Politics, AKA: the long con

"If you recognise that politics is full of liars but consistently fall for lies from your own 'team,' then you are the mark, the intended target of the long con being staged by those in power."

~ Justin Amash

"All of this helps to explain why a forcible annexation of Greenland would ultimately also harm U.S. interests [as well]."

"All of this helps to explain why a forcible annexation of Greenland would ultimately also harm U.S. interests. To trade in the most stable and powerful military alliance in modern history for control over a frigid and sparsely populated island—plus a place for Trump in the history books—is a bad deal for the American people. But that doesn’t mean that the Trump White House will see things the same way."

~ Yascha Mounk from his post 'They Really Just Might Invade Greenland'

"The biggest ideological changes of the Trump era are not on *my* side. It’s the rest of the 'right' that changed."

 

"The biggest ideological changes of the Trump era are not on my side. It’s the rest of the 'right' that changed. ...
    "To those observing from the outside, it is obvious that people who sign up for Trumpism completely transform themselves. Free marketers become protectionists, secularists become 'culture-war Christians,' people who once sang paeans to the Constitution become advocates of one-man rule. Most disturbingly, people who used to talk in old Reaganite terms about the positive contributions of immigrants now delight in the administration’s performative cruelty toward immigrants. Look at Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban refugees who is now the chief enforcer of the administration’s arbitrary detention of foreigners.
    "Compared to that, I have been an island of stability. ... [W]hile my background would have been described as being 'on the right—back when that meant something different—I was never a conservative and not even quite a libertarian. For the general reader, I usually described myself as a 'secular free-marketer,' and that’s still true. But the context of the times has changed, and the main fault line in American politics is very different from what it was ten or fifteen years ago. ...
    "I’ve been talking for a while about how I suspect we’re in the middle of a vast new political realignment, and that has now crystallised. The new political spectrum isn’t left versus right. It’s liberalism versus authoritarianism."

~ Robert Tracinski from his post 'How I Changed, Or: How I Became a Mugwump'

What's 'Woke'?

 What's 'woke'? and why is it called that? Philosopher Stephen Hicks has the simple explanation:

It comes out of the Left politically. Interestingly on the Right politically too (if we can use these labels, left and right, [since they're] both problematic.)

    But on the Right there’s the concept of the 'red pill,' which comes from the movie 'The Matrix.' So the idea then is that in some sense one is in a coma, perhaps a chemically-induced coma. But if you take a pill, the red pill, then suddenly the coma goes away, you wake up, and you see reality as it really is. And everything is quite different. 

    So the Left version of this comes out of the 'False Consciousness' tradition. It says that ... we are all raised [or] conditioned into a false narrative that says that [western civilisation is great] or that America is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and justice and freedom for all and so forth. But that is a fake cover story that has been 'conditioned' into all of us. And what we need to do is to raise our consciousness—and in some cases get slapped upside the head—so that we wake up and look around and realise that we really are oppressed. 

    And that’s a kind of 'awakening,' to see the world as it as it really is. So woke is just a slang-y way of saying that 'I’ve woken up,' and now I can really see that this childhood naïve story about what a wonderful culture we’re living in is false, and that one has become sensitised, and now buys into the narrative of oppression and exploitation.

"This is one of the largest tax hikes in American history, and it will be enacted by presidential decree without so much as a single vote of Congress." [UPDATED]

"Peter Navarro [a Trump 'economics' advisor] is promising a $600 billion/year tax hike (hence $6 trillion in a decade) from the April 2nd tariff package.
    "This is one of the largest tax hikes in American history, and it will be enacted by presidential decree without so much as a single vote of Congress.
    "That is because Congress has allowed the executive branch to usurp its tax power from Article I, Section 8 through a blatantly unconstitutional delegation with no intelligible principle beyond the personal whims of the current president.
    "This is a clear cut case where the judiciary needs to step in restore constitutional order."

~ Phil Magness

UPDATE: And then there are the threats on Taxation Day to attempt to stop some of the most obvious consequences, like price rises:

 

"...the real crime here is not just the waste of money. It is the deliberate sabotage of Maori children..."

"One could be forgiven for thinking that education in New Zealand is about preparing children for success, arming them with the knowledge and skills to thrive in an unforgiving world. But no, that quaint notion has been tossed aside in favour of racial indulgence on an industrial scale. ...
    "For the avoidance of doubt, let us be absolutely clear: the explosion of Maori 'education' is not about academic excellence. It is not about opportunity. It is not even about preparing children for a productive future. It is about separatism, racial division, and the slow but steady dismantling of a cohesive New Zealand in favour of a taxpayer-funded Maori aristocracy that feeds off endless handouts while contributing nothing of real value. ...
    "The fact that this nonsense is allowed to continue, let alone celebrated, is proof of how utterly captured the political establishment has become by the Maori lobby. ...
    "The figures are damning. Over 27,000 students are now trapped in this system, severed from the real world, taught in a language that offers them no genuine economic or professional advantage. The supposed 'success' of these schools is measured not by academic rigour, but by '90% achievement rates' in NCEA — an utterly meaningless statistic in a system where one can pass without ever learning anything of substance. ...
    "But the real crime here is not just the waste of money. It is the deliberate sabotage of Maori children, condemned to a future where they are taught to see themselves as a separate, entitled class rather than as individuals capable of success through their own efforts. It is a betrayal of the very principles that once made this country great - hard work, integration, and a commitment to excellence over racial sentimentality.
    "It is high time we called this absurdity what it is: a state-funded exercise in racial narcissism. ...
    "English, mathematics, science, and personal responsibility — these are the only foundations of success. Everything else is a taxpayer-funded diversion."

