As I have been warning for several years already, the inevitable is upon us and is predicted to get steadily even worse this coming year, especially for those with high levels of debt.
The ANZ is predicting the Official Cash Rate that that drives higher interest rates to increase to 5.75% shortly and then again to 6% mid-year.
Brace yourselves
On 1 February ODT readers were advised that DCC had purchased most of the former Forbury Park. No definitive purpose for the land was disclosed. I consider the purchase to be provisionally worthwhile, given the land’s potential to be used for housing, perhaps with a water feature, or as a reconfigured wetland. My personal preference is irrelevant.
Mayor Radich, Taieri MP Leary and the writers of this paper’s editorial of 3 february have enthusiastically backed the purchase, seemingly believing that stormwater flooding akin to what happened in June 2015 can be reduced or eliminated by diverting stormwater to what might be in future called Lake Forbury. It would appear that neither Mr Radich nor Ms Leary has considered how stormwater from across greater South Dunedin could ever find a pathway to the “lake”. There are no waterways across the floodplain, and gravity drainage is non-existent; hence the pumped drainage system that was installed in the early 1960s. It would presumably be possible to replicate such a system of pipes and pumps to divert stormwater to the “lake”, but this would surely be massively less cost-efficient that upgrading the existing system that feeds directly into Otago Harbour.
The writers of ODT’s editorial have unfortunately circumvented these difficulties by erroneously reporting a typical scenario for flooding across South Dunedin that has simply never occurred – and could not. The editorial refers to flood waves caused by heavy rain running down the hills and cutting across South Dunedin to the harbour. These, it is stated, can be intercepted by Lake Forbury et al. The reality is that the vast majority of stormwater flooding across South Dunedin is caused by rainfall intensities falling directly across the suburb that exceed the system’s capacity (around 7mm/hr, from memory and according to my analyses) over a reasonably pronged period. Flooding simply increases in depth gradually until the rain eases sufficiently. Any input from the hills merely adds to the pond. There are no flood waves to be intercepted.
The other key issue that seems to have been overlooked is the toxic nature of urban stormwater in general, and in South Dunedin in particular. Just ask anyone whose home was flooded in 2015. While industrial pollution would create something of an issue, the far greater concern would be the concentration of untreated sewage that inevitably pollutes South Dunedin floodwaters. The last thing that an expensively constructed water feature would need would be to be polluted thus risking the health of all its users, human or otherwise.
In my view, residents of South Dunedin should not therefore hold out much hope that any variant of “Lake Forbury” will reduce their flood risk to any meaningful extent. Instead, they may question why – at the time of writing, exactly 8 years and 8 months to the day – no material improvements have been made to South Dunedin’s stormwater infrastructure following the disastrous flood event of 3-4 June 2015.
Neil Johnstone (semi-retired professional flood control engineer)
10 Tidewater Drive
Otago Peninsula
021 08728776
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dcc/complaint-laid-against-vandervis
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dcc/vandervis-complaint-second-attempt-censure
Letters to the Editor printed yesterday…
Vandervis complaint ‘pick on Lee time’
Here we go again, it’s pick on Cr Lee Vandervis time.
As someone who grew up bilingual and coming from a heritage where
there are three official languages I can claim to have some
understanding of the situation. What is happening now is not a
recognition and respect for Māori language but a confusing, mixed-up
version that is neither fish nor fowl.
Whether we like it or not the reality is that for the majority of
people living in New Zealand English is their first language and one
of the major languages of the world we live in. We should have
everything in both languages with English first, then repeated in
Māori, not (to use Lee’s words), a Māorified version of the whole
thing.
It sounds as though Cr Marie Laufiso is on a power trip. No-one should
be forced to actively participate in something they do not fully
understand the language of and may include elements they do not
believe in. All that should be required of councillors is respectful
attendance and to be forced to sing a waiata is totally unacceptable.
Sorry Cr Laufiso, but you are way out of line and totally exaggerating
your self-importance. We elect councillors to manage our city in this,
the 21st century, and while councillors have an obligation to have a
respect for the past, expecting them to spend a lot of time and energy
on matters of ceremony rather than the necessities is misguided.
S Hanson
Wakari
Faux offence
Another day, another character assassination attempt upon Lee
Vandervis promulgated by the ODT. But hey, the injury of
mispronouncing the word Māori must be severe, and refusing to face a
sham quasi-tribal inquisition, Te Pae Māori, which is another
senseless entity of imposing bureaucrats to bludgeon the rest of us,
is surely tantamount to heresy.
