Read more (note there are 1,363 pages of death details)

by Roger Dewhurst

I listened to Q + A (TVNZ) this morning with steadily increasing anger.  I heard nothing but bleating, platitudes and an utter refusal to consider cause and effect.  The panel was supposed to consist of professionals.  If these people represent our “professionals”, God help us. 

House prices have gone through the roof because demand exceeds supply and because councils are slow in their decision making and charge exorbitantly for their largely irrelevant paper shuffling.  If central government balanced population against available housing it would go part way to solving the problem.  If councils had a strictly limited time to process applications with a strictly limited fee, most of the rest of the problem would be solved. 

Pegging council staff numbers and salaries would help too.  Senior staff could be required to tender, publicly, for their jobs every three years.  CEOs currently paid more than the Prime Minister would soon figure out that tenders of much over $250,000 would see them lose out on their cushy jobs.

These “experts” or “professionals” fail to recognise that our average standard of living is proportional to the value of useful saleable product divided by the total population.  Quite obviously, but unnoticed by the supposed “experts” the gross useful saleable product is related to the number of people producing it.  Paper shuffling bureaucrats in both central and local government make no contribution.  When their numbers are increasing, as they currently are, the working population is effectively decreased by the same number.   The solution is obvious, savagely lower the ceiling on the number of bureaucrats and their salaries.

A photo from August 2011 by Karl Webber.

by Ian Davey

The absolute audacity of the Labour Government to railroad the “Three Waters Reforms” (Water, Waste Water and Sewerage) through without proper consultation beggars belief!

The proposal is to cut the 77 councils to only four and remove our assets without due consultation or compensation. Quote – “Progressing the Three Waters Service Delivery Reforms – 49.1 remove obstacles in local government legislation that prohibit councils from divesting ownership of, or control over, water infrastructure assets and services.” 14 December 2020 Cabinet Paper, CAB-20-Min-0521.01 Minute.

The only reason for this dramatic upheaval is that over the next 30 years, they say it will become too expensive for Ratepayers to maintain the infrastructure.

The answer is in our NZ History by using Reserve Bank Credit as we did from 1936 till 1989. Irrefutable evidence from the RBNZ Bulletin March 2008 and Royal Commission on Banking NZ, 1956 page 24 showing that only 3 % of Government expenditure came from the private banking system for War purposes, which is proof that the answer is in NZ History. Today because we borrow every dollar as Debt with compounding Interest from the private banks, we cannot even afford to maintain them!

---

Note the intention is take all the local council-owned infrastructure for the three water forms off councils with control to be vested in 4 centralised bureaucracies run by central government appointees (almost certainly on a racial basis), but not to merge all the councils into 4. —Eds

by John Robinson

The Kapiti Coast District Council is carrying out a Representation Review, as is required by law each six years.  This has been proceeded by the Long Term Plan.  A draft report was presented to the Council meeting on 26 August (this article is written on 28 August), and much of the information here is from that report.  Council will have determined the initial proposal for community consultation on 26 August and will seek community comment very shortly after (1 September to 4 October; not much time to prepare a submission), will have a hearing of submissions on 19 October, and will make a final consideration on 26 October. The Cv restrictions in that time may mean it will need to be done online.

Kapiti is currently effectively co-governed through a partnership between the Council and some 4% of the population, members of three Waitangi Tribunal selected iwi.  This is (more or less, see below) within New Zealand law; information that I have received from Council makes this clear.

“In 1994 the Kāpiti Coast District Council (the Council) entered into a Memorandum of Partnership with Te Āti Awa, Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga and Ngāti Toa Rangatira, the tangata whenua of the Kāpiti Coast District. 

“The Memorandum of Partnership (the Partnership) recognises the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and its principles and is where the Council formally recognises Te Āti Awa, Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga and Ngāti Toa Rangatira as the tangata whenua of the Kāpiti Coast. 

“The Memorandum of Partnership is also the foundation from which the Council gives effect to our legislative obligations to Māori under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), and Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) including (but not limited to): 

• The requirements for the Council to provide for Māori participation in decision-making; 

• To ensure processes are in place for consulting with Māori; and 

• The exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Māori, in exercising its functions and powers under the RMA.”

