Only for Profit? The Commercialisation of Aotearoa's Natural Heritage

The Tongariro Alpine Walk, Tongariro National Park

Walking the Heaphy Track in Kahurangi National Park

It was with great dismay and disappointment that I read on Radio NZ that four key tourism leaders are mooting the idea that the Great Walks be privatised. Personally, this is one of the worst ideas around. Forget the fact that very rarely have we seen successful examples of privatisation in this country in recent history (think rail, think Solid Energy), the reality is that some things should never be taken out of public hands and the Great Walks, as part of our National Parks is such an example.

Our Great Walks are a national treasure. All of them are situated in National Parks and as the Department of Conservation puts it, "contain some of most treasured wilderness areas". The National Parks were established for the benefit, use and enjoyment of the public. They are part of our national, natural heritage. Our first National Park was established after Ngāti Tūwharetoa gifted the three mountains of Tongariro, Ngāuruhoe and Ruapehu back in 1887. The nine Great Walks (a tenth will be added in 2018 as a living memorial for the men who died at Pike River Mine) are our opportunity to experience the wilderness of our land through accessing our National Parks safely, without damaging the unique landscape and wilderness that they are situated in. They are not designed to be used for profit and that is the sickening thing about this proposal.

Powelliphanta, Kahurangi National Park

.

So what if the Great Walks don’t make a profit? We as a nation have become so obsessed with money and profit that we forget some things are priceless and should never be reduced to their money-making potential. If anything, for the sake of the landscape and our heritage, we should be cutting back on the amount of people who access some of these Great Walks, not looking at more ways to bleed the countryside for more money by exploiting the natural resources we have.

I think if Ngāti Tūwharetoa could have foreseen the walking highway that Tongariro in particular has become, perhaps they wouldn’t have gifted the mountains to the people of Aotearoa. Having tramped

A normal day on the Tongariro Alpine Walk during peak season.

both the Northern Circuit (a 3-4 day circuit around Mt Ngāuruhoe) and the Tongariro Alpine Walk I have been shocked at the amount of people who traverse this mountain (many ill-equipped with a considerable number every year requiring rescue or airlifting off the track) and how poorly not just visitors, but Kiwis treat this beautiful taonga. I have walked off the mountain at the end of the day with rubbish that had been simply discarded by people traversing this maunga. We don’t deserve these gifts. And Tongariro is a glimpse into the future if privatisation of our Great Walks occurs.

I firmly believe that profit ahead of conservation never works. This would be an absolute disaster for our native flora and fauna, for our heritage, for DoC, for us all if the government ever took this proposal up. Our National Parks are a taonga from those who have gone before us for those who will come after us. We in the present are simply stewards, guardians of that treasure. Let’s make sure that we hand that taonga over in a state that is the most natural and pristine it can be. 

Lake Angelus in the Nelson Lakes National Park

The Destiny of Tax Exemption

This week, like many, I was disgusted by claims from Brian Tamaki that earthquakes are caused by sin, and in particular homosexuality. Whilst the comments were a small part of his talk, it was still wrong. The outage that followed was understandable and justified. I even understand the calls to remove the tax free status from Destiny, with organisers of the petition calling the church a "hate group".

Yet, while I understand and agree with the outrage I am concerned about the petition and will not be signing it. Not because I don't agree with the sentiments of the petition organisers, not because I feel uneasy about the way money donated to Destiny is spent and how a pastor and his wife can live such extravagant lifestyles while people who attend their church are struggling, but because I feel it would set a dangerous precedent which could be harmful for a number of churches and charities throughout the country, the majority of which are doing amazing work that warrants the tax-free status they currently utilise.

In the wake of this outrage I came across a tweet by Peter Dunne, United Future MP, former Minister of Revenue and current Minister of Internal Affairs (the department responsible for the running of the Charities Services and therefore the department that signed off on Destiny’s charity status). Being someone who has worked in politics for a number of years I would think he would be slightly more careful and cautious, but it seems his outrage got the best of him:

  

Curious, and slightly alarmed I re-tweeted his message, asking the question of how it might work: 

 

I was somewhat surprised to get a fairly immediate response:

This got me curious on a few counts. 1. If Destiny has failed the charitable purpose test, then why is it still able to claim tax free status? 2. If promotion of religion is not a charitable purpose, then  how can most churches claim tax-free status, and 3. How would you go about applying a religion test to churches?

I set out to find the answers through some research. Of particularly help was the Charities Services website, where you can search a database of registered charities. There are a number of sectors available, one of which is Religious Activities. So religious activities are permitted under the Charities Act, but many churches don’t just provide religious activities. Whilst that may be the main activity, they also provide many other services that play a significant role in our society (for example, care, counselling, facilities for the community). Looking on the database, Destiny provides those services as well. So, according to the Charities Services database, Destiny meets the charitable purpose test that Dunne claims it fails. It is upfront that its main activity is to provide religious services / activities. In addition to that main activity it also provides a number of listed activities that help the community in which Destiny lies in.

But what of my third question: How to apply a religion test to churches? According to Peter Dunne, it would be based on history, tradition and theology. However, despite Mr Dunne’s comment, it isn’t as clear cut as that. How long a history does a church need to have? 10 years? 20 perhaps? Or is it more like 100 or 200 years plus? And again with tradition and theology - how do you measure these? What traditions do you set as a benchmark? Many pentecostal churches are often new and sit outside of an established tradition. And what theology? An obvious starting point would be the Apostles’ Creed, but after that it gets messy. It’s the reason we have many different denominations. Finally, who would decide how to measure these definitions - the government? If so, that is state run religion and something we want to stay far far away from. A group of clergy? If so, which clergy from which denominations? And what of shrines, mosques, temples and the like for New Zealand Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus etc? The implications are much much wider than just a few churches.

I was concerned about where this might be heading so asked Dunne for clarification. He replied: 

Dunne’s comment highlights the danger in this petition and the precedent it could set. We have a very robust and strong charity sector in New Zealand. Many charities would cease to exist if the rules changed. Organisations already have to abide by guidelines in order to receive their tax-free status. Peter Dunne is wrong to claim that Destiny doesn’t fit the criteria. Changing the rules to exclude one organisation could do irrevocable damage to many churches and charities as well as the parts of the community at large that they help. We as a society don’t want to see that happen. So while I understand the outrage and the disgust over the horrible, theologically questionable and morally reprehensible comments of Brian Tamaki, I cannot endorse the petition. There is too much greater good at stake.

Embracing the Other: A Reflection on the US Election

Like many the world over, I’ve been doing a lot of reflecting after the US Presidential Election on Wednesday. Mostly it has been around why an event in another country on the other side of the Pacific has affected me so much. The conclusion I have come to is that this week fear, hatred and pride won. I believe it is only a temporary victory but it still hurts to see it occur.

Why do I say that? Because the now President-elect has built his campaign, not on policy but on fear. Fear of the unknown. And by doing so, he tapped into the fears of white working class America. Fear of immigrants taking their jobs. Fear of terrorism. Fear of losing their Second Amendment rights. And for evangelical Christians, the fear of babies being ripped from the wombs of their mothers so close to birth. It was emotionally charged speeches from a very rich powerful white man trying to capture (and succeeding it has to be said) the working class. It has been sad to see people, in their desperation to look after their families and in their frustration with a political system that seems to have neglected them for too long, embrace a candidate whose campaign has isolated, belittled, mocked, and ridiculed some many. Sad to see those working class embrace someone who divided his own party and who was endorsed by extremist organisations like the KKK.