 ~ Tui Vaeau from his post 'The Great Maori Education Racket - A State Funded Farce'

‘US Imperialism Has No Clothes’

“The American imperialism directed towards Denmark and Canada is not just morally wrong. It is strategically disastrous. The United States has nothing to gain from it, and much to lose. There is nothing that Americans cannot get from Denmark or Canada through alliance. The very existence of the base at Pituffik shows that. Within the atmosphere of friendship that has prevailed the last eighty years, all of the mineral resources of Canada and Greenland can be traded for on good terms, or for that matter explored by American companies. The only way to put all of this easy access in doubt was to follow the course that Musk-Trump have chosen: trade wars with Canada and Europe, and the threat of actual wars and annexations. Musk-Trump are creating the bloodily moronic situation in which the United States will have to fight wars to get the things that, just a few weeks ago, were there for the asking. And of course wars rarely turn out the way one expects.
    “Much effort is spent trying to extract a doctrine from all this. But there is none. It is just senselessness that benefits America’s enemies. Hans Christian Andersen told the unforgettable tale of the naked emperor. In Greenland what we saw was American imperialism with no clothes. Naked and vain.”

~ Timothy Snyder from his post ‘The Imperialism Has No Clothes’

 

Four years of housing uncertainty. Thanks National.

Important to remember that on top of Chris Bishop's announcement this week of recommended changes to the Resource Management Act, unlikely you'd think to be passed before the next election (with all the uncertainty that that will generate), is his and his boss's other injection of uncertainty into housing — i.e., what the planners will and won't allow on a building site — with an admission, buried in a speech yesterday, that this uncertainty will persist until at least 2027!

Dan Brunskill spotted the admission tucked into the speech, calculating that "National's U-turn on the bipartisan accord caused a three-year delay to housing reform"! He explains:

In a speech to the Property Council summit in Auckland on Thursday, Bishop said "Going for Growth” and other reforms would only be bedded in “from 2027 or so onwards.” 

This delay follows the National Party’s decision to abandon a bipartisan housing agreement, called the MDRS (medium density residential standards), negotiated from the National side by Judith Collins and Nicola Willis in 2021.

At the time, Willis said Labour and National had come together “to say an emphatic ‘yes’ to housing in our backyards.” [And this gave every developer certainty.] 

But new party leader Christopher Luxon sided with his NIMBY caucus colleagues in the run-up to the 2023 election and forced [sic] Bishop to rush out an alternative policy after letting his opposition to the arrangement slip during a public meeting.

National’s new policy allowed councils to opt out of the denser housing rules, provided they zoned their cities for 30 years of growth "immediately" — but, almost two years later, not a single council has formally adopted the policy.

Bishop said on Thursday the finer details of the policy’s first phase were still being worked through by officials and local councils should be ready to implement them in 2027.

This is partly due to a “sequencing problem” as the Government is also planning to introduce an entirely new resource management regime towards the end of next year. ... 

Housing reform and the new resource management rules will be implemented as part of the 2027 Long Term Plan cycle [they hope], or roughly four years after Bishop backtracked on the MDRS.

Four fucking years! George Gregan would be proud.

Speaking of NIMBY numpties, here's Bishop's idiotic boss protesting a new apartment development on the site a of a decommissioned and abandoned mechanic's workshop:

'China's Trade Surpluses are Not a Source of Strength'

“'China believes it has a mandate to rule the world,' and that it is using trade balances to accomplish this. ... But, ultimately, Chinese trade surpluses [don’t] help ... '[Right up to] 1839 ... trade favoured the Chinese.' Little good it did them: China [eventually] experienced military humiliation, political and social disintegration, and an eventual descent into communism. ...
   "China’s 'strategy of generating massive trade surpluses [would] not have worked [when money was] backed by bullion ... the trade surpluses incurred by exporting more than its imports [would] have caused China’s currency to appreciate ... [making] Chinese manufactures more expensive and less attractive for outsourcing…'
   "'That never happened' ... because [without a gold standard] China [could devalue] its currency, harming its own people...' .... China’s currency manipulations have imposed costs on its citizens in terms of reduced real incomes. 