The reference here, as in national legislation, is to tangata whenua.  There are in fact no tangata whenua in Kapiti; the favoured tribes are correctly referred to elsewhere by Council as mana whenua, which is quite different as they were recent immigrants in 1840.  Thus, if the law were correctly administered, those regulations would have no relevance to Kapiti.  But this is New Zealand, where laws are carelessly written and thoughtlessly acted upon, where words are often undefined or taken to mean whatever an occasion demands.

The decision to take that action, with a fundamental alteration in the governing structure of the District, was not put in a poll before the ratepayers.  It has considerable weight, and the representatives of these three iwi play an important part in reaching decisions within Council.

This division into two — unequal — peoples is made abundantly clear in the intentions and in the presentation of the recent Long Term Plan.  It was emphasised dramatically in the two-page spread in both the Kapiti News and the Kapiti Observer.  Equal prominence is given to the message from the Mayor (right-hand page) and the message from the three recognised iwi, the Mana Whenua (left-hand page), who spoke authoritatively about their intentions.

The Representation Review accepts this arrangement without question; it has been decided and the public are not asked their opinion.  The key role of these iwi in reaching major decisions is clear.

“While Council’s representation arrangements haven’t changed much over the past 20 years, our communities and their needs and expectations have changed significantly.  This representation review comes at a time of significant change for both local government and our district.  Local government is being asked to be agile, to remove barriers, to better reflect Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and to know and understand our communities better.  We’re seeing moves towards co-governance with mana whenua.”

“On 29 October 2020 Council resolved not to establish a Māori ward for electoral purposes.  This decision was based on the recommendation of Council’s three iwi partners, Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust, Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki and Ngāti Toa Rangatira, who did not support the consideration of a Māori ward for Kāpiti at this time. …On 1 March 2021 the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act (Amendment Act) came into force introducing changes to the treatment of Māori wards and constituencies.  Council consulted with each of its iwi partners on the implications of the Amendment Act which provided local authorities with a fresh opportunity to consider whether to establish a Māori ward.  Council’s iwi partners confirmed that while Māori ward representation on Council was important to them, their current priority was to strengthen their existing partnership with Council.”

The reason for that is obvious: at the present these iwi, less than 30% of Maori in the district, have considerable effective power, in addition to the same voting rights as all other citizens.  With wards, they would share that influence with other Maori, and would have just the one means of influence and power, of the vote.  Council has accepted their wish to conserve unequal effective representation – acceding to their demand.

Throughout this process there is no questioning of the continuation of this ‘partnership’, between our elected representatives and the chosen iwi, and no opportunity for consideration of that decision by the general public.  This review considers the choice of representation in the one partner of the dual government structure for the general public; the working of the other partner making decisions for our district is held to be none of our business.

Who are these iwi, and why should they have this special privilege?

The chosen iwi, the ‘mana whenua’, are not all the Maori in the district.  It is the people of three iwi, Ngati Toa, Te Atiawa and Ngati Raukawa, who are less than 30% of the 14% who are Maori (Council figures) – less than 4.2% of the Kapiti population.  Their position is not earned, it is inherited from ancestors two centuries ago (by race; as Maori they are, in legislation, members of the Maori race).

The ancestors of Ngati Toa, Te Atiawa and Raukawa lived elsewhere, to the north, before 1820; they were not the long-term inhabitants of Kapiti.  Any reference to these iwi as ‘tangata whenua’, as in the above quotes, is incorrect.

First, in 1819-1820, there came a taua, a band of savage warriors, when Ngati Toa joined with Ngapuhi from the north to ravage the district.  They saw that there was good land here with weakened tribes ripe for conquest.

During the first decades of the nineteenth century, Ngati Toa and Te Atiawa had been under constant murderous attack from enemy tribes (such as Waikato and Ngati Maniapoto), and they decided to move away, to find a new home and to themselves attack, kill and drive off those then living here in Kapiti.  In 1821-1822 a migration of Ngati Toa, with many of their allies, Te Atiawa, Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama, came to drive out those living in Kapiti in bloody battle and to take the land.  The treachery of the large Muaupoko tribe at Horowhenua, when they greeted the newcomers in apparent friendship before attacking and killing many, resulted in the unrelenting hatred of Te Rauparaha, and subsequently Muaupoko were almost completely wiped out.

There were struggles for the land.  At Paekakariki, in 1823, Ngati Toa were attacked by Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Ira from Wellington and suffered heavy losses.  

Ngati Toa had been weakened as many of their principal allies in Ngati Tama and Te Atiawa had left to return to their previous homes in Taranaki.  They needed a safe refuge, which they found on Kapiti Island.  In 1824 they were attacked there by a great, combined taua of their foes – a wide range of iwi had cause to seek utu from Ngati Toa.  The fleet of the attacking taua had such a great number that the war canoes were almost continuous across the five kilometres from the mainland to the island.  But Ngati Toa prevailed and the attack failed.

Warfare was widespread across the country, and many Ngati Raukawa and Te Atiawa came in great treks to find sanctuary with Ngati Toa in Kapiti.  In 1828, with the strengthened forces and a large stock of firearms, and using the many canoes captured from the 1824 attackers, a fleet of war canoes crossed Cook Strait to Queen Charlotte Sound with a taua of 340 picked warriors from Ngati Toa, Te Atiawa, Ngati Tama, and Ngati Raukawa.  Further murderous raids to the south followed, as in 1831.

In 1830, Te Atiawa, Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga had sent a taua to attack Ngati Kahungunu, after which a truce of sorts had been arranged.  Later, in 1832, Ngati Kahungunu were invited to a feast at Waikanae, where they were treacherously attacked and killed by their Te Atiawa hosts.

In the early 1830s, the land on Kapiti Island and along the coast was overpopulated, crowded by many tribes, and the resources were severely strained.  With the increased population, relations among the several tribes in Kapiti started to fray, and, under the habits of tikanga, the resulting conflict resolution was by war.  In 1834, a conflict broke out between Te Atiawa and Ngati Raukawa.  When fighting spread, Ngati Raukawa made a call for help to Te Heuheu of Ngāti Tuwharetoa and Te Wherowhero of Waikato, and a combined force came to the aid of the besieged Ngati Raukawa.  After further fighting, negotiations led to a formal agreement and there was an uneasy peace; but the coalition was shattered.

More conflict in Kapiti followed in 1839.  When there was dispute, some Ngati Raukawa were keen to even up old scores dating back to the 1834 combat and there was bitter fighting in Waikanae.  Estimates of the casualties differ: between seventy and two hundred Ngati Raukawa and between twenty and thirty-six Te Atiawa and Taranaki died in that fight.  

The coming of these people to Kapiti brought two decades of violence.  Peace came only in 1840 with the acceptance of the national, colonial government, leaving those last comers in possession of the lands that they had taken.

This is not a history to be proud of; there is nothing here, no action taken by these iwi that we can celebrate or should reward.  There is only a memory of bloodshed, misery and disruption.

Meaningful representation is when we all have equal rights, and each of us has one vote, all of equal value.  The Council thus chosen should itself make decisions; that is their duty and the task that they have put themselves forward to carry out, based on the needs and wishes of all citizens without discrimination and favour to any one group.  Special rights, as exist in Kapiti today, undermine democracy and deny equal representation.

Council should put an end to this unwanted discrimination, and revoke all decisions setting up division and partnership.  Members of the three iwi referred to as ‘mana whenua’ (and, wrongly, in some cases, as ‘tangata whenua’) should take their place in a unified community as citizens, equal with us all. 

Statement of Margaret Stevenson-Wright (Waikanae Community Board) to the Agenda Item 8.1 of the Council Meeting for 26 August 2021

I speak in support of the retention of all Community Boards.

The Representation Review preferred option put forward is based on a set of principles, formulated by external advice and engagement with 0.3 of 1% of Kapiti electors.

Some principles are strong, others are weak.