Having direct takata-whenua links with Otākou, Karitane and Maranuku,
I find the whole charade of ethnic tokenism acted out by local
government to be needless, if not cringeworthy. Yet Marie Laufiso, who
is not takata-whenua, spends her time screaming at the sky, pretending
to be offended on the behalf of Māori, instead of allowing others and
herself to get on the job they were elected to do in the first place.
Irian Scott
Port Chalmers
Waste of money
It is extraordinary that Dunedin ratepayers money is being wasted on
such matters. It is reminiscent of school days, where someone said
something you didn’t like, you might have replied “I’m going to tell
on you”, knowing the complainant would be believed and the alleged
offender told to improve his/her behaviour, regardless of the rights
or wrongs involved.
I trust ratepayers are taking note of the councillors who initiate
such undoubtedly expensive and certainly divisive complaints. Dunedin
does not need them as councillors.
The worst aspect is that the complaint will undoubtedly be upheld, and
after spending thousands of dollars on the matter the independent
investigator will be considerably wealthier, their client the DCC will
be pleased, and the ratepayers will be considerably worse off.
I knew Cr Vandervis over 30 years ago and liked him for being not only
forthright but also having an excellent business brain. I doubt that
has changed in the intervening years. What will have changed is the
DCC codes will have been honed to ensure that being forthright,
businesslike, or objective is totally unacceptable.
How could the mispronunciation of a word , or failure to sing at a
business meeting, be unacceptable behaviour?
I would suggest that if the investigator rules in favour of the
complainant as expected, that the DCC immediately resolve to decide on
a better method of resolving councillor disputes, that does not cost
the ratepayers a fortune to satisfy bruised egos, which is
businesslike, objective, and cost effective
K Lawson
Oamaru
[Abridged — length]
More Letters…
https://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/letters-editor-convenience-compliance-and-consent
Sing a song — or not
I have never been able to sing. I remember well the groans of my
teachers and classmates when I tried. But I would hate to be called a
racist, therefore I have some sympathy for Cr Vandervis and wish him
well in his endeavours.
Fay Lambert
Wānaka
Glad tidings
Roll on 2024 I say. My faith in mankind and commonsense is being
gradually restored after reading today’s front page of the ODT
(8.1.24). Having answered my query from a previous Letter to the
Editor printed last year where I questioned the cost relating to the
University of Otago’s sculpture that was unveiled (amidst all the doom
and gloom being reported of their failing financial position and
demise of courses along with academic personnel), I was heartened to
read today the ODT had its own questions relating to the same and went
a step further under the Official Information Act — bravo. Further in
the paper there were three letters to the editor backing Cr Lee
Vandervis — commonsense does prevail. I applaud the writers and their
reasoning and agree wholeheartedly. A great start to my day.
Joyce Yee-Murdoch
Cromwell
22/01/24
A nonsense
Duane Donavan (ODT, 11.1.24) correctly calls Cr Laufiso’s personal campaign against CR Vandervis “vexatious and a waste of council time.” or, as an earlier correspondent put it, “spending her time screaming at the sky, pretending to be offended on behalf of Māori.”
There are bigger things for the councillor to be concerned about. The continual loss of parking in the central city is just one example. George St, the one-time “golden mile” is no longer golden. Fed-up shoppers are going elsewhere, leaving struggling businesses in their wake; some even closing up.
Then there are ever-increasing rates, a real worry for those on fixed incomes. They won’t be impressed at their dollars being splashed out on an investigator following up Cr Laufiso’s complaint. A nonsense if ever there was.
G R MacDonald
Dunedin
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-67818872
Beijing shivers through coldest December on record…
Perhaps global climate history is due to repeat?
Tēnā Koe CEO Graham,
Please accept this letter as a formal complaint against Cr Lee Vandervis under the Dunedin City Council Code of Conduct. The Councillor’s emailed letter, (dated Thursday, 12 /10 / 2023, attached below, Page 4-4, labelled Email Message 1) responded to an emailed message from Ms Nicola Morand, Manahautū – General Manager Māori, Partnerships & Policy (Acting) advising all members of Te Pae Māori as to the agenda for our Monday October 17th meeting being held at Ōtākou Marae.
The Councillor’s le
Subject: Te Pae Māori Agenda
Dear All,
I note a Te Pae Maori agenda under our DCC letterhead that does not conform to a normal DCC decision-making agenda as I believe is required under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, particularly Part 7 Local Authority Meetings.
