Chris Carter and the environmental court

[heavenly.talker]

Chris Carter’s overturning of the environment court’s ruling makes a mockery of the judicial system. It also interferes with the principle of judiciary independence and the supposed separation of powers (one of the first topics taught in law 101).

With one over-reaching use of his stamp, Carter has provided further disincentives to forward thinking organisations from applying for due consideration in an already mired and confusing area of the law. It has also undermined decisions made and being made in the environmental court.

My concern is for the people that have spent 14 years of following process and millions of dollars to reach a positive, go ahead, verdict from the environmental court. Can they apply for their money back now that Carter has decided not to trust nor heed the decision demanded from their own appointments…the application of the law (devised by the legislature/executive themselves) after due and unbiased interpretation of the law and consideration of the facts? Damages for wasting their time and resources might be an excellent place to start!

A judiciary review is unlikely to clip his wings and means more investment of time and money into a project that has already cost many areas of the community (not just the developers) money.

BAH!!! New Zealand, what on earth is happening to the country I love? More and more, it appears as though people trying to make a difference, generate income for a better economy, and for their families, are brushed aside/off for the benefit of people who are content to coast (or maybe that should be surf or gather) from the system!

Give me a country where the knowledge wave and increased GDP is more than a theoretical proposition and the government is encouraging business and the people it involves, to make it a practical applied vision.

:bash: :bash: :nono:

[Finn]

Yip it sucks big time. But what do you expect from a left wing homo?

It's because of bullshit like this I gave up taking NZ seriously years ago.

[Colapop]

The RMA is bad enough - what's the point in constructive development if the decision comes down to a politition who has no vested interest other than pandering to the Green party who have proven to be a spent force in recent times (at least since the other parties haved actually got green policies now)

Project Aqua, the 400kV Natonal Grid upgrade, various developments around the country, we have an overly bureaucratic minefield instead of a workable usable set of laws that allow for improvements. Instead of pandering to every tree hugging, namby pamby, pinko communist, N.I.M.B.Y left whinger out there why don't we have a set of laws "by the people, for the people"?

[crashe]

Hey guys can we keep his sexuality out of it...
What he has done has nothing to with his sexuality...


What I am interested in, is reading more stuff about the reason why he has done this and why the people are up in arms over it..
So can we stick to actual facts....

heavenly.talker - Thanks for your imput by starting the thread off...

I did watch some of it on Close up on TV1 at 7pm.

[heavenly.talker]

My understanding of what has happened this time is that Chris Carter went and talked to iwi and surfers after the enironment court had already addressed their concerns.

He was unduly swayed by the emotive requests (even the courts addressed them) and decided to veto the project!

Big step!!!!

[HenryDorsetCase]

Chris Carter’s overturning of the environment court’s ruling makes a mockery of the judicial system. It also interferes with the principle of judiciary independence and the supposed separation of powers (one of the first topics taught in law 101).

<snip>



I'd like to know whats got you in a tizz. Linkage please.

also (and no offence) its Environment Court (not environmental), and its judicial independence not judiciary.

and I do hope you got off your bike to the same extent when this crypto-fascist cabal did the same thing that you appear to be decrying last year, i.e. Foreshore and Seabed Act. That was a clear case of political expediency over ruling judicial process. Or didnt it matter because the only ones bleating were the "Bloody maoris" ?

no, Im not trying to start a flame war.

[Timber020]

One of the problems with the resource consent process is that those who have the best lawyers generally win. Locals can be easily screwed over by the developers just because he has more $ invested in it and they better organised.

Ive seen alot of people screwed over by this process, good to see that theres an out when the court sucks.

[HenryDorsetCase]

One of the problems with the resource consent process is that those who have the best lawyers generally win. Locals can be easily screwed over by the developers just because he has more $ invested in it and they better organised.

Ive seen alot of people screwed over by this process, good to see that theres an out when the court sucks.

a cynic might add to that "if its a marginal electorate full of hippies who can be dissuaded from voting Green or Maori in the next election"

[idb]

and I do hope you got off your bike to the same extent when this crypto-fascist cabal did the same thing that you appear to be decrying last year, i.e. Foreshore and Seabed Act. That was a clear case of political expediency over ruling judicial process. Or didnt it matter because the only ones bleating were the "Bloody maoris" ?

Maybe she hadn't quite finished Law 101 by then.

Of course the Foreshore and Seabed Act are crap, all law abiding citizens should be hugely concerned about these sorts of actions by the gummint.

It's populist politics is all, one is the bloody maoris and the other is the bloody rich.
That's what you get with a centrist government - they have to pander to the left and the right.....................or is it just that all of the politicians have beachfront cribs hmmmmmm?

[miSTa]

Yet another example of only in New Zealand - some also ran politician knows better than the experts. :wacko:

[heavenly.talker]

I'd like to know whats got you in a tizz. Linkage please.

also (and no offence) its Environment Court (not environmental), and its judicial independence not judiciary.

and I do hope you got off your bike to the same extent when this crypto-fascist cabal did the same thing that you appear to be decrying last year, i.e. Foreshore and Seabed Act. That was a clear case of political expediency over ruling judicial process. Or didnt it matter because the only ones bleating were the "Bloody maoris" ?

no, Im not trying to start a flame war.

Thanks for the corrections, my grammar needs work so I am happy to learn from others :yes: No offence taken.

The Foreshore and Seabed Act is another example of government superceeding the judicial process. This is a worrying trend in New Zealand!

I'm not quite sure what you mean by linkage however the key idea of this post was to express my frustration and concern about government increasing interference in judicial independence.

I now ask you for your opinions on the subject...add to the debate rather than detract from an honest attempt to stimulate a post on current events:yes:

[HenryDorsetCase]

I had no idea what you were on about so I had a look at the stuff site here's (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3596035a10,00.html) the link for anyone wanting to read the story.

I dont do TV "news", its shit. Except for Toni doing the weather, I just dont participate in it. I tape Gilmore Girls and watch that instead. (serious.)

I dont have an opinion yet on the story, I havent thought about it enough.

First I have to find out where Whanga mata is.

[heavenly.talker]

HenryDorestCase...

I look forward to your comments when you are ready :-)

Thanks for the honest post

Cheers
Kim

[Ixion]

Well of course, I have the answer. Seriously.

[HenryDorsetCase]

HenryDorestCase...

I look forward to your comments when you are ready :-)

Thanks for the honest post

Cheers
Kim

I just read your sig. Its bloody funny!

[miSTa]

Except for Toni doing the weather

:Offtopic: Sorry, but I'd like Tony to be doing more than the weather :whistle:

[Finn]

That's what you get with a centrist government

They only want you to think labour is a centrist government when in fact they lean far too much to the left. This stuff used to really piss me off. Now I just laugh at.

All this is doing is driving the message that you shouldn't try and do ANYTHING in this country as some needle dick homo or minority group will fuck it up for you. It's no wonder NZ's best have left the country.

[heavenly.talker]

They only want you to think labour is a centrist government when in fact they lean far too much to the left. This stuff used to really piss me off. Now I just laugh at.

All this is doing is driving the message that you shouldn't try and do ANYTHING in this country as some needle dick homo or minority group will fuck it up for you. It's no wonder NZ's best have left the country.


Finn I like your style...i'd send a green jewel your way but have given out too much in the last 24 yadi yadi yada.

[CLEAN CUT]

Hey guys can we keep his sexuality out of it...
What he has done has nothing to with his sexuality...