The geographic community distinction is strong with conformity to catchments and Statistics NZ meshblocks being identified as such in Schedule 3 of the LGA 2002.  The Waikanae community identifies strongly with the river, from the beach to the peak of Kapakapanui.  A parallel applies to Otaki from the beach to the Tararuas.

Many of the other principles are weak with debatable perceptions and not forceful argument for removal of Community Boards.

A professional development workshop delivered (to elected members) by Steve McDowell in October 2019 spoke to the importance of community intelligence as a key tool for elected members.  He described community intelligence as the ability of an elected member to understand their community’s interests, needs, expectations, issues in contention and wishes, and apply that knowledge to decision making processes.

Graeme Trask (an articulate Kapiti resident) has reinforced these points within his letter to Councillor Prvanov and his follow up comments on Waikanae Neighbourly.

In Dr Mike Reid’s (LGNZ) words ‘community boards are one of the ways in which Councils keep in touch with the flax roots, a role that has increased in importance as local authorities have become larger and communities more diverse.’

‘With many councils undertaking representation reviews at the moment the future of community boards is becoming more and more topical, with boards in many districts and cities having to make the case for their continued existence.  Indeed, some councils are even suggesting that impending local reform will make community boards irrelevant.  Yet quite the opposite is true.  We don’t need less local democracy; we actually need a lot more.’

Dr Reid’s view holds true within the context of Kapiti and Council predicted growth.

The roles of elected members of Community Boards, councillors, and appointed staff are not in competition but are complementary.  

Members of all Community Boards contribute to the rigor of decision making by councillors and appointed staff and in doing so they add rigor to the decision-making process.  Community Boards are a key part of the much needed ‘checks and balances’ within the system of Local Government.  

Community intelligence can be achieved through organised consultation, or as I have found it often finds you through contact made by members of the Community.

Multiple examples come to mind that have been the catalyst for discussion with appointed staff where prompt resolution followed.  Not all issues raised can be readily resolved and neither are all issues raised through face-to-face interaction.

Suggestion has been made that current Community Boards are not adding to effective representation of communities of interest.

In my view, each of the towns on the Kapiti Coast has unique characteristics, needs and potential issues.  The proposed reduction in Community Boards would effectively pit towns against each other rather than see the individual and collective characteristics of these towns fulfil the aims of Council’s active destination marketing.

The relationship between councillors, appointed staff and Community Board members is clearly important in the injection of community interest into discussion around efficiency and effectiveness objectives. 

In summary I speak for the retention of all Community Boards and I urge all boards to take the advice of Mayor Gurunathan in terms of how localism can be further enhanced through the identification of further delegations that Community Boards can and should achieve.

I urge all communities to provide a strong voice for the retention of all community boards.

As to where from here: 

• Public Submissions: 1 September – 4 October
• Public Submissions: Hearing 19 October
• Public Update: 26 October
• Final Proposal for Approval – Council Meeting: 11 November
• One month for Appeals/Objections (to the Local Government Commission)

Covid is a new, different world, and we need to get out there and live in it. We can’t stay in the cave, and we can get out of it safely. –Scott Morrison on the “elimination strategy”.

Aussie–Kiwi sparing

By Roger Childs

Over the last few years a lot of folks have enjoyed scoffing at Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. He often makes himself an easy target such as when he went holidaying in Hawaii while forest fires were raging back home. Comparisons with Nero were too good for cartoonists to miss. He also made a complete idiot of himself getting the media to film his jiving antics at the local evangelical church, akin to Judith Collins’s pathetic election stunt last year of kneeling in prayer with dubious sincerity at her church.

Scotty from Marketing is quick to seize opportunities to criticize New Zealand in that typically brash Australian way, but occasionally gets it right in the trans-Tasman rivalry. Jacinda was desperately wanting New Zealand to do better than Australia in lockdown success last year. However, as Aussie authorities observed in May 2020, on a per capita basis their country had fewer cases and deaths from Covid-19. Things have changed since then, of course.

Many Kiwis have been rather smug in observing the Delta strain cases soar in New South Wales, but now we face the same. We have, of course, blamed Australia for the unwanted export.