The 3 items on this proposed agenda are devoid of any information, background, discussion, reports, or recommendations, and appear to be non-public without non-public specification.
As such I do not believe that any decisions made under such an agenda can be valid or binding. Please accept my apology for this meeting.
Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
Date: Sunday, 17 October 2023 at 10:05 PM
From: Lee Vandervis lee.vandervis@dcc.govt.nz
To: Sandy Graham Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz
Cc: Sophie Barker sophie.barker@dcc.govt.nz Council 2022-2025 (Elected Members); Jeanette Wikaira
Dear Sandy,
I object to the Te Pae Maori Council agenda presentation lack of translations [again], the compliance requirements for entering this Council Hui meeting at Karitane, the co-governance and leadership references in the Principles that we are invited to agree to, and the no-option presumptive wording in the Maori Ward document that reads “
i) Agrees to a decision to establish a Māori ward prior to November 23, 2023,” when it should read i) Agrees to a decision to establish a Māori ward or not prior to November 23, 2023.
Words that must be translated into English in order for non-Maori speakers to be able to comprehend this future-repercussions Principles document include:
Te Pae Māori
Kāti Puketeraki ki Huirapa Rūnaka
Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou
Mataakwaka
TIMATANGA
WHAKAWHANAUKATAKA
Puketeraki ki Huirapa
TRONT
Manatu Whakaaetaka
mana to mana
whakapapa
Tapu and Noa
Tikaka and kawa
Regarding Karitane admission requirements detailed verbally at last week’s non-public meeting, I am not prepared to submit to the sexist, racist and tribal ritual requirements that have been spelled out in order for me to be able to enter “safely” on this marae.
I am a long-term hi-polling elected representative of all the people of Dunedin and I am not prepared to be dictated to in an official Council meeting by an elite claiming to represent 0.67 % of our voting public as detailed in the ward document.
The invitation to confirm co-governance status on this same elite, referred to in the document “Co-design, co-management,” is undemocratic on (sic) my view.
4
The suggestion that this voting minority’s representatives is confirmed by Council as having the primary “Key Direction –
Māori are leaders in the management of our natural resources and built environment” again supplants Democratic fundamentals and there is no surviving ‘Maori built environment’ for Maori to be leaders in the management of.
In summary, this decision-making hui agenda is not understandable by non-Maori speakers, is being held in a Tribal environment that excludes sovereign non-compliant elected representatives, is anti-Democratic and has a presumptive option to “i) Agrees to a decision to establish a Māori ward prior to November 23, 2023”
Until an understandable agenda is supplied with acceptable attendance criteria, I am not prepared to attend what I see as an inscutable (sic) further extension of the Maori MOU that I voted against as undemocratic at the beginning of this triennium.
Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
EMAIL MESSAGE 2 ENDS
5
EMAIL MESSAGE 3 BEGINS
DATE, TIME: TO
FROM SUBJECT LINE: Dear Cam,
3/08/2023, 11:17 AM
Cam McCracken cam.mccracken@dcc.govt.nz, Director DPAG Toitū Lan Yuan & Olveston Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Inappropriate Maorification of one of our gallery’s most significant artworks
6
As head of our Dunedin Public Art Gallery, I am disappointed to have to ask you to remove the irrelevant Maorified text by Bridget Reweti pictured below beside one of our Gallery’s most significant artworks, Claude Monet’s ‘La Debacle’.
Even more disappointing has been to learn that you have chosen to ignore a similar request from a member of the public over a month ago.
Monet’s famous ‘La Debacle’ painting has no relevance or connection to: Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Native Land Court, demolishing Maori social systems, or the MP of the time who claimed “we could not devise a more ingenious method of destroying the whole of the Maori race than by these land courts. The natives came from the villages in the interior and have to hang about for months in our centres of population… the result is that a greater number contract our diseases and die.”
Please remove this text promptly and replace it with relevant text commentary/explanation such as this interesting example which first popped up in my internet search of Monet’s famous painting;
*Title: The Break-up of the Ice (La Débâcle or Les Glaçons)
EMAIL MESSAGE 4 BEGINS
SENT: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2023 6:11:06 PM
From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
To: Bill Acklin <Bill.Acklin@dcc.govt.nz>; Council 2022-2025 (Elected Members) <council.2022-2025@dcc.govt.nz>; Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Cc: Ken Tipene <Ken.Tipene@dcc.govt.nz>; Jeanette Wikaira <Jeanette.Wikaira@dcc.govt.nz>; Robert West <Robert.West@dcc.govt.nz>; Sharon Bodeker Sharon.Bodeker@dcc.govt.nz
Subject: Re: Waiata prep for Te Pae Maori [- cultural appropriation added by Councillor Vandervis]
Hi Bill,
You say in your email below that “ it is only right that we are able to deliver Waiata…in a formal environment to the best of our ability.”
