taxes says this incompetent: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/09/obama-to-launch-push-for-middle-class-tax-cuts-in-address/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 10, 2012 7:05am
philu

actually..no..manolo..

obama is pushing to end the tax cuts for the rich..

..but to retain them for the struggling american middle-class…

phillip ure whoar.co.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 10, 2012 7:51am
philu

so..to summarise the defence of dunne..

..he did promise to oppose selling any water…

..(but he actually meant only some water..)

..right ho..!

..(that’ll see his poll-ratings jump again..eh..?..)

phillip ure whoar.co.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 10, 2012 7:54am
Lee01

MM,

The real problem with the Treaty process is not who did what to whom in the 19th century. None of the people involved are alive today. Real justice can only apply to real people living in the here and now. The producers and taxpayers being forced to pay Treaty settlements are thus not morally culpable, because they were not alive when the supposed crimes were committed and cannot therefore be held responsible.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 10, 2012 8:46am
mikenmild

Lee
I guess that perspective sees all dealings between the government and Maori as a series of one-off transactions. The analogy would be my inability to complain that my great-great-grandfather suffered fruad while selling something in 1874. That perspective ignores the enduring nature of treaty commitments entered into by governments. The courts have found that the present-day government has obligations as a result of the actions of preceding governments. No political party has seriously challenged this view of the law.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 10, 2012 9:52am
Lee01

MM,

The present day government is plundering people today who were not alive at the time. Those people are not morally responsible. The only way this could possibly done justly is if the government took the money from the British crown. Stealing from producers and taxpayers is unjust by any reasonable notion of justice. I was not alive at the time, thus I have no moral responsibilty, and taking money from me by force to pay for something I did not do is a violation of justice.

And let’s be honest, the Treaty process is not about righting past wrongs, but about greedy tribal leaders lining their own pockets.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 10, 2012 11:01am
mikenmild

I disagree with both of those points. Firstly, the British government entered into a treaty with Maori to acquire sovereignty over New Zealand. Successive New Zealand governments have assumed the obligations inherent in that treaty. No individual today bears moral responsibility – that would be absurd.
If your second point were true, I have no doubt that political parties advocating an end to the Treaty process would find more support than they have done to date.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 10, 2012 11:19am
Lee01

“no individual today bears moral responsibility”

EXACTLY!

Thus no individual today should have their property stolen to pay for something they did not do.
Doing so is a violation of justice. It is theft. “Government” is an abstraction. Justice can only apply to real individuals.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 10, 2012 11:35am
mikenmild

But just because no individual bears moral responsibility does not mean there is no collective responsibility to uphold the obligations entered into by previous governments.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 10, 2012 11:48am
Michael Mckee

Not so MM
If the govt of the day passed a law that abrogated said responsibility and the people didn’t vote them out in outrage then it would stop.

I’m not hopeful of that happening as guilt is the motivator that I see used here and an elected elite justifies paying other elites for something that isn’t the fault of the existing payers.
That the WT and MLC both accept lesser evidence as the High Court is a tragedy on top of it all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 10, 2012 11:55am
mikenmild

That’s quite true, but I see justice rather than guilt as the motivation for New Zealanders, through their elected representatives, to redress these grievances.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
July 10, 2012 12:21pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« The history of the 4th of July

“only thing he was guilty of was helping his constituents” »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

NZ White Rural Rage
The Standard
More tax for less
Hompaddock
“Openly Jewish”
No Minister
Wind Power Scarcity Data Analysis
Utopia
"Listen!"
Not PC
Luxon’s demoted ministers might take comfort from the British politician who bounced back after the Gallipoli debacle
Point of Order
THE WAY THINGS WERE
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Eruption of pro-Palestinian protests on American Campus evidence of a conscience – the difference between Anti-Semites and Anti-Zionism
The Daily Blog
"Comity" versus the rule of law
No Right Turn
Jacinda’s legacy – Increasing number of abortions
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 15
Stats Chat
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz