Mind you, it has taken a rejection of the previous government and an “opening of the books” before we are able to see the full extent of the Labour Government’s betrayal of the trust it had been given only three short years ago.
Their clandestine
operations are revealed as not being at all in the nations best interests and
their ideologically driven agenda is exposed as something you might expect to
find in some totalitarian state.
In all my 60 years
voting in twenty one (three-yearly general elections), l can’t recall a government who was so intent
on destroying a society built on the sacrifices of past generations of law
abiding citizens. But it was the contemptuous way they tried to impose their
divisive policies that finally brought about their downfall.
It would not
surprise me if it is more than a decade before that motley crew of imposters
and their idealogical bed-mates is in a position of being trusted with
government again.
The current
coalition should learn from that betrayal when planning their time in the sun.
“You can fool
some of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time but
you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
While the new
government is enjoying the opportunity to prove they can deliver on the
promises made during the election campaign, they need to be mindful of an
expectation out there that failure to do so will result in a similar fate to
their immediate predecessors. The public is not in the mood for another bout of
deception and consequently the normal honeymoon period might already be over.
The new government is undoubtedly on notice and maybe that is a good thing.
I say that
because, we now know the enormity of the task ahead - trying to support those
most in need of immediate help while dealing with a government debt crisis
created by the previous administration is a task you wouldn’t wish on your
worst enemy - although that is exactly what has happened here.
But there a few
bright lights on the horizon. At least in the Tairawhiti region, the people
most responsible for the cyclone related destruction of infrastructure and
farming interests have been exposed which should take the heat off those
innocent forestry operators who have until recently been demonised almost out
of existence.
Hopefully, now
that the dust is settled and the truth behind the disaster is known, we will
all be able to get on with building a local economy that accommodates all those
dependant on the well being of not only the environment, but all those
industries that are able to peacefully co-exist in a non threatening manner.
Let’s do it.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
14 comments:
Clive I’d be interested to hear more about the destruction up your way and the real issues you elude to. Is slash not the issue? Who’s to blame?
Hey Reggie
People like us are the last of the Mohicans and have been through it all before including as far back as Cyclone Bola in 1988.
Given that there are few of us left who have survived the numerous major climate events over the last 50 years and, given that the causes of the damage and those who were or are responsible for the destruction can now be identified, us old timers are in as good a position as anyone to accurately compare the individual cyclone damage to infrastructure, farming and forestry industries and the environment.that has occurred with each one.
Our assessment may surprise you because the main human culprits, at least for the damage caused by the last two (Hale and Gabrielle), are not who you might expect given the previous Government’s (to date) successful attempts to hide their involvement during the Parata Inquiry. Unfortunately, the report’s conclusions were limited to what they were allowed to see and the people they could talk to which is why l call it the Clayton’s Inquiry - deliberately set up to fail.
We live on the Paroa Road inland from Tolaga Bay, which is and has been the epicentre of the all the cyclone damage on the East Coast ever since and including Cyclone Bola.
I can tell you without fear of contradiction, backing my statements up with photographic evidence that (contrary to what local and central government are telling us), most of of the damage to property here on the East Coast was caused by whole trees torn from hillsides that collapsed under their own weight and ended up wrecking havoc on the flats while en route to the beaches.
The piles of debris requiring heavy machinery (diggers bulldozers) to move them off the flats and into heaps ready for burning after they dry out, include almost no “slash”.They are mainly whole trees that originated from gullies that had been permanently retired and were never going to be harvested.
Consequently the composition of those piles of wood are mainly made up of whole trees with root systems in tact.
There is very little evidence of logs or branches with saw cuts that would normally be classified as “slash”
Yet the previous government has been fighting hard to put all the blame for the damage on the forestry companies - most of whom are extremely competent and environmentally respectful operators.
The previous Government should be owning up to its own contribution to the disaster - ie their idealogical obsession with achieving their Zero GHG emissions target by 2050.
They have rejected calls from farmers to limit access to our better hill country and flat land by foreign owners who have been responsible for letting the genie out of the bottle. With their deep pockets, and incentivised by the carbon economy, these foreigners have been allowed to buy up much of our better livestock grazing land and plant pine trees over the lot. They could easily have been stopped from doing so simply by a government direction to the OIO to forbid those investors from buying land here.