I disagree.
I believe that it should be optional for elected representatives to sing Amazing Grace, Waiata, The Internationale or any other song as each elected representative sees fit.
I also think learning Te Reo or NZ sign language should be optional, and that all our decision-making should be in plain English, or with proximate English translation, so that everybody knows what ‘other language’ agenda words actually mean.
I reject your claim that it is ‘only right’ to expect elected representatives to sing at all, leave alone in a language that most of us know little of the meaning of.
I am happy for other Councillors to spend our time singing even though I see it as a waste of time, but I am not prepared to submit to what I consider to be cultural appropriation and being expected to go to Waiata School.
Kind regards,
Lee
EMAIL MESSAGE 4 ENDS
7
| 28 November 2023 Dunedin City Council Chief Executive Officer/Tumu Whakarae Sandy Graham Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz |
Dear Sandy
Notice of motion
1 You have requested legal advice on the notice of motion promoted by Councillor Laufiso, dated 20 November 2023. In particular you have asked whether procedurally this can be considered by Council at its meeting on 28 November 2023.
Legal advice
2 It is our assessment that the notice of motion is now properly included on the agenda. It is the role of Elected Members to consider and vote on the merits of it at their meeting.
3 This is because it is the role of the Mayor to supervise the procedure and decide whether to direct to refuse any proposed notices of motion from being included in the Council agenda. This proposed motion has not been refused by the Mayor following discussion of it and advice from the Chief Executive. It is now for Elected Members to consider this motion and make a decision on it.
Reasons
4 A notice of motion is a means by which any Elected Member can have a proposed motion included on Council’s agenda. This is addressed under clause 26.1 of the Dunedin City Council Standing Orders. This requires notice of an intended motion to be in writing, signed by the mover, stating the meeting at which it is intended to be considered and delivered to the Chief Executive at least five clear working days before that meeting. Having reviewed the notice by Councillor Laufiso, we consider that it satisfies these procedural requirements. We note it was accepted by you as Chief Executive and was considered to comply with this procedure.
5 There is a discretion in clause 26.2 of the Standing Orders for the Chairperson (here the Mayor) to direct the Chief Executive to refuse to include a proposed notice of motion on the agenda. Clause 26.2 sets out criteria which may justify the Chairperson to refuse any notice of motion in their discretion.
6 We note from your instructions that upon receiving the notice of motion you took advice on it from the Governance team, then advised the Mayor. The Mayor has not made any direction to you as Chief Executive to refuse to accept the notice of motion. This means that the proposed motion has not been refused and has rightly been included on the agenda for Elected Members to consider and vote on.
7 It is clear that this proposed notice of motion is a matter of high political interest at the present time. In this context of a proposed motion on a political topic, we are satisfied that the Mayor having not refused the motion has made a decision reasonably available to him.
8 We have ourselves now assessed the grounds in clause 26.2 of the Standing Orders. We note that it is the exclusive role of the Mayor to form a judgement about whether any of these criteria are met to inform the exercise of the Mayor’s discretion. The context of that evaluation here is that this matter is of high political interest with limited alternative options, and limited implications (if any) for Council workload or budgets.
| 9 We comment below on the more relevant grounds in clause 26.2. We are satisfied that the notice of motion does not obviously contravene any of the criteria that ought to justify the Chairperson to refuse the notice of motion for procedural reasons. In particular: 10 It is for Elected Members to evaluate as part of their decision whether they have a sense of the views of persons likely to be affected or have an interest in the matter. It is for the Mayor to exercise a discretion to control the procedure about whether a notice of motion such as this goes on the Council agenda. Having not directed the Chief Executive to refuse this notice of motion, we consider it has now passed this procedural point and it is for the Elected Members collectively to consider the notice of motion, debate it, and vote on it as proposed. Yours faithfully nderson Lloyd |
| Michael Garbett Partner |
| d +64 3 467 7173 m +64 27 668 9752 e michael.garbett@al.nz |
It appears that Mayor Radich has approved the addition of the Palestinian flag Notice of Motion being added to tomorrow’s DCC full Council agenda, and is too busy in China Sister City sight-seeing to respond to my email as below, leaving Deputy Mayor Lucas to deal with the fall-out.