What I am interested in, is reading more stuff about the reason why he has done this and why the people are up in arms over it..
So can we stick to actual facts....

heavenly.talker - Thanks for your imput by starting the thread off...

I did watch some of it on Close up on TV1 at 7pm.


Yes, but he ( it ) also belongs to the ''band of liars'' If he was a school teacher he'd be getting his kicks going into the boys shower room. All the perverts congregrate mostly in the left wing parties.

[oldrider]

The government you voted for has spoken.:brick:

Good bye freedom, inch by inch we are loosing it.:yes:

Less government in our lives "PLEASE"!:mad: John.

[Timber020]

I have the misfortune of working alot with developers, most are scum that stretch every law until it gets to expensive to pay the fines. The guy who chainsawed the listed pohutukawa in auckland is typical of his trade.

A few years ago a developer got resource consent to put in 10 houses on a very large peice of land, including moving earth to make it suitable for puting the houses on. Instead the developer dug up the whole site (I believe it was for chalk or some mineral.)
Caused massive erosion, wrecked and silted up local streams, roads where wrecked by heavy earth moving machines, whole area became a dustbowl. No houses were put in, site was left as a bombsite. Developer just washed his hands of the whole thing, he hadnt broken any laws.

Yeah its such a pity we let new zealanders have a say in what happens to the nation around them. Since its such a problem, you should go to china where people get no say in what happens. Care for a river of poison running through your place?

[Velox]

Just a quick thought - talking about Chris Carter as the 'one-man force that undermines the whole resource consent / env court process' isn't quite right - it is a whole govt dpmnt behind him, he's just a their 'spokesman'. It's not like he hates wharfies and finally just thought 'ah stuff it, I'll show them'.

Btw - totally agree Timber.

[CLEAN CUT]

Just a quick thought - talking about Chris Carter as the 'one-man force that undermines the whole resource consent / env court process' isn't quite right - it is a whole govt dpmnt behind him, he's just a their 'spokesman'. It's not like he hates wharfies and finally just thought 'ah stuff it, I'll show them'.

Btw - totally agree Timber.
Chris Carter undoubtedly likes having men behind him, just like Elton. He should be burnt at the stake with all the other scumbags collectively known as the Labour party. Also known as the biggest jerks in history.

[SPman]

What a load of old shite, some people spout on here! Although I beleive in personal freedoms, with it, comes personal and community responsibility and unfortunately, when it comes to a LOT of developers, they lack it in droves.The recent case of the guy getting done for the tree - the guy is a manipulating arsehole who has a long history of doing this and then buying his way out of it.....agree with Timber on this.

Im not overly familiar with the Whangamata case, but, knowing several long term inhabitats of Whangamata - who are NOT surfies, lefties, tree huggers - your standard working class people, they were getting really pissed off with big money development fucking up the countryside and estuary for the benefit of wealthy outsiders, destroying many of the reasons most of them moved there in the first place. Turning every idylic spot, into a sanitised replica of what developers think people want - marinas and gated compounds, for more of their own and thinking the locals should be grateful for their"developments"

I dont agree with a minister interferring in the judicial process, but, it isnt the first time (its happened under National as well), and it wont be the last.........

[heavenly.talker]

I just read your sig. Its bloody funny!


thanks...I thought so! :yeah: :yeah:

[heavenly.talker]

The government you voted for has spoken.:brick:

Good bye freedom, inch by inch we are loosing it.:yes:

Less government in our lives "PLEASE"!:mad: John.


I didn't get the government I voted for :angry2: :sweatdrop

[HenryDorsetCase]

Ive had a think. Also had a look at scoop and re-read the stuff story. This isnt an area I practise in, so my opinion is that of a layman.

{now i start rantin... ;) }

Heres the thing: I think Chris Carter just did what we pay him the big bucks to do.

It seems that the situation was that a developer wanted to put a "development" into this area. That persons motivation can only be profit. (Otherwise, why do it...?) Fine, the law allows for development and even provides a process. That process allows competing views to be heard. It appears that the resource consent process took place, and that the developer was successful in obtaining most of what they needed (presumably stuff like land use consents for excavation and drainage, stormwater management, yada yada.) The developer also needed separate consents from the Minister of Conservation to use part of the seabed that is owned by all NZ'ers. After (presumably) looking at the various options, the Minister, using the discretion afforded in the relevant legislation, made the call. And the call was "No". My personal view is that is probably a good thing. Think of all the flash fuckers driving their SUV's down there and over running the local pubs and eateries and driving the property prices up. soon you wouldnt be able to buy any beer at the bottlestore its all chardonnay and white shoes as far as the eye can see. Think Ponsonby luvvies with jaunty nautical caps .... shudder....

{I am ranting a bit, but hey, its the interweb, and its late.... }

So, in this circumstance I believe that the people of NZ, as represented by the Minister, made the call. I probably agree with him, but that isnt important.

it also doesnt look like a situation where due process, or the role of the Courts have in fact been usurped at all. And remember that the Ministers discretion might be open to judicial review.

Aspects of the process might not appeal to everyone, but it does seem as if the presently applicable process was followed.

Sure, lots of you dont agree with the outcome, Thats fine. You (and I) both get a chance to express our view in 2008.

I do know someone who works in the biggest most badass law firm in NZ, doing RM law. I might email him for the inside skinny (if its available...).

there ya go, thats my 2c

[Ixion]

I didn't get the government I voted for :angry2: :sweatdrop

Nor did I. Had I, such issues as Whangamata marinas would not be issues. Irrelevant in fact. Marina relies of capitalist developers exploiting the common estate for personal profit. My government, no developers. And if there were, no capitalist bourgeois to "buy" from them (ie disposses the proletariate of their common inheritance, the land).

All these solutions for just a few votes and the price of a case or two of bullets.

[oldrider]

All these solutions for just a few votes and the price of a case or two of bullets.
They had plenty of bullets in China and USSR but it still didn't work for them, even held together with a gun.

Freedom and enterprise seems to be winning but is that good? I'm still not sure!

The pendulum swings back and forth back and forth.:spudwhat: Who benefits? :shit: John.

[Finn]

I have the misfortune of working alot with developers, most are scum that stretch every law until it gets to expensive to pay the fines. The guy who chainsawed the listed pohutukawa in auckland is typical of his trade.


Developers are just playing the game and are trying to make a buck which of course you can't make money in NZ without upseting alot of the poor, non contributing people. Sure some of them are scum and the auck developer you're talking about has had a few run ins. However, I would tend to back him on this recent case. He owned that land and it was his pohutukawa tree. End of story. How about a compromise? Yeah sure cut it down but plant 10 or so trees somewhere else. He got fined $50k and some other shit. How about that fucking white maori that cut down the pohutukawa on One Tree Hill and got a slap on the wrist?

Sure we've got to have some balance but this is going over the top especially given the pohutukawa tree isn't even a native NZ tree.

[Finn]

Nor did I. Had I, such issues as Whangamata marinas would not be issues. Irrelevant in fact. Marina relies of capitalist developers exploiting the common estate for personal profit. My government, no developers. And if there were, no capitalist bourgeois to "buy" from them (ie disposses the proletariate of their common inheritance, the land).

All these solutions for just a few votes and the price of a case or two of bullets.

You're starting to scare me Ixion. China's a nice place and I reckon you'd be happy there at least for another 5 - 10 years before the west sorts them out.

[limbimtimwim]

heavenly.talker,

What Mr Carter really wanted to say to the court was 'Your decision was ass'. But it would be out of line to say so, I'm sure he would have cited Section 6 ('Matters of national importance') that essentially says "Those who have powers under this act can't mess up the coastline" That means you Judge type people. That is if he had wanted to put noses out of joint. But instead he appears to cite Section 28 allows the minister of conservation to make decisions effecting the coastline. Since he has powers under this act, he can stop the messing up of the coastline!

You complain about him stepping outside of the powers he has been assigned, but he has been quite clearly assigned them, and is compelled by the letter of the law, under section 6, to use them.

Your issue is not with Carter, but the law itself. Don't like it.. Vote harder or something.. Start a political party called 'The down with the RMA party' and propose something you find palatable.

And others: And where does this whining about the 'Lefties' RMA come from? NATIONAL was in power when the RMA was introduced. I am not going to bother reading all the amendments made since 1991, but neither section 6 or 28 have been amended, which is where all the power he needs can come from.

[limbimtimwim]

especially given the pohutukawa tree isn't even a native NZ tree.Err.. What?

Perhaps it is not 'endemic' (Perhaps it grows on other pacific islands?) but it is for sure 'native'.

[Swoop]

We are a democracy not a Dictatorship.

Are you living in New Zealand?

This is a Tui billboard slogan isn't it???:msn-wink:

[Lou Girardin]

Carters sexuality is relevant to the degree that he's Labours token queer Minister. He's shown no regard for traditional users of a resource unless they're Maori. Witness the proliferation of marine reserves.
He has the unmitigated gall to say he knows better than the Environment court after talking to a bunch of disaffected Maoris and itinerant surfers.
This decision will be the death knell of Labour. They won't get their fat arses on the treasury benches again for another 15 years.

[Colapop]

Maori bashing, Gay bashing, Developer bashing - is this is case of classic NZ tall poppy syndrome? So many Kiwi's are accused of wanting something (without the hard work) that others have earned. Sexuality, Ethnicity and Business acumen aside, the issue here is the Ministers powers of veto. If the law is not impartial to the whims of an elected officer then it is a dictatorship not a democracy as said. The confusion is brought about by hypocratic laws that contradict the intent of the law in the first instance.

It's really all the fault of the Lawyers!

[Finn]

Maori bashing, Gay bashing, Developer bashing - is this is case of classic NZ tall poppy syndrome?

Developer bashing is tall poppy syndrome. Maori & gay bashing is plain old fun.

This is NZ's fault. We got the government we deserved. You only get one chance every now and then and we've blown the last 3 opportunites. Last one to leave, let the cat out.

[Finn]

Err.. What?

Perhaps it is not 'endemic' (Perhaps it grows on other pacific islands?) but it is for sure 'native'.

My appologies. I was referring to the Metrosideros species in general. It's like the maori's - they had to have come from somewhere it's just that no one has owned up to where yet.

[MisterD]

- is this is case of classic NZ tall poppy syndrome? So many Kiwi's are accused of wanting something (without the hard work) that others have earned.

IMHO this "Tall Poppy Syndrome" is a figment of c-list celebs imagination. The true tall poppies (Sir Ed, John Britten....) are celebrated, wankers who think the world owes them a living get chopped down.....

[MisterD]

It's like the maori's - they had to have come from somewhere it's just that no one has owned up to where yet.

Taiwan isn't it?

[Hitcher]

Chris Carter’s overturning of the environment court’s ruling makes a mockery of the judicial system. It also interferes with the principle of judiciary independence and the supposed separation of powers (one of the first topics taught in law 101).
Chris Carter, as Environment Minister, has a statutory power of veto. He exercised it. People should not assume that any legal outcome that requires Ministerial assent should be assumed as a given once a Court has made a decision.

We live in a democracy. Rule and process of law has also to be weighed against sub-optimal or downright wrong outcomes. That is why Ministers have veto powers in some circumstances.

I am not agreeing with the decision that Hon Carter made. But I think that there are significant risks for a society where Courts are the final arbiters.

And one of the topics not taught in Law 101 is that law has little to do with justice, not that Hon Carter and the Whangamata marina is a good example of that either.

[idb]

Chris Carter, as Environment Minister, has a statutory power of veto. He exercised it. People should not assume that any legal outcome that requires Ministerial assent should be assumed as a given once a Court has made a decision.

We live in a democracy. Rule and process of law has also to be weighed against sub-optimal or downright wrong outcomes. That is why Ministers have veto powers in some circumstances.

I am not agreeing with the decision that Hon Carter made. But I think that there are significant risks for a society where Courts are the final arbiters.

And one of the topics not taught in Law 101 is that law has little to do with justice, not that Hon Carter and the Whangamata marina is a good example of that either.
True, the risk that he who has the most money gets the most justice.
But is that more or less favourable than the loudest or most trendy lobby group or minority de jour receiving the attention?

Wouldn't it be fairer to go to the Minister in the first instance and ask if he has an opinion to save everyone's time and money?

[Swoop]

Taiwan isn't it?
Correct. Just look at the wood carvings.

[The Stranger]

Why keep his sexuality out of it?
Why not keep his political leanings out of too then we can completely sanitise the topic.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Court rulings should be never be subject to an elected member of parliment's discretion. Whats the point of having any Court if the rulings are subject to a single person approval. We are a democracy not a Dictatorship.

Im sorry that reveals a basic misunderstanding of the political process and separation of powers.

Court decisions MUST always be subject to revision by the executive, think Arthur Allan Thomas, Lindy Chamberlain etc.

remember that judges arent elected and politicians are. Thus, the only way a non-party to a judicial decision can have an effect is through the political process.

:hitcher:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Why keep his sexuality out of it?
Why not keep his political leanings out of too then we can completely sanitise the topic.

its pretty obvious that one is relevant to the topic and one simply isnt.

I dont care what he does in his private life, as long as he doesnt do it in the public street and scare the horses, but the issue here is his use of the discretion WE gave him.

remember that being a Minister is a statutory office i.e. its independent of the person filling it.

Personally I have a lot more time for Carter than I do for that snivelling whining softie Nick Smith (Nationals spokes-drone on envirimint)

[idb]

Why keep his sexuality out of it?
Wellllllll..............maybe you can explain its relevance to this discussion?

[Finn]

Wellllllll..............maybe you can explain its relevance to this discussion?

No problem. It's about sticking things where they don't belong.

[ManDownUnder]

Wellllllll..............maybe you can explain its relevance to this discussion?

at the risk of dragging this back on topic... there are two issues here

1) Did Carter (honorable or otherwise) break the rules by vetoing the decision?
2) Should a member of the executive be able to veto decisions of the courts?

I believe the answers (respectively) are No, and No.

The second no coming in from a basis of the executive having the role of making the rules by which the Courts Operate.

I believe it is the role of the courts to weigh the evidence and make an informed decision based on that evidence, taking into consideration precedents, and the rationale for arriving at them, and giving a clear rationale enabling future effects of that desicion to be desirable.

If an elected official doesn't like the way things are going - they should be able to change the way decisions are made, requiring more/less/different importance to be placed according the the then current policy.

They should not be able to quash or overturn the decision of the court. The right of appeal for any decisions should be available to all, and that is the task of a higher court.

Judicial Review is an important tool that should remain available, but should be used sparingly - as I believe it currently is.

Edit - for the record - sexuality ain't relevant in this topic. We're talking about the birds and the bees... but also the place they live - that's the only link I could make...
MDU taking off my serious hat now...

[idb]

No problem. It's about sticking things where they don't belong.
Shit I must be dumb, I still don't get it.

[MisterD]

Wellllllll..............maybe you can explain its relevance to this discussion?

I think it's arguable that it is unsurprising that someone who is gay, and therefore a member of one of the political left's protected species, has made a decision which favours another such group (ie Maori).

I doubt you'd say it was irrelevant if a minister who was rich had over-ruled the environment court in favour of the developers....or even, as was the case with John Key at the election, with respect to proposed tax-cuts.

[idb]

at the risk of dragging this back on topic... there are two issues here

1) Did Carter (honorable or otherwise) break the rules by vetoing the decision?
2) Should a member of the executive be able to veto decisions of the courts?

I believe the answers (respectively) are No, and No.

The second no coming in from a basis of the executive having the role of making the rules by which the Courts Operate.

I believe it is the role of the courts to weigh the evidence and make an informed decision based on that evidence, taking into consideration precedents, and the rationale for arriving at them, and giving a clear rationale enabling future effects of that desicion to be desirable.

If an elected official doesn't like the way things are going - they should be able to change the way decisions are made, requiring more/less/different importance to be placed according the the then current policy.

They should not be able to quash or overturn the decision of the court. The right of appeal for any decisions should be available to all, and that is the task of a higher court.

Judicial Review is an important tool that should remain available, but should be used sparingly - as I believe it currently is.

Edit - for the record - sexuality ain't relevant in this topic. We're talking about the birds and the bees... but also the place they live - that's the only link I could make...
MDU taking off my serious hat now...
Cheers MDU
Not knowing anything about law I can't comment on judicial review except to say that I'm sure I would think it's a good thing if I agree with the decision and a bad thing if I disagree.

I wonder if the minister has had all of the information put in front of him that the court has seen, if not and he made his decision based on a philosophical or political stance then he could have made a decision right at the beginning of the process and saved everyone a lot of time and money.

[Hitcher]

there are two issues here

1) Did Carter (honorable or otherwise) break the rules by vetoing the decision?
2) Should a member of the executive be able to veto decisions of the courts?

I believe the answers (respectively) are No, and No.
I believe that the answers have to be No and Yes.

Courts don't always get things right, as evidenced by a bunch of high profile cases that have been overturned either on appeal or by the relevant Ministers. If you don't want Ministers intervening, then take those powers off them. But that wouldn't get my vote.

[oldrider]

Wellllllll..............maybe you can explain its relevance to this discussion?
If he is unable to appreciate the significance of his own "gender" how on earth is he capable of deciphering the significant facts in the decision making process of "Government".

The man has obviously been borne "confused".

His latest decision demonstrates to me that he is now "completely confused". :spudbn:

Thats why his sexuality is relevant to this discussion. IMO.

Confusion seems to be an important attribute in choosing labour candidates!

I defend his right to be "confused" but I don't want confused people making confused decisions on "my behalf". :spudgrr: John.

[idb]

I think it's arguable that it is unsurprising that someone who is gay, and therefore a member of one of the political left's protected species, has made a decision which favours another such group (ie Maori).

I doubt you'd say it was irrelevant if a minister who was rich had over-ruled the environment court in favour of the developers....or even, as was the case with John Key at the election, with respect to proposed tax-cuts.
Arguable at the very least I would say.
Does the Foreshore Act thing instigated by Labour favour the Maori?

If a rich minister demonstrably had no personal interest in the development then I doubt that anyone could question the decision.

[Hitcher]

This is like the fucking Middle Ages, unless I am missing some incredibly subtle piss-taking here, but I think not.

Hon Carter's "sexuality" obviously tittilates some red necks but has no relevance whatsoever to the topic under discussion. Hon Carter, as an "out" gay man, has absolutely no confusion about his "sexuality", as opposed to some of the brain-dead, repressed homophobes who post on this site.

[Jamezo]

Completely unrelated to the legal issues, I have no truck with a decision not to sacrifice a perfectly servicible swamp in order to provide a bunch of yuppies with a berth for their 'pleasure craft'.

Arh, mateys, ain't nothing wrong with the good ol' fashion way, drop a 500 pound anchor in the middle of the bay and get yer scurvy crew to row you out to said vessel of plunder.

[Paul in NZ]

This is like the fucking Middle Ages, .

hey.. hang on a gold dang minute here fella... I think I might have missed out on something when I was middle aged...

Paul N

(um - still not got the ST back Brett? you seem a little tense)

[MisterD]

Does the Foreshore Act thing instigated by Labour favour the Maori?


But that's the government as a whole, very much aware of how their behaviour plays with the electorate as a whole, versus one minister, very much aware of how unaccountable he is to the residents of Whangamata.

[oldrider]

And where does this whining about the 'Lefties' RMA come from? NATIONAL was in power when the RMA was introduced. I am not going to bother reading all the amendments made since 1991, but neither section 6 or 28 have been amended, which is where all the power he needs can come from.
What on earth makes you think NATIONAL is not a "left" leaning political party?

There is very little difference between any of the political parties seriously on offer in this country and all of them have leanings left of center, including ACT.

The only "right wing" party on offer in New Zealand (IMO) is the Libertarian party and they really just make a token effort.

New Zealand gets the government it deserves I'm afraid. :devil2: John.

[Finn]

Hon Carter, as an "out" gay man, has absolutely no confusion about his "sexuality", as opposed to some of the brain-dead, repressed homophobes who post on this site.

I'm not brain dead, nor am I repressed. Just a little misunderstood.

Please stop calling him Hon Carter. There is nothing honourable about the prick. I say build the marina and develop huge apartments, retail & restaurants. The poor can move inland where they belong. They've had it too good for too long in this country.

[Ixion]

Im sorry that reveals a basic misunderstanding of the political process and separation of powers.

Court decisions MUST always be subject to revision by the executive, think Arthur Allan Thomas, Lindy Chamberlain etc.

remember that judges arent elected and politicians are. Thus, the only way a non-party to a judicial decision can have an effect is through the political process.

:hitcher:

Sorry, disagree.

Separation of powers. The only way that the executive SHOULD be able to overide a decision of the judiciary is by invoking the Royal Prerogative. Which, technically lies under the authority of the Governor Genertal, not the Executive (I know that in reality the GG is never going to object to doing what the Exec tell him/her. Wimp. Need more brick walls)

In practice, as in this case, the Executive have indeed encroached upon the liberty of the Judiciary. That reality does not make it constitutionally acceptable.

The instances you specify can be (indeed, were) handled through the Prerogative of Mercy.

[Ixion]

What on earth makes you think NATIONAL is not a "left" leaning political party?

There is very little difference between any of the political parties seriously on offer in this country and all of them have leanings left of center, including ACT.

The only "right wing" party on offer in New Zealand (IMO) is the Libertarian party and they really just make a token effort.

New Zealand gets the government it deserves I'm afraid. :devil2: John.

No indeed. Both National and Labour are strongly right wing parties. And the country does not get the government it deserves. It *deserves* a Communist government. With me as Party Secretary. We wouldn't have any whinging from the bourgeoisie about having nowhere to moor their floating gin palaces then. No bourgoisie = no gin palaces = no marinas . Sorted.

[Motu]

I'll be your right hand man,I'll supply my own rain coat...everyone will have to ride just one brand of motorcycle...and I'll design it!!!

[MisterD]

With me as Party Secretary.