But what can we learn from what has happened to make sure it doesn’t happen here in Aotearoa New Zealand or anywhere else? I think the best answer is to embrace the other. By embracing the other, we break down walls not build them. By embracing the other we are saying, “hey, you are important. You matter. I care about you”. And by doing that we destroy the illusion and false worldview that those who aren’t like us are out to get us.

The last two days have also seen me listening to a new podcast (Huia Come Home) about theology, Maori worldview & life in Aotearoa. The interviewee of the inaugural episode, Dr Alistair Reese I think hit the nail on the head. In talking about Maori and Pakeha living together in Aotearoa  and honouring the Treaty of Waitangi, he used a marriage metaphor. He said that at the core of a marriage relationship is self sacrifice - a call to honour the other above yourself. So in terms of relationship with the others Dr Reese challenges us to ask two questions: 

    -    How can I live that will enable the other to prosper?
    -    What environment can I nurture that will enable them to be all that they can be?

The hope is that that will be reciprocated but it has to start with us first. I love the way he puts it and it can equally apply wherever we are in the world. If we look to create a society where the marginalised, where the minorities and the least of us are enabled to be all that they can be then we all benefit.

And that is what I want to move towards and what I believe we here in Aotearoa New Zealand, our fellow men and women in the US, the UK (when I think about their Brexit decision) and throughout the world should be moving towards. Let’s learn from what has happened in the US and use it to work towards building societies that embrace and encourage others. Through that we as individuals and as nations can grow and be blessed by learning from the “other” as they are enabled to be all they can be.


NOTE: I use the terms other, marginalised, minorities and the least of these. The best way I can define those terms is that they refer to people who aren’t like myself. So for me, as a white middle class university educated male I would see those terms as referring to all who aren’t like me, including people of other races, females, members of the LGBT community, the poor, the homeless and any other groups I may have missed. They are my brothers and sisters in the worldwide family of humanity and my desire is to embrace them and learn from them. I believe that I can become a better person by learning from them all.

I'm done. No more All Blacks for me.

I won't be watching the All Blacks play. I can’t because I can no longer support them with a clear conscience after the appalling antics of the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) last week. In fact, despite enjoying New Zealand’s national game, I will no longer support the Chiefs and I won’t be watching any other rugby. It was a hard decision to make because watching rugby was something I did with my Dad who passed away 17 years ago. In a way, watching rugby reminded me of the times we headed off together to watch Waikato play. It reminded me of being woken in the middle of the night to watch the All Blacks play on the other side of the world, whether as part of a tour or in a World Cup. No more though. No more until the NZRU changes how they treat and investigate serious allegations like those that came to light after the Chiefs end of season shenanigans at Okoroire, and particularly the very serious allegations made by Scarlette, the woman hired by the players to do her job as a striptease performer.

Last week the NZRU announced the results of their investigation into what occurred. It was an appalling hatchet job that smacked of a cover up. Nothing about the whole sorry mess that New Zealand Rugby has placed itself in is dignified, right or honouring to either the women involved or to the seriousness of the allegations. More appalling was that Chiefs coach Dave Rennie, with Steve Tew sitting alongside him, suggested that perhaps it would’ve been best if what the players did wasn’t in such a public arena but rather stayed behind closed doors. It made me sick. Not one word of an apology to Scarlette, the woman who made the initial allegation, nor to Laura who was the second woman to speak out about similar behaviour the year before at a Chiefs event. The only thing even approaching an apology was to the public that some of the team hired a woman to strip for them and that it came to public light. It was a poor attempt at helping the brand recover from a disgusting and abhorrent incident. The people involved seemed more interested in damage control than treating the allegations with seriousness and justice. More interested in cleaning the brand’s image up than honouring the women who spoke out against inappropriate and sickening behaviour from a bunch of drunken idiots.

And that is why I won’t be watching the All Blacks or any rugby. How can I? It would be hypocritical
of me to call for the NZRU to change the way they investigate such incidents, apologise to both Scarlette and Laura and properly punish the players involved and then sit down and watch a team who are the biggest earners for the very organisation that has shown no respect for the women involved. I don’t expect many, if any one else will do the same thing but I don’t care. It is a stance I have to take to stay true to my beliefs. I have to take the stance so I can look my daughter in the eye and tell her truthfully that I didn’t condone the appalling actions of some idiotic male rugby players. Because whilst there is the element of change starting with an individual, there is also social responsibility. The reality is that rugby is the national game of New Zealand. Former and current All Blacks are revered as heroes. Even if they don’t obtain the ultimate status of All Black, rugby players are adored and looked up to by thousands of young people, predominantly boys, the country over. The NZRU therefore needs to show leadership and deal with these allegations appropriately, with respect, dignity and honour to the women involved. Until that happens, don’t ask me to come over and watch the latest All Black test or invite me to attend a Mitre 10 Cup match with you. I won’t do it for as much as I love watching rugby, changing attitudes and attempting in my small way to call people to account on this is more important.

Not So Happy Father's Day

It's Father's Day in New Zealand. A time to celebrate dads and what they do for us. But unfortunately, today is not always a happy day for many people. For far too many, both children or grown adults, the term father is connected to bad memories that they would rather forget. For some, it may have been physical abuse, sexual abuse, or the sheer terror of a father figure. This may have affected them for years. It is the sad truth that for some people, this day reminds them of pain and suffering. All things negative instead of things positive.

The sad reality is that domestic violence is a huge problem in this country. Some of our children are in conflict zones, their childhoods under siege. If we could see into their lives we would see the emotional equivalent of bombed out buildings, landmine devastation and rubble from tanks bulldozing their way around shelling indiscriminately. And sadly, far too much of this devastation on our children is at the hands of so called father figures.

This has to end. There has been so many campaigns telling us “it’s not okay”. Yet too many times police have to attend domestic violence calls. The increasing financial pressures that many families are under increase the likelihood of domestic violence. People are at the end of their tether. But it is never okay to get violent. The other day I witnessed an incident where a male (and father) ran into a house wielding a skateboard like a weapon. I can only imagine the fear that the children in that house must’ve felt. Or worse, the flight instinct had already kicked in and the children were already hiding away from “angry daddy”. I couldn’t think about those children and not do something, so I called the police. Hopefully as a result of the subsequent police visit, the father seeks help, the mother too and the children have the opportunity to deal with the fear so it doesn’t hinder them throughout their lives.

So today, celebrate with your fathers, young and old. But please take some time to remember those who find this day difficult. If you are a father and you have noticed that you're losing your rag too much, please reach out for help. A real man doesn’t try to tough it out. A real man admits his mistakes and seeks support and help. There are plenty of amazing groups that do a fantastic job of coming alongside men and helping them. If you know someone who you are concerned about, come alongside them, let them know you are there to help and that they don’t need to leave their children a legacy of violence and pain. If you or someone you know is dealing with the pain of a violent father, please be brave and talk to someone. You are worthy of love. What your father figure has done in the past wasn’t good. It never is or will be ok. But you don’t have to live the rest of your life in fear of that ugly and ultimately false version of manliness.

Remember, what we do in the present leaves a legacy for our children in the future. As men, let’s leave a legacy full of love, care, strength, and bravery.

Are We Spinning Around in Moral Circles?

Have we lost our moral compass? The events of the last two weeks seem to indicate that, as a society, we have. It started with yet another story on the tragedy of Aleppo. Five years of warfare in Syria and still we as a world community allow this tragedy to continue. Actually, tragic doesn't start to describe it to be honest. The words sickening, shameful, atrocious, heartbreaking come to mind. But yet we do nothing. "It's over there" we say as we sip on our flat whites and chai lattes. "What can we do?"