The subsequent dropping of the inflammatory ‘fly the Palestinian flag from Mayor’s balcony and other City buildings’ motion in favour of NZ flag at half-mast helped defuse this waste of local government focus and time.
From: Lee Vandervis lee@vandervision.co.nz
Date: Sunday, 26 November 2023 at 11:30 PM
To: Mayor mayor@dcc.govt.nz, Council 2022-2025 (Elected Members) council.2022-2025@dcc.govt.nz, Sandy Graham Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz, Robert West Robert.West@dcc.govt.nz
Subject: Palestinian flag-raising notice of motion
Dear Mr Mayor,
Re Cr. Laufiso’s Notice of motion part 2 calling for agreement “to the City’s flying of the Palestinian flag on November 29th on the Mayor’s balcony and other city buildings, the UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, as a tangible and visible symbol of support to our local Palestinian community.”
I believe you should refuse this notice of motion as Chairperson of Tuesday’s meeting under Standing Orders Section 26.2:
“(a) is disrespectful …“ [and indeed abhorrent] to a sizeable proportion of our Dunedin community.
and “(b) is not related to the role or functions of the local authority or the meeting concerned;”
The role of the DCC is not to purchase flags to fly from city buildings and the Mayor’s balcony to show solidarity for just one side of an international conflict.
[I note that Cr. Laufiso is as publicly avowed communist who, if this transgression of Standing Orders is allowed, would then also be able to call for the flying of the Russian flag from your balcony and city buildings in solidarity with the military invaders of Ukraine.]
and “(e) fails to satisfy sufficient information as to satisfy the decision-making provisions of s.77-82 LGA 2002;
Cr. Laufiso’s notice of motion fails to provide any information, leave alone sufficient information to satisfy any elected representatives’ decision to show solidarity with just one side of the Israel/Palestinian/Hamas conflict.
Your powers as Chairperson of this meeting are sufficient on any of the counts (a), (b), and (e) of DCC Standing Orders above to simply refuse the entire notice of motion in my view, and I intend to propose that this be done upon the confirmation of the agenda, if you do not use your Chairperson’s authority to refuse the notice of motion prior to Tuesday’s meeting.
I believe that in this way we can maintain an orderly and relevant meeting without having to consider a disrespectful ‘solidarity’ motion with one particular side of an international conflict that lacks sufficient information, and is outside of our functions as a NZ local government Council.
Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis
[this from the Guardian newspaper]
This is the new Act:
General policy statement
The Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill (the Bill) is an omnibus Bill introduced under Standing Order 267(1)(a). That Standing Order provides that an omnibus Bill to amend more than 1 Act may be introduced if the amendments deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy. The single broad policy implemented by the amendments in this Bill is to reduce the voting age in local elections and polls from 18 to 16 years of age.
The Bill amends the Local Electoral Act 2001 so that persons aged 16 or 17 years are eligible to vote in local elections and polls; it does not change the voting age for parliamentary elections. The Bill establishes a new category of electors, named youth electors, and provides for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to be registered on a youth electoral roll.
However, although it lowers the voting age to 16 years for local elections and polls, the Bill does not change the age for—
· being elected or appointed as a member of an alcohol licensing trust or trustee of a community trust:
· voting in the election of members of an alcohol licensing trust:
· voting in the election of trustees of a community trust:
· serving as a juror.
The relevant age for those activities remains 18 years.
from Wikipedia:
“In New Zealand a person is considered a child or “minor” until the age of 20. On reaching this “age of majority” the person is no longer a child in the eyes of the law, and has all the rights and obligations of an adult.[2] There are laws to protect young people from harm that they may be subject to due to their lack of maturity. Some legal age restrictions are lifted below the age of majority, trusting that a child of a certain age is equipped to deal with the potential harm.[3]For example, 16-year-olds may leave school, and 18-year-olds may buy alcohol.”
…and of course vote at 18 with the NZ voting age having been progressively reduced from 21 over the last few decades.
I am old enough to have seen our 8 children grow up and become variously politically aware, and my experience of this combined with information as above strongly suggests to me that voting by most teenagers is unlikely to be well-informed and that younger people are more likely to vote responding to media or peer pressure, not having had enough years/experience to work out what government is about and what is in in societies’ best interests.