Get out of the cave?

Scott Morrison’s comments about getting out of the cave and living in a “covid world” have annoyed the premier of Western Australia and New Zealand authorities. But whatever the ultimate government strategy for dealing with the delta strain, in the end, lockdowns can’t continue indefinitely because of the dire economic consequences.

Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, commented recently: “If we continue with the policy of lockdowns and economically destructive restrictions, we will simply collapse economically.“

This equally applies to New Zealand. We can seal the borders to try and keep covid out for a short time, but we can’t do that forever.  The Delta strain sneaked through recently as we know, and will probably do so again. Last year’s five week Lockdown was economically and socially damaging — the extent of the economic damage depending on the industry — with a massive decline in growth and a significant rise in unemployment. Millions of dollars went out to shore up the incomes of workers, and selected businesses, but that was very costly. We are fortunate that our economy is largely based on the primary sector and that is a key reason why we didn’t have a total collapse and ultimately had a better than expected economic recovery.

So what should we do?

Living in a covid world

A big question is whether the Delta strain is really as “dangerous” as some health “experts” would have us believe. So far in the current outbreak in New Zealand with 345+ cases no-one has died.  There have been a few deaths in New South Wales and Victoria, but well below 1% of all cases.

In New Zealand every year about 500 people die of influenza and the government in the last hundred years has never dived for the panic button of lockdowns when an outbreak has occurred.

It is desirable to try to keep Delta under control and to get people’s immune systems boosted — and yes — including having as many people as possible vaccinated who want to be vaccinated.

But the vaccine is not a panacea: the evidence from overseas is that vaccinated people can still catch the virus, although it is often quite mild and rarely fatal.

New Zealand should keep vaccinating, but move out of lockdown. In the present situation, as everyone knows, the cabinet has decided to ring-fence Auckland and Northland which have had over 95% of the cases in the current outbreak. The rest of the country will go to alert Level 3 in the middle of next week. It makes sense to continue lockdown up north as long as cases continue to rise in many places, but once they start coming down, north of the Bombay Hills should at least drop to Level 3 and allow butchers and bakers to open. Cafés should also be able to do business selling food and beverages without customers sitting down.

The rest of the country where there has been no Delta cases so far apart from a handful in Wellington, should go below Level 3 quickly after next week to allow the economy to operate normally again and have access to Auckland. Until it is felt safe to open Auckland up completely, we should continue to do the QR scanning, socially distance and observe good hygiene practices.

As has happened in many countries in the northern hemisphere, there must be recognition that covid is and will be an on-going reality with an acceptance that it can be lived with while taking sensible precautions. Our government will have to accept that elimination will probably not work this time, or ever again. We have to come out of the cave some time soon.

Fundamentally, the country needs to accept that like poor people, covid and the flu will always be with us. Basic common sense which we have long practised on health issues should be our guide, and the government should never again rush to the Lockdown reaction.

from theSun.co.uk —

Question: Who paid the largest criminal fine in history?

Pharmaceuticals — up to $US 3 billion (£2 billion)

Big pharma companies have had their fair share of expensive fines, mainly for advertising the use of drugs for purposes not approved by government, called ‘off-label marketing’.

In 2012, GlaxoKlineSmith paid £782 million in criminal damages for failure to disclose safety data and off-label marketing and £1.45 billion in civil charges.

The case covered a variety of miss-marketed drugs including antidiabetic, Avandia.

Pfizer

In 2009 the company paid a $2.3 billion fine for false claims in one of the biggest fraud settlements in US history.

Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to a U.S. criminal charge relating to promotion of its now-withdrawn Bextra pain medicine.

The world’s biggest drugmaker was slapped with huge fines by the U.S. government after being deemed a repeat offender in pitching drugs to patients and doctors for unapproved uses.

Pfizer’s marketing team promoted Bextra for acute pain, surgical pain and other unapproved uses, while its salesforce promoted the drug directly to doctors for those unapproved uses and dosages, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

In 2013 Johnson & Johnson paid $1.4 billion for the same offence.

Full article