Instead the Government of the day ignored our representations and as a result the Forestry Estate has consumed large tracts of our best farming land, the earning capacity of which is now lost to the country for ever. But worse still, the communities and people relying on the farming industry for their survival will die or move on leaving much of the Coast locked up for ever.
That outcome is one of the worst we could contemplate and the destruction will continue, particularly if the good forestry operators and their attendant workforce decide to leave the Coast for good under fear of proposed multi million dollar fines per company for being part of a disaster that they had little responsibility for.
I am hopeful that those who should be held in violation of the authority and trust given to them by the people of this country are made to account for their actions. But given all the problems left behind for the new government, l doubt there will be a Royal Commission of Inquiry any time soon which is the only way we can get to the truth.
Clive, yes please write a piece MSM are more interested in looking in their PIJF mirror than real issues that effect real people outside the beltway
I know you do review any comments posted to your articles.
Your comments on the past 3 years, and I am sure you would include the previous 3 years (2017 -2020) when the NZ Labour Govt "ruled NZ'" to which you place in the article -"deception, contempt of people, divisive policies", and as you have indicated The People have spoken.
I am not sure if you cast your "eyes westward", but the People of Australia, across all States, currently "managed by Labour Politicians, and that includes the Federal Govt are "starting to awaken to the fact they are being mislead".
The current example of stupidity is in South Australia - the State Govt has decided to "remove ANZAC Day" from the calendar. Has "one or two' fuming.
Like you, I too am looking forward to the next 3 years and it will be painful.
A question I would ask - in your 2nd comment/a response to Reggie - you mention the "Parata Inquiry (as a Clayoton's Inquiry) -"is this the same "lady currently sitting on the Covid Inquiry"??
Anonymous
I believe so.
Actually l know the Parata family quite well and have always had a lot of time for Hekia particularly.
But given that the terms of reference for the Covid Inquiry were set up by the previous administration that has much to hide from any investigation into their Stalinist type control over the whole country during the pandemic, l would expect to see the same sort of limited access to crucial government documents that show the former government in a poor light and as a consequence, another Claytons waste of time and money.
Like the Parata Land Use Inquiry, the Covid Inquiry will be unable to get to the truth about what happened and who was responsible for the bad decisions that led to so much unnecessary suffering.
The only Investigations capable of establishing the whole truth about these events are in the form of a Royal Commission of Inquiry, such as The Mann RCI into the Erebus disaster or the Cartwright RCI into what became known as the Unfortunate Experiment where patients with cervical cancer were allowed to continue living without treatment that could have saved their lives.
Unfortunately, unless the new government chooses to revisit both of these investigations, we will have to be content with the limited findings they produce
That’s politics for you .
Just read that former Minister Hekia Parata has resigned from the Covid Inquiry due to personal reasons .
I’m sorry about that because, whatever the outcome of those investigations, and like the Land use Inquiry she chaired earlier, she would have done all she could to get to the truth. It is an impossible position to be in when the terms of reference limit the areas you can look at.
But that was deliberate
So, according to your comments here, Clive, slash is not the primary problem and “most of [the forestry companies] are extremely competent and environmentally respectful operators”. (I would have thought that slash has been a major issue.) The effect of the storms, you say, was the damage “to property here caused by whole trees torn from hillsides that collapsed under their own weight and ended up wrecking havoc on the flats while en route to the beaches”. So how can the previous government, or several previous governments, by responsible for that? Who, then, is ‘responsible for the destruction that can now be identified’?
You also express concern about the intrusion of forestry over farmland, and indeed, this is a major issue, but it is irrelevant to the damage of whole trees, two decades or older, being dislodged by the worst rainstorm since colonization. Maybe climate change has something to do with it, but the fact is that man’s removal of the native forests from the geologically fragile Gisborne hills has left them vulnerable to cyclonic rain storms. Now the compelling issue is, what remedial action needs to be taken?
And incidentally, I think that it’s time you laid off the Parata Enquiry.
The responsibility for the destruction lies primarily with the unprecedented climate event although l can’t understand why you would restrict your assessment to colonialism, which is a not too subtle indication that you think Maori were not at all responsible for the native vegetation removal. The forces of nature were aided and abetted by the previous Government’s idealogical obsession with reducing its carbon emissions and to a lesser extent, our multi ethnic forebears’ removal of the forest cover exposing hill country to severe erosion which incidentally, would have occurred whatever the ground cover at the time of the cyclone and finally, the actions of a few rogue forestry management companies operating here on the Coast.