There are exceptions of course, but voting age Laws have.to draw a line somewhere.
From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 10:33 PM
To: Lynne Adamson <Lynne.Adamson@dcc.govt.nz>, Council 2022-2025 (Elected Members) <council.2022-2025@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, Executive Leadership Team (ELT) <elt@dcc.govt.nz>, Robert West <Robert.West@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Council Agenda
Dear All,
Item 21. Climate change significant forecasting assumptions – 10 year plan 2024-34 has included many forecasting assumptions, but fails to identify the most fundamental and important assumptions in my view.
These assumptions resulting in expensive climate mitigation strategies have significant cost implications for our Council Controlled Companies and our ratepayers.
Throughout, emissions are loosely assumed to be CO2, when in fact N2 and H2O are a much greater percentage component of vehicle emissions than CO2.
Throughout it is also assumed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, higher levels of which cause global warming.
No long term evidence has been available to me to prove this causality, and all the verifiable evidence I have found shows that increasing CO2 levels can not be causal of increasing world temperature, because historically there have been long periods when CO2 was high and temperature low, and other times vice versa, as the following graph shows.
There has never been a causal connection between CO2 levels and world temperature levels in the past, so why would CO2 suddenly be causal now, just because we are releasing previously sequestered CO2 from fossil fuels back into the atmosphere?
If there is any better or alternative long-term CO2/Temperature evidence available, please let us see it to justify this most fundamental assumption.
Another assumption in this Item 21 is that increasing CO2 levels also contributes to more extreme and dangerous weather events, an assumption that is easy to assume without evidence if you follow main-stream-media.
In fact the last 100 years of dangerous weather events has seen a significant reduction in climate catastrophe deaths as the following data shows:
A further glaring omission from this Item 21 is the assumption that CO2 is dangerous green-house gas when in fact it is the stuff of leaf-growth and hence our food supply as proven by NASA satellite surveillance summarised in the following graph:
We also have local DCC confirmation of this wonderful increase in plant growth by way of significant increases in our vegetation control contracts costs due to greater growth in recent years.
The extra CO2 we have been releasing into back into the atmosphere from fossil fuels now gives us the potential to properly feed many more people.
This proven CO2 positive should also be part of Item 21 significant assumptions, for balance if nothing else.
The unspoken, uncommitted to writing fundamental assumption that ‘CO2 increase = world temperature increase’ should be clearly stated as an assumption along with evidence, as it is necessary for other assumed claims regarding what can be done by us to lessen climate change impacts.
Looking forward to any alternative data or evidence that can justify the very important assumptions in item 21 that are simply assumed.
Cheers,
Lee
From: Lynne Adamson <Lynne.Adamson@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 6:28 PM
To: Council 2022-2025 (Elected Members) <council.2022-2025@dcc.govt.nz>, Executive Leadership Team (ELT) <elt@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Council Agenda
Kia ora
The agenda for the Council meeting to be held on Monday 25 September 2023 has been published to the Council website and is available on the following links:
https://infocouncil.dunedin.govt.nz/Open/2023/09/CNL_20230925_AGN_2520_AT.PDF – PDF version
https://infocouncil.dunedin.govt.nz/Open/2023/09/CNL_20230925_AGN_2520_AT_WEB.htm – HTML version
Check out this up-to-date big peer-reviewed mRNA data ex Israel.
As well as the widely coerced mRNA vaccines having serious side-effects including death from myocarditis, it has now been proven that Natural Immunity has been far better than any mRNA vaccine.
The DCC is now paying an Unsustainable $1,000,000 per week interest on our BILLION$ DCC group debt and nobody even talks about how to pay it back or how we can keep paying the interest!
CHRIS TROTTER: Make or Break
The following post was written in January 2022. What sounded somewhat hysterical just 18 months now sounds utterly plausible.
He Puapua threatens to do to New Zealand’s Right what Rogernomics did to its Left.
IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS the New Zealand Right will face a battle for its very survival. If the combined votes of Labour and the Greens add up to a parliamentary majority in 2023, then the rules of the political game will be changed fundamentally. Capitalism as we have known it, along with our liberal-democratic political system, will be changed profoundly.
The re-foundation of New Zealand (a name which the new Labour-Green government will likely consign to the dustbin of history) will make it virtually impossible for the traditional Right to stage a comeback – at least democratically. Why? Because there will be literally nowhere for the force of a right-wing majority to be brought to bear. The restoration of the status quo ante will, constitutionally, cease to be an option.
