“The less the Ratepayers know, the better it is for us” seems to be a common mantra among local councils, not only at KCDC — from the Radio NZ website:-
Last week, Local Democracy Reporting revealed a Rotorua man has complained to the Office of the Ombudsman about Rotorua Lakes Council’s refusal to provide detailed information on the content of its public-excluded workshops.
Now, an information request reveals most New Zealand councils are holding dozens of closed-door workshops a year.
A constitutional law expert says it is a “troubling black hole” in the transparency of local government, while a leader in the sector suggests change may be on the horizon.
Local Democracy Reporter Felix Desmarais asks: how much is the public missing out on in secret council workshops?
“Work will start soon on building the next 170 metre length of the 2.5 metre wide shared path between the Waikanae Golf Club entrance and Lavinia Grove. The road shoulder will be closed during the two weeks of works but road traffic won’t otherwise be affected. This work is part of our vision for a shared path from the Waikanae township to the beach.”
Today we begin a series on the truth of what is happening to the Earth’s climate. Historically there have always been periods of warming and cooling, but towards the end of the 20th century growing hysteria developed over the dangers of global warming which have proved to be unfounded. Ian Bradford looks at the scientific realities.
Predicting climatic disaster
By Ian Bradford
In 1989 The UN predicted disaster if global warming was not checked. Nations would be wiped off the face of the earth, coastal regions flooded, about 23 million people displaced, a fifth of Egypt’s arable land flooded and many ecological refugees. Here we are 32 years on and has any of this happened? NO!
The UN then formed its climate mouthpiece the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change). The IPCC said ocean levels will rise by up to nearly a metre. The IPCC predicted 50 million would be displaced by rising sea levels by 2015. Did that happen? NO! They then quite surprisingly predicted the same thing for 2020. Did that happen? Again NO.
At one stage they said all Pacific Islanders would have to move to New Zealand. They said that 1/6 of Bangladesh would be flooded displacing a quarter of its 90 million people. So it went on. They then stated that nations had a ten year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. The world had to solve this “problem” by the year 2000. S
The value of CO2
A carbon dioxide generator used in horticulture. (UniGreeen Technology pic)
The sun’s rays are reflected from the surface of the earth and the greenhouse gases trap many of these reflections so that the earth is kept warm.
So what was the issue here? The UN through the IPCC claimed that humans were increasingly putting carbon dioxide (CO2), into the atmosphere from various sources and that was causing serious global warming and large sea level rises.
I have read reports that stated that CO2 is a poisonous gas and a pollutant. Neither is true. It is a very important gas essential for the survival of humans. It is essentially plant food. If CO2 falls below a certain level all plants die and so do we. Of course plants give us oxygen as a result of taking in CO2 and through the process of photosynthesis.
Some serious research showed that human induced(anthropogenic) global warming was the biggest fraud the earth has ever seen. Here are some facts:
While the IPCC would have people believe that CO2 is the main greenhouse gas it is not. Water vapour is and makes up about 90% of the greenhouse gases. CO2 only makes up about 6% of the greenhouse gases. The problem is you cannot tax water so that is why CO2 was selected. The present concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a bit over 400 parts per million (ppm).
Since the Industrial Revolution some 170 years ago the temperature of the earth has risen about 1 degree Celsius (C). Humans have been responsible for .01 degree C of that.
The current rate of sea level rise is 1.8mm per year. By the year 2100 at this rate the sea will have risen about 5 inches (13-14cm). However, the rate of sea level rise is decreasing, so the rise by 2100 could be much less than 5 inches perhaps only 3 inches. Interestingly that the rate of sea level rise is decreasing but more CO2 is being put into the air.
If we double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature of the earth will only rise about 1 degree C. This has a huge advantage in that the yield from planted crops would increase markedly. This would help feed the growing world population.
An historical CO2– temperature link?
Back in geological time, the concentration of CO2 reached as high as 7000 ppm. When the average temperature of the earth was 12 degrees C as it is now, the concentration of CO2 was 4500 ppm. This occurred in the Ordovician period some 450 million years ago. Long before humans had any influence.
Looking at the geological past it is clear there is no correlation between CO2 levels and the temperature of the earth.
The temperature in the medieval warm period between about 1200AD and 1400AD was 1 degree warmer than it is now. This was long before humans began putting CO2 into the air. Our current warming trend started some 200 years before humans had any significant effect on contribution to the greenhouse gases.
For 33 years from 1944 to 1976 the temperature of the earth was actually falling.
Many thought perhaps this may be the beginning of an ice age, but then there was a slight warming. From 1995 to 2014 there was no change in the temperature of the earth. There was a hiatus. Both of these events happened while CO2 levels in the atmosphere were rising.