So far the only modern day contributors to the destruction being held accountable are the forestry management companies.
That says it all really.
What part of my conclusions drawn from the Parata Inquiry report do you find unacceptable - if any?
.
1. Of course, Māori deforested much of New Zealand through fire as far back as the 16th and 17th centuries, but the land was left to regenerate, albeit slowly, whereas we, in good faith, replaced the forest with grass. I chose as a starting point colonialization because the Europeans brought rain gauges and the pencils & paper to record what was measured.
2. What conclusions have you drawn from the Parata Report, other than to claim that it was acting as the handmaiden of the Government, which I think is insulting?
3. Why link the conversion of forestry for the purposes of emission trading with the effects of the two 2023 cyclones? Those effects related to landuse, forestry or pasture, that were determined decades ago.
It can’t be an insult if it is the truth. It is simply stating the obvious.
The reason for making the link between government policy and the storm damage is because it was an irresponsible use of legislation that was meant to oversee the expansion of the forestry estate in a controlled manner while, in the process, help to significantly reduce our GHG emissions by 2050 - rather than encourage foreign investors to buy up large tracts of our best livestock grazing land, the management of which would become prone to poor oversight by local authorities and abusive activities by the ‘Cowboy’ element within the forestry management companies.
The worst part of this whole sorry saga is that the Government Minister at the time, Stuart Nash, was repeatedly warned by local farmers that the consequences of this misuse of the legislation would be an erosion of trust in the government to manage our natural resources in the best interests of all kiwis. It brings no satisfaction to those who were encouraging the Government to use the OIO to restrict purchase of our best land by foreigners, that we have been proved right. The damage is irreparable and will mean a huge loss of income from those farms that are now in trees at a time when we need every cent of overseas farms to cover the cost of the restructure.
My other conclusions are well documented in my earlier replies to other commenters.
It beggars belief that people like Ewan MacGregor, who presents himself as an authority on farm forestry, appears unable to accept that the previous government is as much as anyone culpable for this disaster. In fact, of all the human contributors to our broken economy, the previous administration stands unchallenged as the worst of a very bad bunch.
So, if Winston Peters had run with National 6 years ago Cyclone Gabrielle wouldn’t have happened? Or it would have happened but it wouldn’t have done the catastrophic damage that it did? Nonsense! Recent governments have got nothing to do with it. The vulnerability of the land was set decades ago.
And Clive, let’s leave it to others to rate my knowledge on farm forestry. My ego’s not the issue here.
The previous government’s influence on the magnitude of the damage is definitely the issue here - not whether the Cyclone actually happened or that it caused havoc throughout the region.
Pre schoolers could have worked that one out.
But yes, l contend that a government including Winston Peters or anybody else with a genuine interest in Rural NZ like him during the first term of the Ardern administration would have stopped the unrestrained expansion of the forestry estate that exposed so much of the vulnerable erosion prone land to the full impact of the climate event. It is also worth noting (something you and others refuse to acknowledge) - the bulk of the destruction was caused by whole trees originating from hillsides and gullies (many of them on land retried permanently and unharvested) that collapsed under their own waterlogged weight. And the evidence from recent large slips occurring on reserve (Coromandel and Tasman) land covered in native vegetation is that that ground is just as vulnerable to excessive rainfalls as our mudstone based hills here are.
So, the suggestion you and others make that had we not removed the native forests, the erosion would not have occurred is a nonsensical statement in itself.
Finally, l never offered an opinion on whether your reputation as an authority on farm forestry was justified or not - simply observed that you act as if you know quite a lot about the subject, which is a totally different position to take on my part.
I’m happy to let others decide.
So, if we had left the land in native forest there would be just as much erosion. God’s the one to blame then. So that let’s Jacinda off the hook. What a lot of nonsense.
No you’re wrong Ewan.
The Labour administration (20 - 23) certainly made things much worse than it needed to be, irrespective of the ground cover at the time the Cyclone ( described in your own words as the most destructive on record) decimated everything in its path. It was the doctrinal obsession with reaching their own emissions reduction targets that made so much of the ground needlessly exposed to this monumental storm.
Of course there were other human contributors but none even came close to the damage attributable to Jacinda’s motley crew.
Their actions can only be described as vandalism of the worst kind.
But no doubt you will continue to deny what you should know about the likely outcome from this type of irresponsible interference.
Thank God the country is back in the hands of grown ups.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.