The next question is for you, Karl Marx....."The Hammers" is the nickname of which English football team? Ooops :Offtopic:

There's far too much wealth re-distribution going on already, so sorry but :finger:

[Finn]

No indeed. Both National and Labour are strongly right wing parties. And the country does not get the government it deserves. It *deserves* a Communist government. With me as Party Secretary. We wouldn't have any whinging from the bourgeoisie about having nowhere to moor their floating gin palaces then. No bourgoisie = no gin palaces = no marinas . Sorted.

At first your post angered me but then I actually thought about it and you know what? You're absolutely right! NZ not only deserves a Communist Government, it needs one. Corruption goes hand in hand with Communism and with corruption at least things would get done in this shithole. Status quo for the maori's though. They already play that game really well.

[Phurrball]

Other people have already picked over the carcass of this issue...but nonetheless:

Who's to say that the minister won't be spanked on judicial review if he has acted ultra vires or taken into account irrelevant considerations? Any court process is expensive...It's just something we have to wear if we like a full series of appellate courts and judicial review process etc.

Without looking at the case, or relevant legislation, it is entirely possible that the minister does have a veto power as a member of the executive. This isn't really anything unusual. It's not political interference in the judicial process - the judiciary was left alone to make its decision, the veto was after the fact, and possibly subject to judicial review...

Finn - you're an angry fella aren't you? What happened to you to make you so damned bitter and twisted? Go and hug a queer leftie for me wouldya...I'm sure everyone would feel a whole lot better.:yeah:

[oldrider]

I'll be your right hand man,I'll supply my own rain coat...everyone will have to ride just one brand of motorcycle...and I'll design it!!!
Yeah right, how many Soviet bikes do you see at rallys and wouldn't Cuba be a great place for a HOG rally!! :spudwhat:

I would be glad to ride a bike designed by you though Motu! :niceone: but not under Ixions government.

Actually Ixion I think you would probably be better than this bunch of wankers anyway.:whistle:

[Motu]

I wouldn't go as far as designing a twin...but I might spit on my page and fold it in half.Ed Turner would be proud of me!

[Finn]

Carter is an embarassment.

The IWMC (World Conservation Trust), headed up by the former head of CITES, Eugene Lapointe, awarded Carter the dubious honour of "most ludicrous claim" after Carter's performance representing New Zealand at a meeting of an international conservation body 2 years ago.

http://www.iwmc.org/whales/iwc56/040722-special-01.htm

He was also described as "excitable", "badly-informed", and it was suggested that "he grew up and stopped embarrassing his country."

http://www.iwmc.org/whales/iwc56/040722-special-02.htm

But then one has to remember that Carter is a politician, not a "conservationist" - let alone a true conservationist. What would you expect from a third world politician working for a third world government. The people that worked to get resource consent for this project would have been better off giving the minister a backhander than wasting a million plus on the RMA, I'm sure things would have been different if this approach had been taken.

[idb]

If he is unable to appreciate the significance of his own "gender" how on earth is he capable of deciphering the significant facts in the decision making process of "Government".

The man has obviously been borne "confused".

His latest decision demonstrates to me that he is now "completely confused". :spudbn:

Thats why his sexuality is relevant to this discussion. IMO.

Confusion seems to be an important attribute in choosing labour candidates!

I defend his right to be "confused" but I don't want confused people making confused decisions on "my behalf". :spudgrr: John.
Good grief, that's a whole 'nother discussion John (can homosexuality be cured etc) but despite his 'confusion' about what gender he is he is still the minister in a democratically elected gummint and the discussion is whether the minister should be able to overturn a judicial decision handed down after due process has been followed.
Whether or not I agree with his decision in this case, I personally feel uncomfortable about that.

[Ixion]

I wouldn't go as far as designing a twin...but I might spit on my page and fold it in half.Ed Turner would be proud of me!

uh uh , the NZ Commie Government migjht be heading for an ideological split. Over matters of paramount importance, , about which there can be no comprimise. The KiwiBike *will* be a two stroke, of course?

[Finn]

Finn - you're an angry fella aren't you? What happened to you to make you so damned bitter and twisted? Go and hug a queer leftie for me wouldya...I'm sure everyone would feel a whole lot better.:yeah:

I'm not angry at all. I have ADHD. Please be more sympathetic to my postings in future.

[Lou Girardin]

Yeah right, how many Soviet bikes do you see at rallys and wouldn't Cuba be a great place for a HOG rally!! :spudwhat:


Cuba actually has a health and education system that shames ours. (Which isn't that difficult)

And wouldn't you all like to drive rusted out 1950's American iron with Lada engines?

[The Stranger]

Hon Carter's "sexuality" obviously tittilates some red necks but has no relevance whatsoever to the topic under discussion. Hon Carter, as an "out" gay man, has absolutely no confusion about his "sexuality", as opposed to some of the brain-dead, repressed homophobes who post on this site.

Fess up who was tittilated by Carters sexuality?

I am confused (not sexually mind you), if he has no problem with everyone knowing he is gay, what is the problem with Finn pointing it out?

This is scandelous hitcher, quickly out the repressed homophobes for us all to ridicule!!!

[MisterD]

Fess up who was tittilated by Carters sexuality?



Tittilated? No. Irritated by the way he wears it like a badge of his right-on-ness? Yes.

[The Stranger]

absolutely no confusion about his "sexuality", as opposed to some of the brain-dead, repressed homophobes who post on this site.

And there's one for Alanis Morissette.
You are very tollerant and understanding of gays yet, the poor repressed homophobe gets it in the neck. Why don't you show more compassion for this ilk?
Are they not simply misguided and deserving of your sympathies instead of your nasty inuendo?
Hold on, is this the same inuendo you so despise in Finn's attitude toward gays?

[Lou Girardin]

I had no problem with the legalisation of homosexuality.
However, I'm shit scared they'll make it compulsory.

[MrMelon]

If he is unable to appreciate the significance of his own "gender" how on earth is he capable of deciphering the significant facts in the decision making process of "Government".

The man has obviously been borne "confused".

His latest decision demonstrates to me that he is now "completely confused". :spudbn:

Thats why his sexuality is relevant to this discussion. IMO.

Confusion seems to be an important attribute in choosing labour candidates!

I defend his right to be "confused" but I don't want confused people making confused decisions on "my behalf". :spudgrr: John.


Yeah that's right, we just need a good old fashioned fag drag to sort these trouble making queers out.

I don't have a problem with the decision he made. Surely if it was that bad there'll be a judicial review and he'll get slammed! (tee hee)

[Phurrball]

I'm not angry at all. I have ADHD. Please be more sympathetic to my postings in future.

Oh, okay - you need to receive a hug from a queer leftie in that case...:hug: :chase:

[Paul in NZ]

Funnily enough....

All I've read is a lot of name calling and socio-political posturing from both side on this subject and I'm sure there is a lot more to it.

Frankly I couldn't give a fat rats hairy arse if a bunch of selfish deluded rich bastards spent a billion dollars on a stupid get rich slowly proposal anymore than I care about a bunch of hippies loosing their swamp to play in. But after all the name calling, there has to be an actual issue to debate.

Underlining all of this is the 'traditional' rights of the average Kiwi to enjoy access to more of natures bounty than in most other countries. I'm sure it's terribly irksome not to have a marina at the town but if it was yet another erosion of this right, it may just be a good thing it stopped.

Funnily enough, when a developer tells me, "it will be good for the local economy" I tend to believe that the local economy they are refering to is VERY local... To their own off shore bank account.