This latter event caused the IPCC and other global warming advocates to change the name from global warming to climate change!
(In my second article I will look at how weather patterns have always been variable and how human activity has minimal effect on climate.)
In the spirit of bipartisanship, National has helped the Prime Minister prepare for her post-Cabinet press conference by collating the data she requested on rent increases – although she might want to think carefully before drawing public attention to it, Leader of the Opposition Judith Collins says.
“Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, recent trends in house price growth, rental hikes and wage growth don’t make good reading for her Labour Government.
“Jacinda Ardern has unleashed a raft of changes on rental properties: two extensions to the bright-line test, banning letting fees, and major amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act. All the way through, officials told her that rents would increase but her Government maintained a view that the officials were wrong.
“The Government’s policies have seen weekly rental costs shoot up a massive $120 in just over three years. This is a record increase and a clear sign these policies are failing.
“Rents have increased by 8 per cent per year under Labour, compared to 3 per cent per year under the previous National Government. The median house price has also spiralled out of control on Jacinda Ardern’s watch, jumping 12 per cent per year compared to the 5 per cent per year increase under National.
“Neither of these increases under Labour have been in step with wage growth. The median weekly income increased by 2.7 per cent per year under the previous National Government and has only increased by 2.1 per cent per year under the current Government.
“The sad reality is, renters have been thrown under the bus by this Labour Government.
“As was the case with its changes to rental standards last term, Labour has failed to grasp that forcing more costs onto landlords will ultimately reduce the number of rentals on the market, making renting more unaffordable and exacerbating homelessness.
“This is why Finance Minister Grant Robertson is now on the verge of dictating terms to landlords even further by introducing a cap on how much rent they can charge.
“This policy-on-the-fly approach is eroding the confidence of property investors and, ultimately, discouraging them from building more houses, which is exactly what needs to happen to solve New Zealand’s housing shortage.
“But at least now the Prime Minister will be fully informed when she addresses the media. I hope she has some decent answers for the many New Zealanders who will be worse off because of her Government’s housing policies.”
Zoning is already in place for a primarily residential development via a special Ngarara Zone designation under the KCDC’s Proposed District Plan. This allows for a mixture of low-density lifestyle subdivision, medium to higher density multi-level residential and small commercial centres.
The approximately 98 hectares of freehold land is bordered by Waikanae Golf Course and the Expressway,
According to Stephen Lange of realtor Bayleys, the planning framework for the land now on offer was geared more towards medium to higher density development.
“There are very few areas on the coast that allow for residential development at these densities. But the district has a recognised need for a significant boost in housing supply.”
“The Kapiti District is one of New Zealand’s fastest growing areas, with a population which is projected to swell by some 16,000 people in the next 30 years. An estimated 6,500 new dwellings will be needed to accommodate this growth.”
Mr Lange says around 70 percent of the land being sold had the potential to be built on, with proposed densities across this area ranging from eight to 100 household units per hectare.
Fortunately, it’s not all going to be houses: “A portion of the land for sale contains the nationally-recognised Kawakahia wetland. Protected by QEII covenants, this is a unique natural asset which will complement any development with scenic walkways and boardwalks proposed around the wetlands.”
Sale of the Ngarara landholding will be by way of a tender closing on 28 April, through Bayleys Wellington.
Over the past month, NZ has witnessed the rollout of the new, experimental covid Comirnaty vaccine from Pfizer to border workers, frontline staff and their families.
The government and media report that there has been high uptake from within this industry and there has been no mention of ANY adverse reactions in the news. But this is not what we are hearing behind the scenes from people within the industry.
We have spoken with border workers up and down the nation and they report that many of their colleagues have made the choice to delay or decline this vaccine. In some regions, that number is close to 50%.
We have also heard about vaccine injury.
Jane* has recounted to us the distressing story of her experience with workplace coercion and of suffering an adverse reaction to the vaccine she was administered back at the beginning of March.
Here is her story…
Jane is a healthy young mother of three children. She is the breadwinner for her family and whilst she didn’t actually want to take the COVID-19 vaccine, she was left with little choice – to take the vaccine and keep her job, or decline and be unable to continue in her role within the organisation. Voices for Freedom have confirmed that this same messaging has also been communicated to border workers (in the same role) in another part of the country.
She described the speed with which the rollout took place within her workplace and how she felt ill-informed and rushed into a decision prior to the administration of her vaccine.