Over the top? Don’t you believe it. This is how top-down revolutions work. The first decisive changes are made, and then, if the revolutionary government is re-elected, those changes are embedded beyond the capacity of practical politicians to reverse.
Still don’t believe me? Well then, cast your mind back (or grab a good history book) and review the processes by which the reforms of “Rogernomics” were first implemented and then rendered permanent by the Lange-Palmer-Moore Labour Government of 1984-1990.
More importantly, consider the behaviour of the National Party following the 1990 General Election. In spite of Jim Bolger’s promise to restore the “decent society”, his National Government refused to unwind the economic changes of Roger Douglas and his allies. Indeed, the National Party’s Finance Minister, Ruth Richardson, ably assisted by Jenny Shipley and Bill Birch, turned out to be the one which placed the capstone on the Neoliberal Revolution. By 1993, the social-democratic state erected by the First Labour Government and its successors had been almost entirely dismantled.
Nearly 30 years later, no serious attempt has been made to rebuild it.
This is the key point to take away from the Rogernomics experience. Unless a top-down revolution is stopped in its tracks at the very next election, the chances of rolling it back at some point in the future are reduced to something very close to zero.
Not only will the public servants, business leaders, politicians, academics and journalists controlling the revolutionary process win the time needed to make the necessary legislative changes, but they will also enjoy sufficient time to change the ideological environment in which politics is conducted. By 1990, six years after the neoliberal revolution was unleashed, there simply wasn’t the will in either of the major parties, to launch a counter-revolution. Jim Anderton’s New Labour Party, the only political party unequivocally committed to reversing Rogernomics in 1990, received just 5 per cent of the popular vote.
That’s why 2023 is so important. If the National Party and its ally, Act, are not unequivocally committed to rolling back the ethno-nationalist changes already imposed: the Maori Health Authority; Three Waters; Te Putahitanga; and to repudiating entirely the whole He Puapua blueprint; then by 2026 it is almost certain that neither of the right-wing parliamentary parties will any longer want to. By then, the ethno-nationalist constitution imposed upon “Aotearoa” will be seen by virtually the entire political class as no more than the application of simple “common sense”.
That’s how hegemony works.
Rolling back the He Puapua Revolution will not, however, be easy.
Perhaps the biggest problem confronting the parties of the Right will be a mainstream news media resolutely opposed to giving the ‘hate speech’ of ‘racism’ a platform. Unless National and Act conform to the new ethno-nationalist orthodoxy, they will find it next-to-impossible to secure even-handed media coverage. Rather, they will be presented as fronting a racist, white-supremacist campaign to preserve the ‘privileges’ of ‘colonisation’. Increasingly, the 2023 election will be framed as a life-and-death struggle between the retrograde ideologies of New Zealand’s past, and the Labour-Green promise of a re-founded, te Tiriti-guided, ‘progressive’ Aotearoan future.
The parties of the Left don’t even have to be nasty about it. All they have to do is adapt the crushing line from the movie “Don’t Look Up”. In the movie, whenever a right-wing Boomer makes an unforgivably racist or sexist remark, the stock response from the people in charge is: “He’s from another generation.” Confronted with National’s and Act’s promises to roll back the He Puapua blueprint, Jacinda Ardern and Marama Davidson have only to smile sadly and shrug: “They’re ideas from another generation.”
There’s no worse fate than to be killed with kindness!
The Right is also likely to be hounded by the already shamelessly politicised Human Rights Commission. (Act has, after all, promised to abolish it!) The Commission will call out the parties of the Right for their ‘racism’, ruthlessly and continuously branding their policies as ‘white supremacist’ and ‘colonialist’. With the endorsement of the HRC, other groups will use Labour’s new hate speech law to embroil the right-wing parties and their leaders in court case after court case.
The $64,000 question is not whether these sorts of tactics will lead to polarisation, but exactly where the break in the electorate will occur. If most of those over the age of 50 are driven into the arms of the Right by the He Puapua blueprint then the election will be a damn close-run thing. If, however, it is only a solid majority of the over-60s who opt to stand up for New Zealand (as opposed to Aotearoa) then Labour-Green will likely edge out National-Act. Obviously, effective polling and focus-group work will identify the trends long before Election Day.