Then we were hit with the reality that we couldn't deny, even here in our safe, secure corner of the world. Both Radio New Zealand and the NZ Herald revealed that Kiwisaver funds were being invested in the very companies that profit from the tragedies like Aleppo, sparking shock and outrage (rightly so) summed up nicely in an aptly poignant cartoon from Emmerson.

Many called for the government to step in and put restrictions in place to ensure that money Kiwis were putting into Kiwisaver for retirement wasn't being used to profit off tragedy. Our prime minister's response to those calls was to claim that it was up to individuals to find out where their money was going. In some ways he is right. It is our money and it is for our individual retirements. We as individuals should take more of an interest in what is happening with our Kiwisaver money. But has the prime minister actually tried to do what he suggests? Finding out where money goes once it is in a Kiwisaver Fund is a long, drawn out, confusing process, particularly if you have never done that kind of thing before. Who is my provider? What fund is my money in? What companies and other funds does my provider use to grow my money? Where are those companies and funds based? How do they make their money? Are they investing in questionable companies as well? How do I read company reports to understand the type of company my money is invested in? These are all questions that must be asked and answered. No wonder many Kiwis haven't done this earlier. It's not easy.

Which is why the prime minister's comments were so disappointing. The government already has rules and regulations in place to prevent funds going into the wrong type of companies. After all, the Auditor General found in 2012 that it was illegal for NZ Superannuation to invest money in companies manufacturing cluster bombs either directly or indirectly. All the government would need to do is apply the same rules and regulations to Kiwisaver providers. The primer minister is right in his assertions of individual responsibility but absolutely wrong on the moral and ethical depravity that comes from passing the blame. Government must show leadership and take the initiative. And that's the point. If our leaders aren't willing to show real leadership and simply pass the buck then we have, as a society, lost our moral compass. 

I was reminded of it again this week, this time on the housing crisis that is gripping our country. The Greens, Labour and the Maori Party are traveling the country, listening to people tell their stories of how life is tough throughout Godzone - that housing is unaffordable for many throughout the country and that homelessness is a growing problem not just in the big cities but in the regions as well. Many average Kiwi's are echoing the sentiments of agencies like the Salvation Army and calling for a state of emergency. When questioned on this (for what seems like the thousandth time), our prime minister passed the buck again, this time blaming the previous Labour government (last in power 8 years ago!). Eight years of being prime minister and the best he could do in answering a question about a huge issue facing thousands of Kiwis right now was to brush it aside and blame the previous government.

Come on John! Come on National! It's time to move beyond the petty politics of party and personality. Real leadership is needed and at the moment you are failing to deliver. If you are unsure of what real leadership looks like, I'll give you a clue. First, you announce that no Kiwisaver provider is to invest in any questionable or downright morally reprehensible companies and manufacturers either directly or indirectly. Then you apply the same rules that NZ Super must abide by, stopping any money from New Zealand going into companies that make munitions, cluster bombs and the like. Then, you announce a housing state of emergency. You take the information from the housing hui and from agencies like the Salvation Army and you do something about it. You state that you aren't looking to blame anyone but would rather find solutions that will work. You say, "this isn't right! Not under my watch!" and then you do something about it.

And as for all of us who sit and say, "yeah! Stupid government! Bloody politicians!!" I ask this: What are you prepared to do? You see, we do need government and our leaders stepping up on moral issues like these, but we also have a part to play. Are we willing to move our retirement savings away from providers who have invested in morally reprehensible companies? If enough of us do it, the providers will have to sit up and listen to us. But we can't stop there. We also need to ask ourselves if we are willing to be a helping hand to those who are struggling in our society. Can you make yourself available for a time? Can you donate food or clothes or how about those blankets in the cupboard that you never use? Can you cook a meal? You see, we are made to be creatures of community and therefore we all have a part to play. So take courage, challenge your politicians and then get involved yourself. Perhaps then we might find our collective moral compass pointing true north again.

Up Not Out: Are We Really Serious About the Housing Crisis?

Last week we looked at the need for more homes. In this final part of the series on the New Zealand housing crisis, why building up and not out is the way to go.

Auckland City Council yesterday approved the Unitary Plan. For those outside of the City of Sails, this is an overarching plan which will guide how the city grows in the next few decades. It has been needed and overall it sets out clear ideas and guidelines as to how Auckland will look in years to come. It will see more concentration of housing and more apartment living.This is necessary and vitally important.

It also signifies a shift in thinking in New Zealand. For years we have clung onto a 1950s ideal of a house on a quarter acre section with a  white picket fence. While the section has stayed the same, often the houses have turned into something akin to a 1980s Eastern European athlete pumped full of steroids. That ideal should be banished to history. It is no longer valid or logical. Let’s consign it to history where it belongs.

Instead of holding onto an outdated ideal, we need to build up, embracing apartment and townhouse living. Our family sizes aren’t getting any bigger so why shouldn’t the size of our houses reflect this? And in a sprawling metropolis like Auckland, building up solves not just the housing crisis but many other problems as well, so long as it is done well.

What do I mean? Well, we should focus on efforts on building town centres in and around key transportation hubs. No more NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard). All parts of Auckland need to embrace this. Whilst the council may like to showcase Flat Bush and Hobsonville Point as great examples of the way forward, the big problem with those new suburbs is that neither is near a major transportation hub. People will still need to jump in private cars and add to an already congested roading network. I think we need to look more towards New Lynn and make that our blueprint.

New Lynn has the third busiest rail station in the Auckland region behind only Britomart and Newmarket. Next to the transport centre is an apartment block and behind that the public library. Across the road is Lynnmall. A medical centre is in the lower floors of the apartment block. Looking west, on the other side of the transport hub is Les Mills and behind that a new housing area which will fill up with townhouses, expected to house 5000 people where the old Crown Lynn and Monier Brick companies were sited. Up the road is a local primary school. All within walking distance. Commuter trains travel in and out, as do across town buses. There are also smaller commuter buses, gathering people from the wider catchment and dropping them to the transport centre. The only thing truly lacking is some decent playgrounds and green areas for families. That’ll change but the point is this is the way forward. Building up. Creating more concentration. Utilising space better.

Building up means a more concentrated population. It makes public transport more doable and appealing. It increases housing supply and also cuts back on the number of single occupant vehicles on the roads. Whilst there are plans for building out in the unitary plan, I strongly believe that the emphasis needs to be on building up.

Building out means taking more farm land and turning it into suburbia. It sprawls Auckland even more. It pushes people away from their work places and forces them into hours of commuting on congested roads each day! More outlying suburbs mean less farmland to produce the food we need. Look at Pokeno, just south of the Bombay Hills. Where farmland and cows once stood, a whole town has now popped up. And it is pretty much all people who then commute into Auckland, some 45-50kms away.

Building out is old world thinking trying to solve a problem of today. It’s time to build up. It’s time to invest in public transport infrastructure. It’s time to see multiple town centres sprouting up throughout Auckland. It’s the only logical way forward and the most sensible way of solving the housing crisis without creating a new problem on the roads.

----------------------------------------------

This is the final part of a 6 part series titled “See Are We Really Serious About the Housing Crisis?” Thanks for all who journeyed all the way through. For those who may have only come in part way, please feel free to read all the parts as I attempt to offer a multi-faceted solution to the current housing crisis.