I'm also a little curious when people tell me.. "it's impossible to get things done" - Like what? Not allowed to kill your own serfs anymore?

Mr Carter could disappear in a poof of smoke for all I care and may well be an utter moron BUT... He may also be a moron with a valid point and I'd like to know what that is before getting to venomous.

[Finn]

Oh, okay - you need to receive a hug from a queer leftie in that case...:hug: :chase:

NEVER, EVER attempt to hug someone with ADHD. Especially someone high on the spectrum like myself. Haven't you seen Something About Mary?

[Paul in NZ]

I had no problem with the legalisation of homosexuality.
However, I'm shit scared they'll make it compulsory.

Nah.. Ugly old coot like you should be safe enough Lou.. Now a good lookin' stud like me.....

[Finn]

Funnily enough....

All I've read is a lot of name calling and socio-political posturing from both side on this subject and I'm sure there is a lot more to it.

Frankly I couldn't give a fat rats hairy arse if a bunch of selfish deluded rich bastards spent a billion dollars on a stupid get rich slowly proposal anymore than I care about a bunch of hippies loosing their swamp to play in. But after all the name calling, there has to be an actual issue to debate.

Underlining all of this is the 'traditional' rights of the average Kiwi to enjoy access to more of natures bounty than in most other countries. I'm sure it's terribly irksome not to have a marina at the town but if it was yet another erosion of this right, it may just be a good thing it stopped.

Funnily enough, when a developer tells me, "it will be good for the local economy" I tend to believe that the local economy they are refering to is VERY local... To their own off shore bank account.

I'm also a little curious when people tell me.. "it's impossible to get things done" - Like what? Not allowed to kill your own serfs anymore?

Mr Carter could disappear in a poof of smoke for all I care and may well be an utter moron BUT... He may also be a moron with a valid point and I'd like to know what that is before getting to venomous.

Paul, this has got nothing to do with the marina, environment, surfers or developers. It's about politics. At the 11th hour, the Utu tribe spent a couple of hours with The Right Homo Carter and the deal was done. No money changed hands but we paid something far worse

[Paul in NZ]

Paul, this has got nothing to do with the marina, environment, surfers or developers. It's about politics. At the 11th hour, the Utu tribe spent a couple of hours with The Right Homo Carter and the deal was done. No money changed hands but we paid something far worse

Yes, agreed but I'd like to hear him explain it (and take responsibility for that decision as well)..........

I visited a marina north of Auckland with Vicki on one of our holidays. The facilities were great and the people there were really nice to us, let us park our car in a safe place and kept an eye on it while we went out in our kayaks. Even offered us a shower afterwards so it could be a good thing.

I

[oldrider]

When I was a boy we were ruled by "Christian" influenced politics. Not a good look.

Gradually we got loose from that iron grip, I don't want to go back there.(Destiny Church will take you there)

When I was at sea Homosexuals were closeted ashore and almost the whole of the catering crew on ships were homosexuals, "outed at sea".

They were like people without a country, it was rather sad to hear their stories.

The most common cry was that they would love to live ashore as normal people.

I subscribed to the fact that they should be free, allowed to choose to live their lives as they desire as long as they are within the law.

The pendulum has swung too far as far as I am concerned.

We have got rid of the Christians influence and replaced them with the "confused". (For the want of a better term)

Now we have got the confused dispossessed people without a country coming ashore and "making laws or rules for us who invited them home"!!!

That is what pisses me off I am not Homophobic.

I just don't want confused people taking the high ground and making confused laws, rules and decisions on my behalf.

I think I would rather go back with the bloody narrow minded bigoted Christians.

Carter may have been democratically elected to parliament but he was appointed as a minister of the crown by another one of his own ilk.

They have not just come ashore to "live" they have come ashore to "rule".

I don't want to be ruled by them!!! (Rant completed but not over) John.

[idb]

They were like people without a country, it was rather sad to hear their stories.

The most common cry was that they would love to live ashore as normal people.

I subscribed to the fact that they should be free, allowed to choose to live their lives as they desire as long as they are within the law.


Hang on!
Doesn't living as 'normal' people include being represented in all levels of society, including parliament?

[SPman]

There's far too much wealth re-distribution going on already, so sorry but :finger:

Most of it to the Eastern bays in Auckland........

[SPman]

uh uh , the NZ Commie Government migjht be heading for an ideological split. Over matters of paramount importance, , about which there can be no comprimise. The KiwiBike *will* be a two stroke, of course?
As long as its at least a 4 cylinder (six would be nice) and doesnt put out less than 150 hp right across the rev range in a package weighing in at about 150KG.................

[Phurrball]

NEVER, EVER attempt to hug someone with ADHD. Especially someone high on the spectrum like myself. Haven't you seen Something About Mary?

No, and I am not attempting to hug (I do not fit the stated criteria), I am suggesting a hug. You could always auto-hug I suppose - though it sounds like even that may have consequences in your case. Take thy mellowness pills perhaps. You wouldn't like it if the Hon. C.Carter prefaced every statement he made about ADHD disordered people with and insult now and implied it made them unfit for their duties in some way wouldya now...

[Ixion]

Like #1 picture maybe, proud communist product that it is . Something like #2 is more in line with Party thinking, comrade. Don't want to be seen as a decadent counterrevolutionary capitalist, do you.

Anyway your 150hp would get its tits totally tangled on the new gravel state highways (uh, didn't I mention that ? Saves a bomb on maintainance).

[Finn]

No, and I am not attempting to hug (I do not fit the stated criteria), I am suggesting a hug. You could always auto-hug I suppose - though it sounds like even that may have consequences in your case. Take thy mellowness pills perhaps. You wouldn't like it if the Hon. C.Carter prefaced every statement he made about ADHD disordered people with and insult now and implied it made them unfit for their duties in some way wouldya now...

I get it now. So sorry it took me a while to click.

Your support for Chris Carter, the lovely pussy cat in your avatar and the open minded statement in your signature.

Please accept my most humble appology for making fun of Chris Carters sexuality.

[SPman]

Like #1 picture maybe, proud communist product that it is . Something like #2 is more in line with Party thinking, comrade. Don't want to be seen as a decadent counterrevolutionary capitalist, do you.

Anyway your 150hp would get its tits totally tangled on the new gravel state highways (uh, didn't I mention that ? Saves a bomb on maintainance).
But....#1 is a........FOUR stroke!......comrade.
Oh well - how about 100hp, wide bars and knobblies?......something like this with a carrier rack and a feeble headlight ..(dont want the comrades seeing where they are being lead!)

[oldrider]

Hang on!
Doesn't living as 'normal' people include being represented in all levels of society, including parliament?
I spose thems the risks! Open the windows let in the flies.:shit: Now where is my swatter? (Read: vote) John.

[heavenly.talker]

Ive had a think. Also had a look at scoop and re-read the stuff story. This isnt an area I practise in, so my opinion is that of a layman.



there ya go, thats my 2c


Great post!! enjoyed reading your views :-) I would have sent you a green jewel but I have to spread it around before ...


I look forward to hearing your friends views too.

[heavenly.talker]

I just got red repped for starting this in the wrong forum...not happy. My first ever red rep and it took away 130 rep points !!!!!!!! WTF

I thought this was the general forum for things that might be of interest to our members.

Stuff this political correct BS...I'm off to cool off..

The day when intelligent, sincere comment and interest in what is happening in this country is discouraged (which was today on this site) tells me what the fuck am I spending my time here for.