Which, inevitably, brings us to the last and most important question: Is the leadership of the National and Act parties capable of withstanding the unrelenting pressure of the ‘racist’ accusation that most New Zealanders currently go to almost any lengths to avoid? Does Christopher Luxon have the mental resilience to confront charges of racism head-on and, Jordan Peterson-style, out-argue his accusers? Does David Seymour? Or will the old saying “explaining is losing” cause them to throw in the ideological towel and join the merry ethno-nationalist parade?
Upon the answer to this question will turn the future of the New Zealand Right. If, as happened to the Labour Party after Jim Anderton and his followers broke away from it in 1989, the new ideology simply swallows up National’s members and parliamentarians, then the He Puapua blueprint will, like Rogernomics, become firmly embedded in New Zealand’s legal and administrative infrastructure. Moreover, it will do so with the same impressive level of cross-party support – quite possibly surpassing the 75 per cent required for major constitutional reforms.
The New Zealand Right thus has no choice but to transform the 2023 General Election into a make or break proposition. If, however, it is electorally broken by its Labour-Green opponents, then politics in Aotearoa-New Zealand will undergo an irreversible sea-change. The constitutional re-foundation of the country suggested in He Puapua will swiftly render the old Left/Right ideological conflicts redundant. By 2026, Aotearoans will be battling politically over very different issues.
Chris Trotter is a political commentator who blogs at bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz. This article was re-published at Breaking Views
Just so that everybody [fluent in te reo and NZ sign language] knows how to drive on NZ roads, we now have bi-lingual road signage being forced upon us.
None of the objections or difficulties I noted as below were included in the DCC submission to government on bi-lingual road signage.
From: Lee Vandervis lee@vandervision.co.nz
Date: Monday, 19 June 2023 at 12:06 PM
To: Simon Drew Simon.Drew@dcc.govt.nz, “Council 2022-2025 (Elected Members)” council.2022-2025@dcc.govt.nz, Sandy Graham Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz
Cc: “Executive Leadership Team (ELT)” elt@dcc.govt.nz, Jeanine Benson Jeanine.Benson@dcc.govt.nz, Gina Huakau Gina.Huakau@dcc.govt.nz
Subject: Re: Council Submissions on He Tohu Huarahi Māori bilingual traffic signs
Hi Simon,
I disagree with the proposed change to bilingual traffic signage and I believe that the vast majority of people I represent also do not want it..
The fundamental purpose of traffic signage is for safety and to direct traffic, often with split-second decision making.
There is already evidence of signage overkill, strict nzta rules around letter sizes/competing signage/etc., and signage confusion causing accidents and death, because of legibility issues especially in bad weather.
Bi-lingual signage will only make these already recognised problems much worse.
The claim that “Bilingual signs will help ensure there are everyday opportunities for all New Zealanders to engage with and use te reo Māori.“
is ridiculous as there are already panoramic opportunities to engage with and use re reo Maori if people want to.
Reading traffic directions is not an opportunity to engage in alternative language learning.
Such a major proposed change to bi-lingual signage should be preceded by a central government referendum on the issue.
The cost of such change even when staged will be considerable in terms of dollars, but the really terrible cost will be in injuries and lives lost through confusion, especially for the millions of tourists that use our already dangerous roads.
Regards,
Lee
Hawkin’s Council hangover continues with another $146,000,000+ extra debt this year, much of it funding ‘Shaping Dunedin Future Transport’, which I see as shagging Dunedin Future Transport, driving cars out of our city, slowing traffic and making parking even more difficult.
I have often been alone in voting against $100,000,000 of recent planet-saving transport changes including: $28 million used to slow George st traffic to a one-way crawl, the $16 million being spent to send One-Way system traffic [also to be slowed] to the far side of our Railway Station, the $9 million proposed to fund ‘way-finding apps and signage’ to direct people to increasingly scarce parking rather than provide parking, the budgeted $10 million ‘park and ride’ carparks at Mosgiel and Burnside where motorists will be ‘encouraged’ to park and then bus into the City Centre, another $30 million on more cycleways that remain grossly underused, and $20 million for ‘surface treatments’ down Princes street where carparks will be lost to a ‘priority bus lane’…
The ODT reported some of the debate, but missed the real $100,000,000 borrowed and wasted transport spend issue:
May 20 2023, Otago Daily Times
My debate speech video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxjnQ12Kw9g&t=4550s
Dunedin is over-reliant on Central Government funded institutions like the Hospital and the University.
Especially as Government funding tends to go to marginal Parliamentary seats up north…
Lee Vandervis - lee@vandervision.co.nz 