This is a Time to Build: Are We Really Serious About the Housing Crisis Part 5

Last week I looked at the importance of financial education. This week I look at the need for more homes.

Everyone is talking about it. We have a housing crisis on our hands. One of the major contributing factors to this crisis is that we aren’t building enough houses for the growing population. Demand is out-stripping supply. Particularly in Auckland. It’s a major issue. The reality is that for too long our housing stock has been increasing far too slowly.

Not only that, but some of our housing stock is in serious need of being replaced. Unfortunately it seems to be at the bottom end of the housing market where landlords and tenants haven’t looked after the property. Of most embarrassment to us as a nation is the fact that many state houses are the worst offenders. They look disgusting. Many of them are poorly insulated, mouldy, cold and drafty. They were built in a time where building codes weren’t as stringent as they are now and successive governments have dropped the ball by not making sure they are liveable. In their negligence they have made a mockery of the name and crapped all over the legacy of Michael Joseph Savage.

Admittedly, there are issues with building new homes that do hold things up. The RMA, building consents, local councils, building supplies, even labourer shortage. All have been used as excuses to try to explain away why we aren’t building the homes we need. Enough is enough though. No more excuses, because the excuses are being used as a scapegoat for inaction.

Some of the so called excuses are important steps in the process and I would hate it if we cut corners with them. We don’t want a repeat of the leaky home catastrophe of recent past. We want homes that are good, solid, long-lasting. They should be built to be healthy, warm, and energy efficient.

But we need to build. Not only that, but we need to reconsider what type of homes we are building. It seems that our average house size is getting bigger and bigger. Section sizes are remaining the same, but the buildings look like they are on steroids. Four bedrooms, two lounges, an office, and at least two garages. It seems more like a mansion, particularly seeing as family sizes aren’t really increasing. We need to relook at how we house ourselves. We need more and we need them smaller. Readjust our expectations of what the size of our houses should be is important. We also need to plan well and strategically, which is why I support the Unitary Plan that Auckland Council is considering. It is an overarching, region wide plan on how our biggest city can grow and plan for growth now and into the future.

 So let’s get building and let’s do it well. We owe it to ourselves and to our children. This is a crisis we can’t pass on to them to deal with.

----------------------------------------------

This is part 5 of a 6 part series. See Are We Really Serious About the Housing Crisis for the summary. Next week, I conclude this series with why I believe we should be focusing more on going up rather than out, particularly in Auckland.

Future Proofing & Educating Ourselves: Are We Really Serious About the Housing Crisis Part 4

Last week I looked at Capital Gains Tax and Comprehensive Capital Income Tax. This week I look more longer term with the importance of financial education.

Kiwisaver has been going for nearly nine years. 2.5 million of us are enrolled, with $28.5 billion in assets *. Truly it has been a success and of huge benefit to the country. But, despite this, we are still very financially illiterate as a nation. Not many people would be able to differentiate between a share and a bond. We are buying up homes like they are going out of fashion, and are very happy to put ourselves heavily into debt to do so.

Why this push towards houses? I believe it is for two reasons. One, a house is very tangible. You can see it, touch it. It’s like sticking your stake in the ground, declaring to the world, “this is mine!” The second reason is that we just don’t know about other investments while we continue to fool ourselves into thinking that because we live in a home we understand the property market. We are deluding ourselves.

But it doesn’t have to be like this. Simply saying “uncle Bob invested money in a finance company and lost everything, therefore I won’t trust the sharemarket” shows how much we don’t understand things financial. It is possible to learn about financial investments and not be afraid of them. We just have to spend a little time to do so and Kiwisaver is a fantastic way of doing this. In fact I believe that a non negotiable in signing up to Kiwisaver should be to participate in a four part course on investing basics, the sharemarket and the importance of diversification. If at the end of this course you decide to opt out of Kiwisaver that is fine but at least you have learnt about investing and long term financial planning.

I’ll share my story to explain. When I was enrolled into Kiwisaver I knew nothing about investing and the sharemarket. I was nervous about it, even a bit fearful. Growing up in the eighties I had memories of the 87 stockmarket crash. I let that fear dictate how I looked at Kiwisaver for three years. But one day I looked at my Kiwisaver balance in the default scheme I was in and I decided that I had to do something about it. The first (and probably best) thing I did was read. The most comprehensive and helpful book for me was Mary Holm’s The Complete Kiwisaver. Then I heeded her advise and researched the schemes available, deciding on one I felt would be the best fit for me. But I didn’t stop there. The scheme I moved my Kiwisaver into allows me to select what funds and companies I invest my money into. So I decided to use my Kiwisaver as a platform for learning about the sharemarket. I took a four part investor basics course my provider runs. I learnt how to read market research. I keep an eye on how my Kiwisaver is going. I have regular reviews with the advisor my scheme provides for me. I don’t regret doing any of this at all. And I don’t share this to say look at me. I share this to say if I can do it, so can you. It isn’t hard but it is worth it.

I still have a lot to learn about investing and the sharemarket. But I’m not afraid of it as I once was. I don’t see that the only way to get ahead financially is to buy property. In fact I am so relaxed about the sharemarket that now, with housing prices in Auckland so ridiculously over-inflated (around nine times the average wage), I am very comfortable with the idea of not purchasing a house and instead directing that money into the sharemarket and other investments. And that is where this links into housing crisis. Too many of us throw money into property simply because we believe it is the only way to get ahead. With so many of us doing that it over-inflates the housing bubble. It will pop one day. It won’t stretch on forever. Now is the time to re-educate ourselves and get rid of our fear of the sharemarket and non-property investments.

* The stats used are from the FMA (Financial Market Authority) released Kiwisaver Annual Report 2015
----------------------------------------------

This is part 4 of a 6 part series. See Are We Really Serious About the Housing Crisis for the summary. Next week, the desperate need of building more homes before I complete this series with why I believe we should be focusing more on going up rather than out, particularly in Auckland.

Not the Silver Bullet But a Start: Are We Really Serious About the Housing Crisis Part 3

Last week I looked at misdirected investment. This week it is that dreaded term that has been bandied around as both a miracle cure and a poison that will slowly destroy and unduly punish Kiwi investment. Yes, it’s Capital Gains Tax.

If there has been one thing that has got New Zealander’s collective backs up over the housing crisis it would have to be a Capital Gains Tax. Labour campaigned on it last election and failed. John Key is adamant that it will not benefit the nation. However, as Duncan Garner pointed out quite clearly in two blogs last year, politicians from across the floor have a vested interest in not introducing some type of tax on property. That vested interest is that many of them own more than one property. Why own more than one? Because we as a nation don’t treat property the same as any other asset or capital. Therefore, in order to pay as little tax as possible, people invest in property. This helps fuel the housing price bubble, particularly in Auckland and isn’t the best thing for the country.

And this isn’t about revenue gathering. It is about trying to bring balance and fairness into our current tax system. At the moment it is heavily sloped towards investing in property and the ones who end up paying the most tax proportionally are salary and wage earners. We need to bring some balance back to the field. In researching for this particular blog I discovered that perhaps one of the fairest and balanced ways of correcting the faults in our tax system is something that the Morgan Foundation propose - a Comprehensive Capital Income Tax. It brings balance to our tax system and would see less money invested in property and more money invested elsewhere (This would help solve the issue I raised last week of misdirected investments).

Whichever way we go, the point is we can’t keep doing the same thing as we will always get the same results. No tax on property = heavy investment in property. Introducing a fair tax on all income (basically introducing tax where there isn’t tax currently) = a balanced investment in property and shares and local businesses (in other words, diversification).