   "That isn’t all. The currency creation necessary to keep the yuan’s exchange rate with the dollar somewhat stable when new dollars are being produced at an impressive rate has helped fuel one of the biggest property bubbles in history [in both China and the US] .... [A] US deficit on the trade account must be offset with a surplus on the capital account ... [so] to maintain its export advantage was devious: it invested in the United States, 'buying US assets with US dollars ...The CCP today sits atop a $3 trillion hoard of assets, many of them American.' 

    "And, again, little good it did them. Holding significant stocks of depreciating US government debt isn’t, in fact, a source of strength. China cannot dump them to drive Federal borrowing costs up without tanking their value, which the Federal government is doing itself. As for those US assets, like farmland, it isn’t going anywhere, just like the buildings bought to much distress by the Japanese in the 1980s.
   "China’s government might well be running a trade surplus as a matter of policy. It may even be doing so with the aim of strengthening itself relative to geopolitical rivals like the United States. But ... it has tried this before [and] that same history indicates that the prospects for the government in Beijing are not good. Little good it did the Qing dynasty and little good will it do the Communist Party....

   "As Adam Smith observed in 'The Wealth of Nations,' mercantilism can enrich a few individuals but not entire countries – it detracts from, rather than adding to, the general welfare."

~ Composite quote from John Phelan, Kevin Roberts and Richard Fulmer from the post 'China's Trade Surpluses are Not a Source of Strength'

RMA REPLACEMENT: The good, the bad, and the cattle

Chris Bishop has finally announced his chosen groups' recommendations to replace the RMA.

There's a lot to think through, so here are my first thoughts on their recommendations ...

The good (or not-so bad)

• Property rights gets precisely zero mentions in the RMA, and even less recognition. Here in this report however its gets exactly 25 mentions — a decent number — the first appearing almost as point one, after talking about how the two new Acts would be split up, and even before a section on Te Tiriti [Contents]

• That same hierarchy appears to be reflected in the "Goals." Remembering in law that earlier stated paragraphs/sections/clauses take priority over those stated later, the hierarchy given here is: property rights > separation of incompatible land uses > well-functioning urban and rural areas .> development capacity > infrastructure > natural hazards and the effects of climate change > public access > Māori cultural matters. So if property rights were well-defined and well-protected, that might be sufficient. But see below for the devil ...
• The two replacement Acts (one for environment, one for central planning) are said to "both ... be based on the enjoyment of property rights" [emphasis in the original]. This is stated as "the guiding principle." Good.
• "Both Acts," says the recommendations, "will include starting presumptions that a land use is enabled, unless there are minor or more than minor effects on either the ability of others to use their own land." Good. The devil, of course, is in the detail of how those "effects" are defined, and by whom.
• The RMA was said to be "effects-based," and so are these two replacements. So prepare to be underwhelmed. Yet whereas the RMA looked at ill-defined and undefinable "effects" like "amenity values," "natural character" and "such as the architectural style or colour of a neighbour’s house," this seems to be somewhat more objective. Somewhat. (The problem here being these "externalities" that they talk about, about which see more below. And the all-but certain prospect of regulatory creep to protect "heritage" suburbs and areas of particular "character.")
• "Better recognising property rights," says the recommendations, "requires a more certain regulatory environment so people can know as far as possible what they can and can’t do with their land." The intention is good. 
• It looks like long-existing activities to which new neighbours chose to come (such as speedway at Western Springs, for example) will now be protected. "That is, those that come to the nuisance should not be able to complain about it." Great news, if that's properly done.
• Providing a low-cost tribunal to whom to object to a council's decision is good. (But may not stay low-cost.) And providing "for rapid, low-cost resolution of disputes between neighbours" also sounds good. And that's all that we do need. Maybe a kind of "Disputes Tribunal" or "Small-Consents Tribunal" staffed by experienced part-timers to adjudicate simple no-bullshit disputes about rights to light, to air, to support and so forth based on earlier precedent. In other words, much like an early common-law court ...

The bad (or not-so good)