Yes, bikes are a way of life, but we still need to be informed and discuss what is happening in other aspects of our lives too! I.e. What the road usage in Whangamata is going to be like as one example
BAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[idb]

I just got red repped for starting this in the wrong forum...not happy. My first ever red rep and it took away 130 rep points !!!!!!!! WTF

I thought this was the general forum for things that might be of interest to our members.

Stuff this political correct BS...I'm off to cool off..

The day when intelligent, sincere comment and interest in what is happening in this country is discouraged (which was today on this site) tells me what the fuck am I spending my time here for.

Yes, bikes are a way of life, but we still need to be informed and discuss what is happening in other aspects of our lives too! I.e. What the road usage in Whangamata is going to be like as one example
BAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't go!!!

[Jamezo]

The people that worked to get resource consent for this project would have been better off giving the minister a backhander than wasting a million plus on the RMA, I'm sure things would have been different if this approach had been taken.

giving him a backhander? sorry, I'm not up with all the latest ghey-talk. is it related to a cleveland steamer? must be something special if it's worth a million bucks.

[Finn]

giving him a backhander? sorry, I'm not up with all the latest ghey-talk. is it related to a cleveland steamer? must be something special if it's worth a million bucks.

For clarification I was referring to a bribe, not a bitch slap.

[Jamezo]

When I was a boy we were ruled by "Christian" influenced politics. Not a good look.

Gradually we got loose from that iron grip, I don't want to go back there.(Destiny Church will take you there)

When I was at sea Homosexuals were closeted ashore and almost the whole of the catering crew on ships were homosexuals, "outed at sea".

They were like people without a country, it was rather sad to hear their stories.

The most common cry was that they would love to live ashore as normal people.

I subscribed to the fact that they should be free, allowed to choose to live their lives as they desire as long as they are within the law.

The pendulum has swung too far as far as I am concerned.

We have got rid of the Christians influence and replaced them with the "confused". (For the want of a better term)

Now we have got the confused dispossessed people without a country coming ashore and "making laws or rules for us who invited them home"!!!

That is what pisses me off I am not Homophobic.

I just don't want confused people taking the high ground and making confused laws, rules and decisions on my behalf.

I think I would rather go back with the bloody narrow minded bigoted Christians.

Carter may have been democratically elected to parliament but he was appointed as a minister of the crown by another one of his own ilk.

They have not just come ashore to "live" they have come ashore to "rule".

I don't want to be ruled by them!!! (Rant completed but not over) John.
We're being taken over by homosexuals?

Gay people do not have a country, and we "invited them home"?

They're taking all our money through evil business practises?

They're seducing our beautiful aryan women with their ill-gotten gains and bulbous noses?

They're corrupting our proud blood and honour?

Oh, what. Sorry, I was getting a little "confused". Back to our scheduled programming.

You're not homophobic? I get the distinct impression that you've had some "interesting" experiences at sea.......

[Timber020]

Developers are just playing the game and are trying to make a buck which of course you can't make money in NZ without upseting alot of the poor, non contributing people. Sure some of them are scum and the auck developer you're talking about has had a few run ins. However, I would tend to back him on this recent case. He owned that land and it was his pohutukawa tree. End of story. How about a compromise? Yeah sure cut it down but plant 10 or so trees somewhere else. He got fined $50k and some other shit. How about that fucking white maori that cut down the pohutukawa on One Tree Hill and got a slap on the wrist?

Sure we've got to have some balance but this is going over the top especially given the pohutukawa tree isn't even a native NZ tree.


They dont compromise by planting 10 trees somewhere else because the first tree meant alot to the local community, it probably had an amenity value of over $100,000 and was a feature and asset to that area. The tree was there AND protected before he brought it, he probably got the land cheaper because of that tree. He had it all planned from the start.
The 10 trees he would have put in would have had no applied protection, and would probably "dissapear" as soon as they became inconvieniant for whoever is around them. Citys without trees are both unhealthy and more depressing than riding a Harley on raceday.
Dont go thinking developers make something from nothing, they are pros at making housing that has a life expectancy of an newbie on a turbo busa. Generally if developers can they will bulldoze there way through anything that stands in the way of them and $. They dont look longterm, try to squeeze as much money out of the project as possible and dont give a crap about those who live around and in the messes that they make.
The reason there are so many hoops for developers to jump through because it costs everyone but the developer when things screw up.

[oldrider]

You're not homophobic? I get the distinct impression that you've had some "interesting" experiences at sea.......

As one of them kept saying to me almost every day at sea, "Why die curious".

They are generally nice and very capable people just not my choice of lifestyle.

I just don't want them deciding my future nor do I want Destiny Church doing it either. Their decision making process is flawed. IMO. Curious John.

[John Banks]

I totally agree. Gay people should not be allowed to make decisions.

[Finn]

They dont compromise by planting 10 trees somewhere else because the first tree meant alot to the local community, it probably had an amenity value of over $100,000 and was a feature and asset to that area. The tree was there AND protected before he brought it, he probably got the land cheaper because of that tree. He had it all planned from the start.
The 10 trees he would have put in would have had no applied protection, and would probably "dissapear" as soon as they became inconvieniant for whoever is around them. Citys without trees are both unhealthy and more depressing than riding a Harley on raceday.
Dont go thinking developers make something from nothing, they are pros at making housing that has a life expectancy of an newbie on a turbo busa. Generally if developers can they will bulldoze there way through anything that stands in the way of them and $. They dont look longterm, try to squeeze as much money out of the project as possible and dont give a crap about those who live around and in the messes that they make.
The reason there are so many hoops for developers to jump through because it costs everyone but the developer when things screw up.

I've done a bit of development in my time so know how the game works. Developers aren't the only ones who don't look long term either. The Councils are masters at this. They can't see a thing past their next tea break. I've only ever topped 2 Pohutakawas and that's because their roots where cracking a concrete pool. The Council were just too slow to help.

[crashe]

As one of them kept saying to me almost every day at sea, "Why die curious".

They are generally nice and very capable people just not my choice of lifestyle.

I just don't want them deciding my future nor do I want Destiny Church doing it either. Their decision making process is flawed. IMO. Curious John.

Half a dozen or so (from all the parties), out of 120 MPs.. are not deciding your future..
Remember there is 120 MPs in Parliament who vote on issues that we are not all going to agree with......

Go and chat with your own local MP and chat with them about what you do or don't agree on. Or better still, write to them at Parliament... FREEPOST as well No stamp required. Just make sure you put MP after their name to get the free postage.

Example:
Joe Blogg MP
Parliament Buildings
Wellington.

[oldrider]

C'mon Crash it's too personal now, your making me feel guilty.

It's good to air all these subjects and push the boundaries about in an un PC way but only when you are poking shit at "they" the faceless ones.:nono:

I don't really have a problem, I'm closing on this now. :shutup: Cheers John.

[Ixion]

But....#1 is a........FOUR stroke!......comrade.
Oh well - how about 100hp, wide bars and knobblies?......something like this with a carrier rack and a feeble headlight ..(dont want the comrades seeing where they are being lead!)

Yeah, #1 will have to be banned except for members of the Politoboro

[Motu]

But....#1 is a........FOUR stroke!......comrade.
Oh well - how about 100hp, wide bars and knobblies?......something like this with a carrier rack and a feeble headlight ..(dont want the comrades seeing where they are being lead!)

There's only one man in this whole world brave enough to ride that bike,and he only did it twice.Said they couldn't pay him enough to ride it.If I ever want to die - can I do it on that bike please?