And whilst a change in the way we collect tax isn’t the silver bullet, having it as part of a raft of ideas would cool the housing balloon without it going pop. It would bring balance and generate tax revenue that could be used for the benefit of all New Zealanders in areas like health, education, the environment (increasing what DOC gets would be a great start there) and even a reduction in the income tax people pay.

It’s a win win for the nation. We just need our politicians to stop serve their own and their mate’s interests and do more to look after the interests of we the people who voted them in and have the power to vote them out again. 

----------------------------------------------

This is part 3 of a 6 part series. See Are We Really Serious About the Housing Crisis for the summary. Next week, the importance of Financial Education and why we all benefit through learning even the basics of investment. In later blogs I'll look at  increasing the current housing stock and finally why I believe we should be focusing more on going up rather than out, particularly in Auckland.

43 Years of Silence, 43 Years Too Long.

43 years ago today this was the view from on board HMNZS Otago. It was sent there officially to be a physical presence of the New Zealand protest against French nuclear testing on Mururoa Atoll. Prior to the Otago leaving, Prime Minister Norman Kirk said that its presence (and HMNZS Canterbury's when it relieved the Otago) would be "a silent accusing witness with the power to bring alive the conscience of the world".

Since then the men who went on Big Norm's Mystery Tour have been silently suffering and a nation whose proud anti-nuclear stance was built on the success of that 1973 protest has stayed silent in its appreciation and gratitude to those men who did their duty and served their country when called upon. Shame on us as a nation that we have forgotten these men who made the world aware of what the French were doing. Their mere presence meant that minutes after the nuclear test, word was sent to Wellington and then to the world of the detonation, sparking what former NZPA correspondent David Barber referred to as ‘a barrage of international protests that prompted New Zealand's Prime Minister Norman Kirk to say, "Never before has world opinion on nuclear testing been so stirred.”’ It was groundbreaking. One small nation in the South Pacific had boldly confronted another over nuclear testing and won. It was a major victory. 1973 was the last time the French undertook atmospheric nuclear testing.

Yet how many Kiwis know about what happened? How many of us are aware of the efforts of those brave men on board two of our Navy frigates? How many are aware that far too many of them have died in the following years of cancers and leukemias? How many of us know of the suffering that those sailors who are still alive have had to endure? Continual cancer treatment, often for rare forms of the disease. The psychological effects of watching your former shipmates dying and knowing the high probability that you could be the next one to contract cancer or leukemias. The effects on the wives, partners, children and now grandchildren as their husband / dad / granddad suffered.

This has got to end. New Zealand must acknowledge these national heroes and do the right thing by them. On the day of the Otago’s department, Norman Kirk said that a grateful nation would not forget the men and would look after them if something happened. Something did happen, and continues to happen to the sailors and men on board those frigates. It is time our nation stayed true to those words spoken by Mr Kirk 43 years ago. Lest we forget.

----------------------
DISCLAIMER: I sit on the executive committee of the Mururoa Nuclear Veterans Group Inc as the co vice-president as well as the Media Officer. The group is made up of former sailors on the HMNZS Otago and Canterbury and the HMAS Supply, wives, partners and children of those sailors who served on the 1973 Tour. 

Misdirected Investments: Are We Really Serious About the Housing Crisis Part 2

Last week I mentioned 7 ways I thought could be implemented to help solve the housing crisis. This week I want to turn to the idea of foreign and local investments.

Let me state at the outset that I am not against foreign investments. As we are part of the global economy they play an important role in the New Zealand economy. However, unlike some of the rhetoric that has come from the right about investments and the housing crisis, I do not believe that foreigners buying up our housing stock can be called foreign investment. The problem is that buying up land and houses directly contributes to our housing crisis and adds little or no value to the economy. The house is purchased, and the investor sits on it until they are ready to move their money on. Under our current tax regime, that is an easy thing to do with no consequences. Any profit can be taken out of the country without any tax being paid. How does that help New Zealand? Not only does it push up house prices and reduce the housing stock available, it also denies money flowing into our small and medium sized businesses which are an important and significant part of our economy.

What would be better is to discourage foreigners who want to invest in New Zealand from purchasing our housing stock. One way this could be achieved is by some form of capital gains tax and a tax on money leaving the country. Not only would this be fair, it would also bring us in line with other countries around the world. In addition, it is important to incentivize investing in New Zealand businesses, thus encouraging money out of our housing stock and into the business sector, thus growing businesses and growing our economy. Whilst I am not sure how this could be achieved, some ideas could be a rebate on money invested in small and medium business, or a reduced tax rate. The point though is that with proper investment, our small and medium sized businesses, which are significant contributors to our economy, could grow resulting in more people employed, exports increasing and more money brought into our economy. We would all benefit. With the current situation, the only ones who benefit are the speculators buying up the housing stock.

In the same way, we can also incentivize Kiwis to put their money into small and medium sized businesses. We as a nation seem to be allergic to investments outside of property but we need to turn this around so our economy can grow and strengthen. It would also help make our economy more resilient as money flows into more diverse sectors. Like with foreign investments we could incentivize by offering rebates or reduced tax on investments in our small and medium business sector.

The one thing we can’t do is nothing. We can no longer keep putting our collective heads in the sand, denying the existence of a problem. That will only result in the housing balloon expanding until it pops.

----------------------------------------------

This is part 2 of a 4-6 part series. See Are We Really Serious About the Housing Crisis for the summary. Next week, Capital Gains Tax - Not the Silver Bullet but a start. In later blogs I'll look at  Financial Education, increasing the current housing stock and finally why I believe we should be focusing more on going up rather than out, particularly in Auckland.

Are We Really Serious About the Housing Crisis?

This past weekend Labour celebrated 100 years of existence. As part of that centenary they announced a Housing policy they would enact if they became the next government. Despite what the right say, it is clever politicking by Labour for two reasons; 1. it’s an attempt to address a growing issue and 2. it harks back to the 1930s era of Labour governance where state housing originates from. Meanwhile, yesterday National announced that it didn't expect a dividend from Housing New Zealand which will, in theory, allow HNZ to invest in building more state houses.

This crisis has been an ongoing issue for years yet has been ignored by the politicians until now. With both main parties deeply rooted in neoliberal economic policy there has been an unwillingness to interfere with the market, choosing instead to believe the market will right itself. There has also been a push to emphasise one issue or another. We’ve heard that not enough houses are being built, too many foreigners buying up our houses, it’s Kiwi investors, it’s councils not releasing enough land. What we haven’t heard is a concerted combined attempt at solving this growing problem.

I have decided that instead of complaining, I would have a go at offering a combined solution to the problem. Admittedly I am no economist, or finance advisor, nor do I claim expertise in this area. But as a lay person I think some of these ideas, as part of a wider ranging policy, have merit and should be openly discussed.

1. Discourage foreigners purchasing housing stock. 

This is often seen as being “anti-foreign investment”. I believe that’s a false label used to dismiss this idea but this idea needs an alternative offered in conjunction.

2. ENCOURAGE foreign investment into local businesses. 

This is that alternative. The problem isn’t foreign investment. The problem is where that investment is going. Housing stock doesn't generate wealth for our country. Foreign investment in our small and medium sized businesses does. These first two ideas have to go hand in hand.

3. ENCOURAGE local investment into local businesses. 

Likewise, local investment shouldn’t be sunk into multiple homes. Local businesses generate wealth, employ people and return money back into regional economies.