• The so-called "Expert Advisory Group" delivering these recommendations was established only in September 2024, and given only three months until Christmas to do their job — giving, as they themselves say, only a "short time ... for what is a very substantial task." Given that National in both government and opposition have been talking about "reform" for decades, it seems almost impossible to believe that's when this work first began. And yet, there's no hint from either Bishop or Simon Court (his ACT associate) of any earlier thinking around this. Which would be incredible, right?
• So no wonder "Further detailed policy work will [still] be needed to fully develop our proposals and address outstanding issues and areas of detail." In other words, don't get excited yet. Details .. devil ... etc.
• The Planning Act's purpose is not "protection of property rights" (i.e., part of the very purpose of government); nor yet is it "allowing property owners to exercise the peaceful enjoyment of their property while recognising that same right in others" (i..e, a recognition of where right-based boundaries lie, rather than some subjective "balancing" of rights). So whatever the press releases say, it's not a bottom-up law based on property rights. Instead, the stated purpose is: "To establish a framework for planning and regulating the use, development and enjoyment of land." In other words, it's top-down planning. As will be the related Natural Environment Act.
• The RMA was said to be "effects-based," yet we see how well that turned out! These replacement Acts are also said to be effects-based, with the effects this time "regulated ... on the economic concept of externalities." [Executive Summary, Recommendations, 5b]
• externalities, however, are essentially an anti-concept, i.e., an unnecessary, approximate, and and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept (much like "stakeholders" or "opportunity cost" are also); in this case it's an economists' way to avoid talking about property rights. And the real cause of many “externalities” is generally that private property rights have not been adequately defined, nor sufficiently well protected! (For example, if property rights are well-defined and well-protected, a downstream landowner could sue in a court of law for an upstream farmer’s action in dirtying the waters.)
• the presumption of the proposed Planning Act
• While both replacement Acts are said to "be based on the enjoyment of property rights," these rights appear to come as  gifts from the state, subject to "approaches to regulation standardised at the national level" and requiring a "justification report" if the"approach" has any departure from that. [Executive Summary, Recommendations, 5c]. And the refusal to recognise or allow ownership of Crown "resources," but only a license, give little motivation to protect that resource, while limiting the ability of these limited license-holders to sue in common law if the resource is damaged by others.
• In a sense this whole thing is irrelevant, since the whole country will still be zoned anyway — zoned according to town planners' predilections, with their own additional "overlays," "areas" and "precincts."  So fewer zones, to be sure: but does it really matter how many principalities it takes to make up a whole kingdom — the fact is that you still have to make obeisance to a prince. (Note here that town planning (with its zones) has only been around here since 1928, and you'll notice that most of those in that alleged profession prefer to live in places built before then. Ever asked yourself why that is?)
• Whatever the headlines might say, the recommendations here still favour inclusion of a Treaty Clause. Less ill-defined than before, to be sure, listing what is said to be "relevant aspects of the statute enacted in light of Treaty obligations." But still there, poisoning all objective law. 
• One of the worst part of the present RMA is the scope given to objectors from anywhere to "submit" on a resource consent application to oppose/delay/kill it off. It's not only unjust, it's illegitimate — only those with standing, in a common-law sense, have the right to object to any "effects" on their property rights (hence the importance of well-defined and well-protected rights.)  That focus on proper standing would, on its own, limit objections to those with a right to mount one, and also kill off the potential for illegitimate objections by trade competitors. But I see nothing here to substantially change this situation. And they still explicitly allow for "public notification" of activities or effects along the lines of the existing Act.
• Providing "for rapid, low-cost resolution of disputes between neighbours" sounds good. So why involve councils at all in disputes between neighbours? (And you can complete the thought by realising that's the only common-sense part of any "planning application.")   Since these Acts still call for council, however, their halfway-house proposal of a "Planning Tribunal" to site between council and Environment Court might at least save some applicants some money. (Unless of course it becomes just another layer in an already lengthy process, or so popular and so necessary — and staffing of these "expert" bodies so difficult — that the delay in being heard becomes unconscionable.)
• Finally, one of the many uncertainties under the present RMA regime is the uncertainty faced by land-owners when "ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga" no longer owned by iwi or hapu, but foisted on present land-owners on the basis of often non-objective oral histories or other unsubstantiated accounts. See for example Auckland's "Taniwha Tax," and other councils' "SASMs." The report nonetheless recommends "that future legislation should retain the existing RMA mechanisms for Māori participation and make further provision for Māori engagement." (The only improvement might be a recommendation for better record-keeping of the decision-making processes around these impositions.

The cattle

So they weren't given much time, and arguably in that short time came up with something better than decades of earlier meddlers and "taskforce" writers did. But who exactly wrote this report? 

We have, to list them all with their chosen "professions":

• an "environmental planner,"  
• an economist "with expertise in natural resource and environmental economics"
• a "resource management practitioner"
• the general manager of Tauranga City Council (infamous for their ill-named "Smart Growth" strategy that made the small city one of the least affordable in the country)
• and a "professional director" who chairs the kingitanga.

Nice. All folk who've made piles of money out of this ill-defined and poorly-written pile of excrement.

Chairing the group is a barrister, who's also made her career from that ever-giving trough labelled "resource management law." ( I was reminded again of Mencken's famous saying that All the extravagance and incompetence of our present Government is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of the citizens has a lawyer behind it.")  

I looked in vain for someone in that list, anyone at all, who might be a business owner or developer who's had their balls in the planner's vice, or a land-owner begging for permission from these grey ones to use their own land. Not a hint of it. Just folk who've been making a killing over many years from their snouts being in that same trough. (There is one bureaucrat who's a policy chap from Federated Farmers — not a farmer although he grew up on one' —who's issued his own minority report essentially arguing for better definition and clarity, to limit the possibility of regulatory creep. )

So what to expect from that group?