She tried to look up information surrounding the potential adverse reactions, as well as other reactions experienced by people in NZ and Australia but came up against brick wall after brick wall; this information, it seems, is not easily accessible to members of the public, especially if you don’t know where to look. All we get are the generalised mild reactions described in the Ministry of Health’s brief, glossy handouts. The SMARS database doesn’t yet appear to have the COVID vaccine option listed in its search criteria either, despite reactions having been lodged with CARM (the Centre for Adverse Reaction Monitoring at Otago University).
When it was Jane’s time to receive the vaccine, she was given the brief “information” pack, asked a couple of questions about previous reactions or allergies, and was required to sign the consent form. This entire process took about 5 minutes. She did not feel informed.
So, what happened to Jane?
Below is an account of the timeline of events that unfolded after Jane received her jab…
The vaccine was given on Tuesday, March 2, 2021.
3 HOURS AFTER THE SHOT Jane became really tired, had blurred reactions, and couldn’t think clearly. She drove home from work and fell asleep.
TUESDAY EVENING TO FRIDAY EVENING Jane still felt weak. She couldn’t form a fist and described having no strength. She was ON FIRE internally with burning pain in her bones and organs.
SATURDAY Jane’s body said “no more” and she needed to rest all day. A sore throat and cough began in the afternoon. She experienced fever and sweats all night long.
SUNDAY Jane couldn’t get up in the morning; her symptoms continued and she STILL had no energy or strength.
BY SUNDAY AFTERNOON She had a mild temperature, body aches, a pounding head, noise and light sensitivity, a tight chest and TROUBLE BREATHING. She called Healthline in the early evening and explained her condition. Healthline advised she be seen immediately and they dispatched an ambulance to take her to the hospital.
When the ambulance arrived one of the ambulance officers was incredibly hostile and told her there’s “No way you’ve had a reaction to the vaccine”. The ambulance officer refused to go inside to help the patient but was reprimanded by their partner and forced to assess Jane whilst wearing full PPE.
There were discussions and phone calls within the system to decide which hospital they could take her to.
Once in the ED, the Medical Officer of Health called and spoke with Jane on the phone. He told her that he was “So sorry this has happened” to her. He also spoke with Jane’s mother and placed both houses on their property into lockdown. This interaction is in Jane’s discharge notes.
MONDAY
Jane was still experiencing body sweats, noise and light sensitivity, her organs continued to feel like they were on fire and she had a headache that made any movements difficult. She begged the doctors for pain relief. She was given medication and discharged from the hospital to recover at home.
I attended the meeting that morning. I wish to remain anonymous and cannot speak out on social media for fear of being attacked [a lot of folks know that feeling —Eds].
Here follows what I witnessed by a young man who was part of the local iwi against a woman sitting in the back row.
The lady and her husband where sitting in the back row and the man was sitting directly in front of the lady. When he stood up to Haka, he shoved his chair hard against the lady’s legs using the back of his legs. She tried to push the chair off her legs but the man continued to force the chair against her legs. Their chairs were against the wall and there was no room to escape. The man continued to Haka and took over more space as he became more vigorous in his movements. I could see by the look on the lady’s face that she was being hurt.
There was a struggle for some time with the chair, between the woman and husband in the back row and the lady that was standing next to the man doing the Haka. She must have been the teacher that was mentioned in the Stuff report. The lady’s husband managed to pick the chair up and placed it on a vacant chair in front of him. It’s possible that when he picked the chair up and while he was trying to put it down, he may have accidentally knocked it against this person. I did not see that. But no chair was thrown at a student. The lady would have bruising on her legs because of the force used. The man was tall and stocky and was wearing a white shirt. It was his chair that was involved in the incident.
There were elderly people sitting on either side of the couple in the back row and also next to this man, who could easily have been hurt also. One man was in his late eighties and looked quite frail. I felt quite scared and I was worried that the situation would escalate. There were other people who witnessed this.
I heard the lady next to me say ‘why are they speaking in Maori’ to which I replied ‘Maori is an official language of NZ and Maori are allowed to speak their own language’. I did hear ‘casual racism’ from people who should know better. It’s complete ignorance and unfortunately common with some baby boomers. I did not hear the monkey comment and if I had, I would have spoken out. Since I read the Stuff article and the reported racism, I had wondered whether this incident was in retaliation, hence my subject line two wrongs don’t make a right.
The students mentioned in the Stuff article conducted themselves really well, so they should be really proud of themselves. I hope the students heard me remonstrate with the lady sitting next to me.
Learnings — I think that the four rows of chairs were placed way to close to each other. I think council need to come up with protocols around haka being performed in the chamber, i.e. for the performers to come to the front of the public gallery to perform it. The behaviour of afew people in that meeting was pretty poor, but the majority were just ‘jo averages.’