[Lou Girardin]

Why do some gays think we're curious about sodomy?
If anyone wants a preview, just get a prostate exam.

[idb]

I see Carter has announced an inquiry to establish some sort of national policy on coastal development.
Not before time I'd suggest.


A Board of Inquiry is to be appointed to review issues around coastal development and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, Conservation Minister Chris Carter announced today.

The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement is the only national policy statement issued under the Resource Management Act. It guides councils in their decision-making about what types of activities will be allowed, controlled or prohibited in coastal areas.

"There has been considerable anxiety expressed by communities around the country about the amount of development on the New Zealand coastal line, the impact this is having on the character of the coast and on the traditional kiwi lifestyle," Mr Carter said.

"Because of these concerns, I initiated a review of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement shortly after becoming Minister. An independent review has been completed and policy development is under way. I expect to be able to release a new draft coastal policy statement for public consultation later this year, through a Board of Inquiry.

"The Board of Inquiry will consider public submissions and hold hearings nationwide. I intend to give it broad terms of reference to enable it to properly examine coastal development issues in the context of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement," Mr Carter said.

"This process will give the people of New Zealand, local government, developers and others an opportunity to have a say on how they want their coast to look, and what type of development is appropriate. We have only one opportunity to get development on our coast right, and we need to ensure that the tools available under the Resource Management Act are used effectively."

The Board is likely to be appointed later in the year. Its terms of reference have not been finalised.

[MisterD]

Smoke, and indeed screen

[Skyryder]

I totally agree. Gay people should not be allowed to make decisions.

And when they do what do we get. Prostitution, same sex marriages, Oh correction 'civil unions.' Can't see any thing civil about taking it up the arse, but since I never tried it I may be wrong.

Skyryder

[idb]

Smoke, and indeed screen
Well no, if the gummint is finding it's continuously over-ruling the courts on coastal development matters it needs to look at setting legislation so that everyone knows what the rules are.
Despite the rights or wrongs of their decisions to date, they would be irresponsible if they didn't move to tidy the situation up.

[MisterD]

Well no, <snip>

Boards of Inquiry are the classic politicians answer to something that looks like it might be contentious. It avoids having to answer any questions in parliament, and they can completely ignore any recommendations at the end of it, which anyway will be released on a day when something else is happening to distract us all.......hey I grew up watching "Yes, Minister" you can't pull the wool over my eyes.

[Skyryder]

hey I grew up watching "Yes, Minister" you can't pull the wool over my eyes.

I'm still watching it on UK TV. For refresher purposes only.

Skyryder

[TwoSeven]

Smoke, and indeed screen

No, they mentioned it a while back - it was even in one of the stuff news posts.

[MisterD]

No, they mentioned it a while back - it was even in one of the stuff news posts.

Lucky buggers are swerving two issues for the price of one smokescreen. This was probably originally to sideline the issue of the campsites disappearing etc.

[idb]

Boards of Inquiry are the classic politicians answer to something that looks like it might be contentious. It avoids having to answer any questions in parliament, and they can completely ignore any recommendations at the end of it, which anyway will be released on a day when something else is happening to distract us all.......hey I grew up watching "Yes, Minister" you can't pull the wool over my eyes.
So sad to see one so young and attractive (if that is you in your avatar) and yet so cynical

[Finn]

So sad to see one so young and attractive (if that is you in your avatar) and yet so cynical

I think Mr D is right on the money. When I was young I was naive and thought that Governments were here for the good of the people. Mind you, back then they were.

[MisterD]

So sad to see one so young and attractive (if that is you in your avatar) and yet so cynical

I'm a born cynic idb, and I've been perfecting and honing the skill all my life. One day I hope to be quite good at it :apumpin:

[HenryDorsetCase]

at the risk of dragging this back on topic... there are two issues here

1) Did Carter (honorable or otherwise) break the rules by vetoing the decision?
2) Should a member of the executive be able to veto decisions of the courts?

...

yeah but THAT ISNT WHAT HAPPENED




the developer still has their consents to do what they needed consents to do (the land use stuff).

they ALSO needed a permit (or whatever) from the Minister of Conversation to use the seabed or part of it.

So actually there is no over ruling of the courts decision at all. it stands (and subject to an appeals process).

AND the Ministers decision is subject to judicial review.

So in fact what will probably happen is a High Court judicial review of the Ministers decision, and possibly heard at the same time as any appeal from the local authority.


the guy I know who does this stuff for a living wasnt involved in this, but his comment was "!4 years! must have been a gravy train while it lasted". And he confirmed the judicial review thing.

[WINJA]

i think its good that hes stopped them going ahead with a marina, i really dont give a toss if some rich fucks dont have somewhere to park their boats , especially at the expense of other peoples use of the area .
instead of worrying about this shit that effect the rights of .003% of the population all you guys should be worried about the rights of the masses being tramplled over like cancellation of life time licences and 28 day loss of licence with no court apearance

[SPman]

.......instead of worrying about this shit that effect the rights of .003% of the population all you guys should be worried about the rights of the masses being tramplled over like cancellation of life time licences and 28 day loss of licence with no court apearance
He's right! This is more the arm of (not so) insidious control, than a minister saying they cant dredge the seabed....

[heavenly.talker]

i think its good that hes stopped them going ahead with a marina, i really dont give a toss if some rich fucks dont have somewhere to park their boats , especially at the expense of other peoples use of the area .
instead of worrying about this shit that effect the rights of .003% of the population all you guys should be worried about the rights of the masses being tramplled over like cancellation of life time licences and 28 day loss of licence with no court apearance

Discussion needs to start somewhere!!!
If you are worried about rights of the masses being tramplled over like cancellation of life time licences and 28 day loss of licence with no court apearance then start a thread. :Punk:

We are all reading because we are concerned, like to be informed, and would like to discuss issues as they are raised. Let us know what you think instead of telling us what you think we should be discussing...we are adults and probably capable of contributing to more than one thread at a time :killingme

As for the rich people comments...WTF is up with that?
You hate them because they are rich? I admire people who have got off their asses to make success in their life (that said if it was done with ethics).

Look at you, you work hard :Police: and have been able to buy nice material things :ride: because of it...I admire that too.

Giving people shit or discounting progress because someone had an idea that might make them profit is lame in my opinion Entrepreneurs are employers and the life blood of the NZ economy ...tall poppies...no wonder...successful people are leaving in droves!!!

[WINJA]

dont confuse being rich with getting off your arse or working hard.
the thing is once its a marina itll stay a marina and the damage is done holding off for now is not a big deal, there will be some people not represented in the consultation , some without lawers , some who like the water front just how it is , with a marina theres always polution and contamination of sea beds ,theres always the whoopsy doodle ive just emptied my bilge by accident types .
itll end up like westhaven , try parking a mk3 cortina down there without getting harrased by security

[Finn]

try parking a mk3 cortina down there without getting harrased by security

Mate, I'm sorry to have to tell you this but it was because you've got a bit of brown in you. It wasn't the cortina.

[WINJA]

Mate, I'm sorry to have to tell you this but it was because you've got a bit of brown in you. It wasn't the cortina.
IM NOT THAT BROWN , JUST SLIGHTLY DARKER THAN A SCOTSMAN:bleh:

[Finn]

IM NOT THAT BROWN , JUST SLIGHTLY DARKER THAN A SCOTSMAN:bleh:

That's enough to raise suspicion.