To be fair, it's better than I'd expected.

But given how many decades it's taken to start turning this ship around, and this will be the one chance in all that time, it's not as good as it could be.

And there's still plenty of work to do (which is to say too much) for the various species these authors represent.

Furthermore, with the legislation not to be passed before the next election, I'd expect it only to get worse rather than any better. This, you'll realise, is the high point.

Here's the group's own table summarising their main recommendations:

NB: For a more mainstream view (some might say a "less-jaundiced" one) here are the initial reaction from planner Stu Donovan, who is focussed on affordable housing. And some short common-sense thoughts from Matt Prasad.

"You do not *understand* America.”

"The Declaration of Independence stated, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are create equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' Note the phrasing 'all men' (in this context meaning 'all humanity'). This idea of universal human rights was later enshrined in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment guarantees due process to all people, not just citizens, and not just white people.
    "So if you are defending the idea of deporting people, or sending them off to some hell-hole in El Salvador, without a trial or any opportunity to defend themselves, then you do not love America. You do not understand America.”

~ Stewart Margolis from his post 'Let's Get Real'

Jeremy Clarkson v Elon Musk [updated]

Elon Musk (a sensitive wee chap) sued Jeremy Clarkson back in 2008 for a review of a Tesla. Clarkson won. Now, he's flipping the bird as well.

“The sudden pan-global decision to uncrowdfund Tesla and to break the door mirrors off as many of its cars as possible is not funny. But also, it’s kinda hilarious. Especially if you’re me. ...
    “Things are so bad that a friend of mine who was trying to save the world (and a few quid on the congestion charge) has now fitted a sticker to his Tesla saying he bought it before he knew Musk was an idiot ...
    "I said [in my review] it was unreliable, which it was; that it was ridiculously expensive, which it was; and that because it weighed more than most moons, it didn’t handle very well. Which it didn’t.
    "Musk was very angry about this and sued us for defamation, claiming I had a problem with electrical cars and had written the piece before even setting foot in the car.
    "He lost the case, and the appeal, and he’s never really got over it. He still claims I was biased and that we pretended his car had broken down when it hadn’t. Even though it had.
    "I should really have sued him back, but I feared he’d call me a paedo, so instead I just waited on the river bank for his body to float past. And now it has."

More background here:

UPDATE: 

"Tesla is being forced to change the name of its so-called 'Full Self-Driving' driver assistance feature in China.
As spotted by Electrek, the Elon Musk-led company is now going by the name "Intelligent Assisted Driving" in Chinese on its website. ...
    "The software itself appears to be suffering from some potentially dangerous flaws. Drivers had been testing the software — before it was paused — on public streets in China, racking up a huge number of fines. Chinese Tesla owners have found that the system is misinterpreting bike lanes as right turn lanes, running red lights, and hogging bus lanes illegally ...
    "The carmaker has already run afoul of regulators for its misleading naming convention — after all, as Tesla admits on its website, the "Full Self-Driving" feature doesn't make good on its promise of fully autonomous driving and requires drivers to be ready to take over at all times.
    "In 2022, the California DMV alleged that Tesla put out 'untrue or misleading' advertisements on its website in relation to its Full Self-Driving and Autopilot tech...
    "For almost a decade, Tesla has been marketing its driver assistance software using misleading language.
    'That's likely already had severe consequences. US regulators have linked the carmaker's software to hundreds of collisions and dozens of deaths, warning that Tesla's marketing is lulling its customers into a false sense of security."

To be clear, as one tester shows — whatever Musk tells the market to inflate Tesla's share price — the cars are neither self-driving nor autonomous. So be careful out there. [Main test section starts 8:10]

"Private property rights do not just protect us; they provide the strongest possible protection for the environment"

Cartoon by Nick Kim 

"The solution is simple: Don't tinker with the procedures for acquiring a Resource Consent. Don't tinker with the Environment Court. Don't 'recraft' the RMA. Don't 'streamline it, don't 'fix' or 'reform' it. 

    "Instead, drive a stake through its heart. [Draw up transitional measures] to reinstate the common law protections of property and environment -- and then get the hell out of the way."

          ~ me, writing 20 years ago in the NZ Herald

"New Zealand has had nearly a decade under the RMA, under planning legislation that abolishes property rights and provides no environmental protection...In doing so we have ignored eight centuries of common law that protects both.

~ me 23 years ago, writing on 'New Zealand's Persecuted Minority: Property Owners' 

"Protection of property rights is amongst the chief reasons for which governments are constituted, yet successive NZ governments over recent years have not only ignored your property rights, but have actively sought to remove them. ...

"New Zealanders who once themselves understood the crucial importance of property rights now seem bemused by their lack, until perhaps they themselves find they can’t build on their own property, can’t cut down their own trees, can’t use their property in ways they always have, or find that control of their property has been passed to someone else … and that someone carries a clip-board and must be called ‘Sir’ … and we must pay that person for the privilege of asking them permission to do what we want to on our own land.
It’s not right.