4. Capital Gains / Property Tax. 

People hate this idea but the reality is that currently there is little to no tax on property investment. A graduated tax based on the number of properties one owns seems to be a fair way of taxing. If you want to make your money in property go ahead, but you will be taxed just like any other investment.

5. Education on Investments. 

Too many Kiwis have no idea about how the sharemarket works, what a share is, what a bond is. We fear the sharemarket because we don’t understand it. As a nation we need to financially school ourselves up and get over our fear. 

6. Build More Houses. 

It is a no brainer but the population is growing, particularly in Auckland. Not enough housing is being built to cover the growth. 

7. Build Up, Not Out. 

Building more suburbs in our major cities, particularly Auckland will not solve the issue but will simply create more complex problems. We need to have a long term plan to make compact people-friendly cities. Sprawling metropolises like we have now are car-friendly, use up valuable farmland and don’t work. The desired quarter acre section with a white picket fence is an idea best left in the 1950s where it belongs.

So seven ideas. Not rocket science but at the same time if done properly can help to solve the housing crisis. Some of the ideas won’t see immediate effects but are necessary to stop the speculation and correct the craziness that currently inhabits our property market. I’d love to see all of these ideas implemented. I’d love to see politicians with the guts to actually work together to solve the crisis. But I fear that that won’t happen. I fear personal interests will trump what’s best for the nation and that the housing crisis will only get worse until something snaps, plummeting us into the abyss of fiscal depression.

----------------------------------------------

This will form the start of a 4-6 part series. I will attempt to expand on some of these ideas over the coming weeks. Next week, redirecting investment away from housing and into Kiwi businesses (this will attempt to expand points 1-3). That will be followed by a look at Capital Gains Tax, Financial Education, Increasing the current housing stock and finally why I believe we should be focusing more on going up rather than out, particularly in Auckland.

The Forgotten Heroes

Yesterday was Anzac Day. A wonderful day where we as a nation remember the soldiers (including sailors and airmen) fallen or who are no longer with us who fought to make our nation safe. Special services allow us to remember them. We hear the Last Post, see the flags at half-mast, recite the Ode of Remembrance. And with it being a hundred years since the folly that was the Gallipoli campaign, we hear a lot about what our men endured during the horrendous campaign. And rightly so. After all, it was a key time in our history as a nation. But, with such an emphasis on those who have passed, we run the danger of neglecting those who are still with us and the suffering they are enduring currently. 

There have been many conflicts and war zones that our servicemen and women have entered that we know little or nothing about. Examples of those include the Malay Peninsula, Mururoa, East Timor, the first Gulf War, the second Gulf War, Afghanistan. What is life like for those men and women and their families? Are they suffering in silence? How has their service for country affected them and their lives? 

Recently we had two challenging news reports on these oft forgotten veterans. Newshub reported on young veterans and the mental illness they deal with as they return from conflict zones. Stuff reported on the increased number of former military personnel who are now living on the streets. Both were good reminders that we would do well to remember and appreciate our silent veterans - those still with us who are suffering. Not just that, but also offer help where and when appropriate. 

But there is one group that is silently suffering and dying who most of us give no regard to whatsoever. They are the Navy veterans who we as a nation sent to Mururoa in 1973. We sent them there as a visible force officially “protesting” the French testing of nuclear bombs on that remote Pacific atoll. Up until that time, despite small protests from concerned citizens, the world didn’t listen until HMNZS Otago and then her sister ship Canterbury with the support of HMAS Supply went to Mururoa. It went hand in hand with a international court case that the New Zealand government took against France regarding the nuclear tests. The 500 odd men on those frigates did their duty and despite Prime Minister of the time, Norman Kirk swearing to the men that the nation would never forget them, we turned around and did just that. We forgot them. 

Now, 43 years on, many of those sailors have passed, often suffering from rare forms of cancer and leukemia. Their families suffer in silence along with their men. The men are now entitled to their own medal but how many of us know their stories? Sadly all too few. These men, who were involved in the foundation of this country’s nuclear free stance have been forgotten and marginalised for too long. This needs to end. We need to remember them and offer them our heartfelt thanks. We need to support their families who have had to watch those veterans slowly lose their fight with cancer or leukemia and have now passed away leaving a vacuum in their family’s lives. 

Yes we need to remember those who fought and died for us in years gone by but we also need to remember those who served and who are now suffering. After all, Anzac Day is not just about Gallipoli, it is our day to remember all of our military personnel, past and present, who gave their lives that we may live in relative peace and safety. 


********************
DISCLAIMER: I am part of the Junior Executive for the Mururoa Nuclear Veterans Group Inc, a group set up to raise awareness of what the veterans went through, support Mururoa veterans and to call the government to recognise the veterans as nuclear testing victims. My father served on HMNZS Otago when it was sent to Mururoa.

That's a Fine Looking High Horse

Why do Christians feel that they have the right to judge people, including their fellow believers? It is something that has perplexed me for years, but a few things I have observed lately has prompted this post.

A number of years back I read Philip Yancey's book "What's So Amazing About Grace?" Not one to mince words, Yancey opens his book by recounting a story of a prostitute who has hit rock bottom and had started renting out her two year old daughter for sex so she could pay for her own drug habit. It is a short story but those few lines often produces two reactions - one of sadness at the depth of desperation this woman must have felt; or one of judgement, looking down at the woman and dismissing her as a deadbeat who shouldn't have kids in the first place. It was this second reaction that was the crux of the story. Yancey tells how this woman was asked if she had ever thought of going to a church for help. Her response should hit all Christians like the knockout blow of a heavyweight boxing bout. '"Church!" she cried. "Why would I ever go to there? I was already feeling terrible about myself. They'd just make me feel worse."' They'd just make me feel worse. Ouch! What an indictment. Yet, nearly twenty years since Yancey penned that book, things are no different. The people of God who should be the very instruments of grace in the world are often the tools of judgement.

I realised this in a personal way over the course of the past eighteen months as my marriage broke up. People who said they were friends and would stick by me no matter what stopped communicating with me. Some even refused to have me in their homes because they had heard stories about me which they said concerned them. And people who I would call acquaintances felt they could confront me about my marriage break-up, one via text and the other via Facebook messenger. I only just found this last confrontation a year later and it shocked me. Shocked that a fellow believer felt they had the right to do this. Not to come alongside and support or pray or offer help or assistance in any way, but to judge. Without going into too much detail, they suggested I reconsider the next steps due to the heritage they believed I was leaving for my children. They also brought up my deceased father as part of their argument - "What would your father want you to do? If he were here what would his challenge to you be? Would he want to see you tear their (my children) lives apart?" Now I hardly know this person. They don't really know me either. What had happened in my marriage was private and not known to many people. This person was going on rumour and hearsay but still felt they were within their right to send me this message.

And that is the problem. When did some Christians feel it was their duty to judge? After all, Jesus told His followers not to judge (see Matthew 7:1, Luke 6:37, Luke 6:41 to name a few), as did Paul, one of the fathers of the early Christian faith (see Romans 2:1, Romans 14:10, 1 Corinthians 4:5). It's as if those of us who profess Christian faith have put ourselves up on a high horse and in the process, elevated ourselves into the place that should only be the domain of God.

