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.