"Author Ayn Rand once observed that when the productive have to ask permission from the unproductive in order to produce, then you may know that your culture is doomed. Aren’t we there now?

The productive have been asking permission from the unproductive in order to produce … and you haven’t been getting it, have you. Not without a fight. Not without iwi consents. Not without a large legal bill, and several weeks months spent with a consultant.

"There is a litany of projects across the country – projects both large and small --that have never and will never get of the ground – permission having been sought at great time, energy and expense, and permission never having been granted. The number of large infrastructure projects completed in the last ten years can be counted on the fingers of one foot.

"[And there are uncountable small projects, things that you and I would have once attempted], that are just stillborn; never to be tried, as people realise that there’s no point in planning projects and paying for consultants and for permission that will never be granted.

"And there are people who have now realised that their land is no longer their own, since ownership means nothing when you must ask someone else’s permission in order to use that which you own.

"It’s not right.

"We’ve lost our property rights, and we’ve lost the understanding of why property rights are important. What we’re losing is part of our heritage: part of what made the West rich, and part of what protected our freedom, our liberty, and our lives.

...

"The need for a legal framework protecting property has been long ignored or taken for granted by economists and legal theorists of all stripes, but its importance is slowly being re-understood by contemporary thinkers. Tom Bethell’s landmark book 'The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages' traces successes and disasters of history consequent upon the respective recognition or denial of property through the ages: Ireland’s potato famine, the desertification of the Sahara, and the near-disastrous US colonies at Jamestown and Plymouth can all be traced to lack of respect for property.... 

"Bethell identifies four crucial blessings of property that can't easily be recognised in a society lacking the secure, decentralised, private ownership of goods. These are: liberty, justice, peace and prosperity. The argument of [his] book is that private property is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for these highly desirable social outcomes.

"Property rights then give us a firm place to stand deserving of legal protection — a Turangawaewae. Their full legal and constitutional protection is crucial, in order to ensure that their protection is not taken away by arbitrary legislative fiat, as has happened over recent years. ...

"The most glaring recent example of the destruction of property rights by legislative fiat is that of the Resource Management Act (RMA). In all the nearly five-hundred pages of the RMA there is not one reference to property rights — not one! — yet it is people’s property and their use of it with which the RMA deals directly. ...

"Private property rights do not just protect us; they provide the strongest possible protection for the environment, since owners with clearly defined and secure property rights have a strong incentive to care for their own land. Our property rights act like ‘mirrors,’ reflecting back on ourselves the consequences of our own actions.

"[Properly directed, as the common law was once allowed to,] they also give us the power to act as guardians against abuse by others — specific legal power to act against those who would damage the environmental values of our property.

"As property rights are eroded however, people become less willing to invest in good stewardship because they are uncertain as to where the benefits of their labours will finally accrue.

"Most damage to the environment is the result of ‘the tragedy of the commons’ whereby people are encouraged to ‘take the last fish’ or ‘cut down the last tree’ because if they don’t, then someone else will. Property rights solves the ‘tragedy of the commons’ by defining ‘whose tree’ it is, and by giving secure legal protection to those planning longer range by planting trees.

"As Hernando de Soto argues, property rights extend people’s time horizons by allowing them to plan longer-range rather than shorter. In jurisdictions in which property rights are not secure, he writes, it will be observed that people will build their furniture before they build their walls or their roof. The reason for this is that without the protection of property rights, such short-term action is rational: property in such a jurisdiction needs to be kept mobile as property cannot be kept secure. As property rights become more secure time horizons become longer, and planning can become longer range."

~ me, from a 2005 speech on property rights

RELATED:

• 'It's Time to Drive a Stake Through the Heart of the RMA' - Peter Cresswell (2004)
• The problem is not dirty dairying; it's still dirty government (2018)
• How the RMA continues to protect polluters (2015)
• Amy Adams’s meddling dirtier than the dairying (2014)
• The Common Law: How it Protects the Environment – Roger Meiners & Bruce Yandle
• Cue Card Libertarianism -- Common law (2013)
• Water Markets: Priming the Invisible Pump – Terry Anderson & Pamela Snyder, PERC REPORT
• Without Obstruction, Diversion or Corruption: The Power of Property Rights to Preserve Our Lakes and Rivers – Elizabeth Brubaker, ENVIRONMENT PROBE
• The role of property rights in protecting water quality - Environment Probe
• The state can't protect the environment – markets can – Fred Smith, NOT PC (2017)
• What would Party X do about the environment? Part 2: A Nuisance and a BOR – (2011)
• Environmental Water Markets: Restoring Streams Through Trade – Brandon Scarborough, PERC REPORT

"Kiwi Exodus"

The Economist has discovered all is not well down here in this sleepy authoritarian backwater.