Christians are to be the salt and light in the world, and as Eugene Petersen puts so beautifully, bring out the God flavours and God colours. Not to be judges of it. Judging creates an "us and them" mentality. It is divisive. It is hurtful and it is unnecessary. When the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery before of Jesus (and seeing as the law stated anyone caught in adultery, where was the guy?) did He condemn her? No. He instead looked at the Pharisees and said "he who is sinless can cast the first stone". Not one stone was thrown. The Pharisees were after judgement, justice and punishment. Jesus was all about restoration. As people who claim to follow Jesus, those of us who call ourselves Christians should be all about restoration too.

"But what about the laws of God?" I hear you ask. "What about what is right and just?" "Surely purity and faithfulness are important to God and we should defend that?" Good questions. But in an attempt to answer them let me take a leaf out of Christ's book and ask some questions of my own: "Is God all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere? Is God just? Can God, through the work of restoration in someone, bring them to a level of faithfulness and purity that He is happy with?" If God is all about restoring people to Himself, it isn't up to us to decide whether people should be judged or not. That is God's prerogative. Not ours. After all, everyone has fallen short of the glory of God. No-one is exempt. We all stuff up and make mistakes. Some of those mistakes can be bigger than others. We are all fallen. It is only through God that we can be restored to God.

It is also important not to judge for the sake of others. Nineteenth century Christian evangelist Dwight L. Moody once said, “Of one hundred men, one will read the Bible; the ninety-nine will read the Christian.” Too often our judgemental attitudes turn people off. The word hypocrisy often is spoken when describing Christians. How can people know God's love if you don't first show love for them? If we who are Christians are called to be salt and light, and being God's instruments of grace in the process, we should be embarrassed that the world around us doesn't see grace as being present in the church. I like the words of the singer Hozier: "... That's a fine looking high horse, What you got in the stable?, We've a lot of starving faithful ..." Perhaps I'm taking it a bit out of context, but for me it describes how the church is seen from the outside all too well. A fine looking high horse. Time to get off it and down with others, walking alongside them and helping them in their struggles. What's in the stable? we've got faithful who are hungry. It's almost like we have kept Jesus in the stable and people hungry for love and grace are being denied. That is what judging does - it hides away grace and denies it to a world in desperate need of it.

Judging has no place in our churches. It gets in the way of God and His grace flowing into people's lives. For too long we as Christians have turned people off church and off God with our judgemental attitudes (despite sometimes having well meaning intentions of preserving the idea of holiness for God). It's time we dropped our judging and picked up grace, not just for ourselves but for all around us. As Yancey says, “Jesus declared that we should have one distinguishing mark: not political correctness or moral superiority, but love.”

Don't Deny Our History

Blood was shed on New Zealand soil. People were killed in battle on these shores. The foundation of our nation was laid with the blood and sacrifice of thousands of people. Yet, it is largely unknown by those of us who call this place home. Many of us would be able to talk about World War One or World War Two. After all we had family members fight in those global conflicts and some died for the cause they fought for. It is taught in our schools and we commemorate the soldiers who fought and died in those two wars (as well as those from the Boer War, the Korean and Vietnam Wars and on into modern day conflicts) on ANZAC Day. But few would be able to give anything but the most basic of details (if that) on the Land Wars that occupied the early days of our nation’s history.

Why were the land wars fought? Who fought in them? Where did the battles take place? How long did they last? The most basic of answers were that the land wars were fought between Maori and the Crown (often thought of as the British Army) because Maori were not happy with the confiscation of land by the Crown, with many of the battles being fought in the Waikato and Taranaki. But how long the conflict lasted many of us couldn’t say.

And that is a huge problem. Whilst it may not be a part of our history we like (after all we love to present ourselves as a peaceful nation), it is part of our identity and we should know it. For example, taking my own family as an example. My Great-great-great Grandfather came out with his young family from Scotland as part of what was called the “Waikato Immigration Scheme”. This was a scheme devised by the government to bring in large numbers of settlers from the British Isles for the establishment of  European settlements in Waikato. It was the government’s hope to place military settlers onto newly confiscated land, consolidating territorial gains and increase security. The scheme offered free passage and a land grant. Upon arrival in Auckland, the settlers were housed in the Onehunga barracks. The scheme was a disaster. However, the point is that without the Land Wars, my ancestors may not have moved to New Zealand. Whether I like it or not, it is a part of my personal history and the history of this wonderful nation of ours.

So to hear, like we have over the last couple of days, that the Ministry of Education has stated that it will not make teaching the Land Wars compulsory is very disappointing. Radio New Zealand reported yesterday that the Ministry Associate Deputy Secretary said it wouldn’t prescribe to schools they must teach certain subjects, but will maintain a broad approach to education, while the Ministry Te Reo Maori group manager said that helping schools develop their own content around the land wars was the focus. Both comments were made to the Maori Affairs Select Committee which was looking at a petition asking for a commemoration day and for the history of the Land Wars to be taught at schools.

It was disappointing to hear because the New Zealand Land Wars are part of our history. 3,000 people, mainly Maori died during the wars. Land was confiscated and new settlements built. A large swathe of immigrants came to this country in the hopes of starting a new life. And that is why it is important. Not only are the Land Wars part of our past, they are part of our present and our future. Treaty of Waitangi claims were made and settled as a result of the poor actions of the Crown during the Land Wars. We as a nation need to know about the Land Wars and understand them better (it was great to see that historians are aware of the significance in more teaching on the wars).  A better understanding of the Land Wars will get rid of the ranting by mainly Pakeha about the Treaty negotiations and settlements that are on going. Education plays a key role in this so come on Ministry of Education. Make our nation’s history important and a necessary subject to teach. We will be a better nation for it.

Successful Beach Bid a Slap in the Face for Government?

We did it! We came together and we bought a beach! From the random musings of two mates over Christmas to nearly 40,000 of us donating what we could or wanted, we as a nation now have a new addition to our DOC estate. A beach that was in private hands is now to become part of the Abel Tasman National Park, which surrounds it. This is great news and the perfect, and right, result to this story. It will be a fantastic addition to an already stunningly beautiful National Park.

However, while we all celebrate the purchase of this amazing part of our nation, and rightly so, I can't help but feel a tinge of sadness over this whole process. Sadness because it shouldn't have needed to require two mates kicking off a crowd-funding appeal to have this beach added to the DOC estate. The government should've stepped in and just purchased the land and added it to the surrounding National Park. But, unfortunately, for too long the government stayed quiet and non-commital. They are the "Johnny come lately's" in this process. The spin doctors in Wellington will be working hard to sell this as a great win for New Zealand and that the government is rapt to see the passion of thousands of Kiwis, as well as being proud to partner with all of those Kiwis in purchasing this land.

But the reality is a lot different. I'm sure that DOC would've liked to have just purchased it when the land was about to go up for sale but the reality is that their budget has been consistently slashed in budgets and their funding wouldn't allow it. It is hard enough for them to have enough money to continue their conservation work without partnering with businesses and community groups - something that the current government is keen to encourage and promote. The minister could have chosen to get involved. So could the PM, who after all is the Minister of Tourism. Cabinet could've come together and decided to purchase the beach for all New Zealanders. But they didn't. And despite this beach being in former Conservation Minister Nick Smith's backyard, it was up to the public to ensure this beautiful beach is added to the Crown's responsibility. Instead the government and the minister stayed silent and in the shadows until it looked like the thing might actually work! It was spineless, sad and very disappointing.

