He said in a speech to a crowd at the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron in Auckland that he went to Miami to speak to four major cruise liners to find out why the cruise ships aren't coming here as much as they used to.
And he apparently says that they call us 'No Zealand' because we just say no to everything. Is he wrong?
I mean, look at the news that's been around just for the last couple of days, right?
Santana wants to dig $7 billion worth of gold out of the ground near Cromwell. The locals say no.
Eric Stanford wants to change the curriculum so our kids can actually get a decent international education and have a future ahead of them. The unions say no.
Chris Bishop wants to scrap regional councils because they just waste everyone's time and money and say no to things, and the perpetually concerned looked at that and said no.
We say no so much that the Government has created the fast-track approvals process to basically bulldoze through all the 'no's' they know are gonna come.
Some of it is the rules that we've created for ourselves, right? Because the RMA is just one giant no factory.
But some of it, I think, is actually cultural.
We have a great life here in New Zealand, even if you're rich or poor, whatever your circumstances, you can enjoy your life in New Zealand.
Temperatures aren't too extreme, there aren't creatures trying to kill you all the time like in Australia, foreign enemies aren't trying to kill us all the time like places in Europe, and we don't actually really have to struggle too much to get by.
So we can cruise, and so we do cruise. So we just don't try. We just say no, we just don't want to change that much.
On the bright side, I think this attitude is changing at the minute.
I mean, I hate to make things about politics all the time and look to politicians for help, but I think it is because we have some brave political leaders at the moment who are prepared to ruffle some feathers.
The mayor of Auckland who was just getting on with changing the port and making money for the city, and the RMA minister Chris Bishop who's scrapping the regional councils, which is a massive thing to do.
And everyone's crush, Erica Stanford, who's completely overhauling education despite the educators saying no to her.
So when we have to say yes, when the going gets tough like it is right now, I think that we can say yes.
My hope is, though, that we get stuck in the yes setting and we stay here and break the habit of the constant no setting.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show.
6 comments:
Yes, in many ways a 'no' culture--in part driven by risk-avoidance, bureaucratic 'superiorism' (bureaucrats and managers leading 'teams ' are smarter than everybody else) and obsessions over statistically improbable events. The 'no' culture has created an Army of Consultants--not just the so-called experts who are Maori cultural advisers.
It’s a problem at the top. Take Christopher Luxon’s track record for example
Luxon actively campaigned against a proposed townhouse/apartment-style development (often referred to as the Quarterdeck project) in Cockle Bay/Howick when he was the local MP, supporting residents who wanted the area to remain single‑dwelling housing. The development later failed to obtain consent through planning and court processes, so that particular project did not proceed.
As Prime Minister, Luxon’s government changed housing and fast‑track rules, and under the new settings a fast‑track panel blocked at least one Auckland housing development in his Botany electorate. This has led critics to argue that his government’s approach has, in practice, stopped or discouraged some apartment and higher‑density developments, even while he publicly calls for more housing supply.
Actions speak louder than words. We’re not idiots.
I’ve always supposed it is a result of Tall Poppy Syndrome. ‘No’ prevents the stars from shining as stars among us. It’s particularly troublesome in at least one of our universities and it’s bad in public service. Too many people here seem to cherish a level playing field even at the cost of a greater good. We want everyone held in their place in the social structure. No leaping ahead of the rest.
No no no no no to everything...having fun...NO/ Building something...NO/ Growing a business and creating jobs...NO/ Cruise Ships....NO/ Outing criminals...NO/ Calling spades spades...NO
And Why? Because a bunch of leftards - the same people who complain the loudest about poverty/ lack of fairness etc....are the same people who insist on government beurecracy getting in the way of absolutely everything!
The Cruise Ship companies are right - if I was them I'd stay away too....when they do turn up they're not allowed to use our ports for anything that they need to do - despite paying for the privelage of turning up, and at the same time they and their passengers are faced with a bunch of moronic greenies complaining (in their faces with pacards waving) that some fuel was used to power the ship. (You don't see these people at the airport doing the same to plane arrivals, or camped outside a Lithium mine - which is where the batteries for their anything but green electric cars come from.)
So instead these same people will just make everyone pay more tax to fund their govt job lives without any actual understanding of where the money comes from....the bottomless pit of taxpayer - that needs the cruise ships to help pay the bills!
I'd trade a cruise ship for a greenie or a NZ govt beaurecrat any day.
hmmm... Maybe NZ is considered a lifestyle option.
David Seymour's actions to stop or slow apartment developments in Epsom contrast sharply with the concept of a "yes culture" which promotes facilitating development and growth, especially needed in housing markets. This approach prioritises maintaining the status quo in established neighbourhoods, "NIMBYism," over enabling increased density near city centres.
A "yes culture" embraces intensification, streamlines consenting processes, and encourages development near central city and transport nodes to meet housing demand efficiently. It focuses on removing barriers that delay or block housing supply, which economists say is crucial to addressing affordability and enabling more people to live near jobs. Seymour's selective opposition to intensification reflects political incentives rather than the economic rationale for growth.
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.