From afar [says 'The Economist''s promo], New Zealand always seemed like an ideal destination. Beautiful nature, friendly people, relatively sane politics. And if you’re a fan of Tolkien, you can visit the film home of Bilbo Baggins.

But New Zealanders are leaving their country in record numbers. Almost 129,000 residents emigrated last year—40% above the pre-pandemic average for this century. Holy Shire, what’s going on?! Our report looks at why Kiwis are moving out, where they are going and how their government may struggle to reverse the trend.

It's not so much a "report," however. More just a few pessimistic paragraphs under the heading 'Kiwi Exodus' riffing on the failure of a lacklustre National Government to stop the rot...

New Zealanders ... are leaving their country in record numbers. Almost 129,000 residents emigrated last year—40% above the pre-pandemic average for this century. It is not a case of last in, first out. The majority of those leaving were New Zealanders, rather than immigrants returning home, creating a net loss of 47,000 citizens. ...

Its small economy and relative lack of opportunity have long driven young New Zealanders towards what they call the 'overseas experience,' fanning fears of brain drain. Proportionate to its population of 5.3m, it has one of the largest diasporas in the OECD ...

Recently, New Zealand has been in a rut. The economy is in recession and unemployment has risen. Outgoing Kiwis grumble about costly housing and a crime surge.
 
Unlike most, they have an alternative when times get tough: they are free to live and work in Australia, and vice versa. Almost 15% of them are now based across the ditch”. It is not just that Australia’s economy has weathered the cost-of-living crisis better. The income gap between the pair has been growing for decades. Adjusted for purchasing power, Australia’s per person GDP is about a third higher than New Zealand’s. Its pensions are more generous, and its centre-left Labor government has made it easier for Kiwis to get passports and benefits. By comparison, New Zealand is 'a sinking boat,' says one transplant on a Facebook group for Kiwi expats. Australia is 'best for [an] easy life,' writes another.

In the past, fears of brain drain have proved overblown. Young expats have generally returned, and governments have offset losses by letting in immigrants from countries such as India and China. The result was a 'brain exchange,' says Paul Spoonley, a sociologist at New Zealand’s Massey University. But there is a risk of that changing, he argues. First, he says, it is no longer just young New Zealanders who are leaving, but more experienced professionals and extended families. Second, inward immigration is now slowing. After a post-pandemic spike, it plunged by around a third last year, though the population is still growing. Christopher Luxon, the prime minister, says the solution is 'to build a long-term proposition where New Zealanders actually choose to stay.' But that has not proved easy. In 2009 John Key, then prime minister, set out to 'match Australia by 2025.' In Wellington, the capital, some now joke that a more realistic goal would be to 'beat Fiji by 2050.'

The 'World Happiness Report' Is a Sham

"The happiest countries in the world are in Scandinavia [according to the World Happiness Report]; this year, Finland is followed by Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden. [New Zealand is ranked 12th, between Australia and Switzerland.] America, despite being one of the richest large countries in the world, persistently underperforms: this year, the United States only comes in 24th out of the 147 countries covered in the report, placing it behind much poorer countries like Lithuania and Costa Rica.
    "I have to admit that I have been skeptical about this ranking ever since I first came across it ... while Scandinavian countries have a lot of great things going for them, they never struck me as pictures of joy. ...
    "So to honour the release of this year’s report, I finally decided to follow my hunch, and looked into the research on this topic more deeply. What I found was worse than I’d imagined. To put it politely, the World Happiness Report is beset with methodological problems. To put it bluntly, it is a sham. ...
    "In light of ... confident pronouncements [from media], and in the absence of any critical voices in most of these news stories, you might be forgiven for thinking that the report carefully assesses how happy each country in the world is according to a sophisticated methodology, one that likely involves both subjective and objective criteria. But upon closer examination, it turns out that the World Happiness Report is not based on any major research effort; far from measuring how happy people are with some sophisticated mix of indicators, it simply compiles answers to a single question, asked to comparatively small samples of people in each country ... [which] does not even do a good job of measuring respondents’ satisfaction with their own lives. ...
    "But perhaps the biggest problem with the World Happiness Report is that metrics of self-reported life satisfaction don’t seem to correlate particularly well with other kinds of things we clearly care about when we talk about happiness. At a minimum, you would expect the happiest countries in the world to have some of the lowest incidences of adverse mental health outcomes. But it turns out that the residents of the same Scandinavian countries that the press dutifully celebrates for their supposed happiness are especially likely to take antidepressants. ...
    "It is easy to see why editors are tempted to assign some beat reporter without expertise in the social sciences to write up a fun little story about how much happier those enlightened Scandinavians are compared to benighted Americans. But if the media wants to live up to its self-appointed role as a gatekeeper of reliable information, it can’t continue to be complicit in the spread of such shoddy clickbait."