But there is another part to this which is encouraging. We, the people stood up. We made ourselves heard and it is a message that has rung loud and clear from Cape Reinga to Bluff but most clearly heard across the Cook Strait in the halls of Parliament. It is a message that unequivocally says that we Kiwis care about our land and our country and we want our government, who we elect to run the nation in our stead, to listen to us. It states that losing land, whether pristine beach or big farms to wealthy interests is not necessarily in the best interests of our nation. We stood up to the powers that be and said that we want to see the right thing done by the country. We declared that not everything is about money. Some things are more important than a healthy balance sheet or economic prosperity.

It was right that Awaroa Beach was bought and added to the Abel Tasman National Park. It was and is the only sensible decision and the only one in the best interest of our nation. It also says that we aren't as happy with the job the government is doing, despite what there advisors like to tell them and the media. It reminds them that we, the voting public, should never be taken for granted.

So, I say a huge thank you and congrats to Duane and Adam and their team. I say a huge thank you and congrats to the nearly forty thousand who gave. And I say to the politicians, pay attention. We won't go quietly into the night. We want what's best for our entire country, not just for a select few. Don't ever take us for granted.

NZ Awards - Predictable and disappointing

I know that I may get a bit of flak for what I say here so let me start by saying that this is not a criticism of the people involved but rather an observation of how shallow and narrow focused we are as a country.

So last night the New Zealander of the Year was named. And whilst there has been an overwhelming positivity over Richie McCaw winning, when I heard the news I felt a tinge of disappointment, even saying to myself "shame". I felt that tinge of disappointment even more when I heard that Lydia Ko won the Young New Zealander of the Year. Now, I'm not anti-sport. In fact, far from it. I love sport. I love how it can bring people together. I love how exciting and enjoyable it is. To be fair I am quite the sports fan. I celebrated the All Blacks winning the Rugby World Cup. I happily enter into office banter about how a team is going, who should be in or not and all that can be talked about in sport. I have also loved watching the rise and rise of Lydia Ko, marvelling at how composed she is and how easy she makes the game of golf look.

But, and here is where my disappointment lies, picking a sports person as New Zealander of the Year is too easy. It is too predictable and to be honest it is disappointing. What it does do is show how sports orientated this country is. I know there are people who feel that Richie particularly deserves his award but what exactly has he done? Sure, he lead a team of well paid professional athletes to victory in a competition we as a nation feel is ours by right. But that's about it. In the scheme of things it enabled us to forget about the challenges of life for a short while, but apart from the lasting effect this achievement will have in the statistics books, what else has it achieved?

It makes it particularly hard to swallow when the other two finalists have done some very important, significant things that are having, and going to have an ongoing and lasting effect on our society.

Rob Fenwick is a ground breaker, showing that business and environmentalism can go hand in hand. Not only has he looked to grow his commercial interests, but he has done it without compromising on his belief in conservation and sustainable development. He has served on a number of boards with a focus on conservation and sustainability. The company he co-founded, Living Earth, has converted millions of tons of waste into compost.

Then there is Louise Nicholls. If there is ever a person who embodies courage, strength and determination, Louise is it. Not only did she have the courage to speak out over being sexually assaulted by policemen when she was a teenager, she never gave up and had to endure and battle through five court cases. She wanted to hold the men responsible to account and her determination has seen the courts and police look at how they treat sexual violence victims. Now she is working with the police to improve their understanding of what a victim goes through. Her tireless efforts will see generations of police show my concern, compassion and care for sexual violence victims. Our society will benefit from her work for years to come.


And for me this is where the rubber hits the road. We as a society would rather celebrate the momentary joy of a sporting win and immortalise it than celebrate the tireless efforts of others. We would rather find our societal validation in our sporting achievements than take pride in the efforts of our fellow Kiwis to make not just this country, but the world a better place for us and our children. WE elevate sports to a place it does not deserve. And that is sad. Yes it is good to honour our sportspeople, but hey we already do that with their own awards night (the Halbergs). The NZ Awards should be an opportunity to celebrate the amazing achievements of our fellow Kiwis in other areas. 

---------------------------------------------------

 It was great to read this morning to see someone else writing about the disappointing result of the NZ Awards. Alex Braae explains why Louise Nicholls would be a better winner, and I agree - Louise would have been my first choice too.
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/opinion/alex-braae-louise-nicholas-should-have-won/

Time to Kill that Attitude!

This week has been interesting. Two incidents have caught people's attention and left me pondering. The first was the entirely inappropriate and utterly disgusting language and behaviour of the two young men who injected themselves into Kim Vinnell's live cross into "Story" on TV3 on Monday night and then the subsequent comments they made the following night when challenged by Kim. The second was the story of the Return of Kings planning mass meetings globally, including in New Zealand. Both incidents were disgusting and sickening, and unfortunately, both showed young men in a very bad light and highlighted an underlying sexism in our culture that needs to be buried and never resurrected again.

Much has been written about the disgusting behaviour of the two young men who injected themselves into a live broadcast and used the phrase "f*** her right in the p***y". When did this ever become a thing to say? It is gross, foul and abhorrent. Just as abhorrent has been the number of people who have jumped in and attacked Kim, and trying to blame her and her camera operator for being disorganised and allowing this to happen. Some of the same people, as well as others, have also defended the two young men with pathetic throw away lines like "it's just boys being boys". The sad fact is this is exactly the same as saying a woman deserved to be raped because of the clothes she was wearing, claiming "she was asking for it because of what she was wearing". It shows an attitude that permeates male culture and needs to end.

And before men jump up and down and claim they have never condoned rape, ask yourself these questions: have you ever joked with male friends about a woman's sexuality or what she would be like in bed?; have you ever looked at pornography?; have you ever oogled at scantily clad woman in photo shoots?; have you ever compared women with friends and rated them in a top 10?; have you ever caught yourself looking at a woman and thought instantly about aspects of her body (for example, "nice arse", "check out those breasts!")? Let's not kid ourselves men, we are all guilty of allowing this attitude to grow and fester to the point that we claim it is all just a bit of harmless fun, or boys simply being boys.

And that brings me to the "Return of Kings" group - an online group who believe women should be controlled by men and whose founder reportedly believes rape on private property should be legalised. I am relieved that the planned meetings have been cancelled due to the justified outrage over this group. However, I am also saddened and sickened to think that fellow men in New Zealand would be interested in being part of this group. But I also realise that in male culture there is a very fine, blurred line between what is seen as acceptable and what is seen as disgusting and inappropriate. In fact, that line has become so blurred for many men it is easy for them to express their disgust at a group like Return of Kings and then joke with their mates about some attractive woman they've just seen walking down the road.

Both stem from a wrong attitude about women. It is an attitude that says that women are less than men. It is an attitude that says it is okay to talk about a woman as if she was some object or thing to possess. It is an attitude that says that men are the ultimate authority and women must be submissive. It is an attitude that says a woman's place is in the home, cooking for their man and looking after the babies. It is sexism pure and simple. As hard and challenging as that may be to read, that is the sad reality. Sexism still exists in this country. It isn't just in the extremities of society or found in deep dark alleys of our culture. It is widespread. We just don't talk about it. We pretend it isn't there or that it is just a bit of fun. And it is time it was dead and buried.

I challenge all men to speak out. To tell their friends that those comments or attitudes aren't appreciated. You may face a bit of ridicule or ribbing. You may be challenged by the perpetrators (who'll be your mates, colleagues, or family) with comments like, "come on, it was just a bit of fun"; "oh, don't be so sensitive" or worse "oh stop being so self-righteous!" You may even be reminded of time when you said similar things, or participated in the same unhealthy conversations. But hold firm. Admit your failings in the past. But don't compromise. If enough of us speak up and challenge us we can kill this attitude off.