~ Yascha Mounk from his post 'The World Happiness Report Is a Sham'

RELATED:

1. "It’s not just this survey. Have you ever wondered from where exactly all these folk derive their data for all these things about the world’s happiest this and the freest the-other? I pressed one fellow once whose 'freedom index' showed New Zealand at the time to be the world’s freest — earning us their 'gold medal for freedom' with scores like 9.6 out of 10 for property rights only a few years after the Resource Management Act had taken most of them away.
    "After a whole riot of wriggling to try to avoid the questioning, he eventually conceded that much of their data is based on subjective surveys sent out to selected 'leaders' in each country. And from that news it didn’t take much more to learn that most of those surveys were completed by local cheerleaders desperately keen to trumpet the virtues of their hometown. (Q: Is your place a hell of place to do business? A: [Big tick] Hell, yes!! You’re darn tootin’!)
    "So, garbage in, and garbage out."

~ me from my 2012 post 'NZ: Prosperous?'

2. "[T]here are many things wrong with the way these indices are scored – none of them inspiring much confidence in their methodology.
    "The Index of Economic Freedom scores countries according to a subjective scale on the size of their government; their legal system and property rights; the size and scope of government; freedom to trade internationally (or not); and something they call oxymoronically 'regulatory efficiency.”'
    "I say a subjective scale because these numbers recorded to three significant figures are based largely on surveys conducted by business groups in each host country; and are difficult to take seriously when New Zealand comes in with a whopping 95 out of 100 for property rights ... and 96.1 out of 100 for business freedom (in other words, almost as good as it’s possible to get)  ...
    "Bear in mind that the only reason American foundations produce indices like these is to browbeat American politicians. But if New Zealand is nearly as good as it gets in this modern world, there really is something wrong with the world we’re in."

~ me from my 2014 post 'New Zealand third freest?'

3. "So since most of these surveys are garbage in garbage out, I figured I’d track this one metric as a measure of how reliable all the others are.

"Bear in mind that this survey, like all such surveys, aren’t carried out by folks in the field fully endowed with local knowledge. They’re pulled together by people at desks very far away from the places they write about ... with facility mainly in handling a spread sheet and a bunch of somebody else’s dubious data.

"Their appendix tells me their source of dubious data for the score on property rights is something called the Global Competitiveness Report, put out by a group called the World Economic Forum. … The Forum is best known for its annual winter meeting for five days in Davos.” Remember Davos? A meeting of men famously described by Daniel Hannan as deriving most of their income, directly or indirectly, from state patronage.

"So where did Davos Man get his figures from for his Global Competitiveness Report? I went to the report to check:

'The GCI uses the World Economic Forum’s annual Executive Opinion Survey to capture concepts that require a more qualitative assessment, or for which comprehensive and internationally comparable statistical data are not available. For this year’s GCI, more than 14,000 business leaders in 140 economies were surveyed on topics related to national competitiveness. ...

"What proportion is opinion, and what proportion is this other data?

'The exact share of Executive Opinion Survey data in the 113 indicators used to calculate the index varies slightly by country, depending on its stage of development. In general, approximately two-thirds of the data used in the GCI 2015-2016 are derived from the Executive Opinion Survey and one-third is derived from international sources’ statistics.'

"So how much of the data is simply opinion? Answer: About two-thirds, emanating from this 'Executive Opinion Survey.'

"And where do we find this Executive Opinion Survey data? Answer: We don’t. It’s not publicly available.

"It is however possible to discover that New Zealand’s Executive Opinion Survey data comes from a survey completed by just 46 people (see the Survey’s Table 2, page 81.). Names and addresses of this select group of cronies are unfortunately not supplied. However the report does list Phil O’Reilly’s Business NZ as their local 'partner institute' (the 'unique strength of Business NZ being, according to their own website, their 'capability to engage with government officials, community groups, MPs and Ministers on a daily basis'). So I’m guessing the cronies are his.

"None of the survey data of this infamous forty-six appears on the Business NZ website, but the NZ Initiative website at least does offer this cautionary note:

'Note the information in the opinion survey can be skewed by perception and by small samples (e.g. New Zealand has a sample size less than 50) and therefore can have substantial error ranges, so analysis should be confirmed with supporting logic and evidence.'

"None of which either the Fraser Institute nor Davos Men have bothered to do.

"Meaning that a subjective worldwide survey of cronies and business cheerleaders gets trumpeted every year as bestowing upon this small authoritarian backwater a medal for freedom – and people who should know better post pieces praising  'reform' in which the government ended up bigger, the total tax take ended larger, and Big Brother became 'bigger and more ominous then ever'.”

~  me from my 2016 post  'A wooden spoon for the Fraser Institute’s “economic freedom” medal'

University education has an entirely undeserved higher status than industry training

"Nearly twice as many New Zealand school leavers fall into unemployment as undertake workplace-based learning. ...
    "In Germany, approximately half of all school leavers participate in the country’s ‘dual training’ apprenticeship system. In contrast, in New Zealand, only 6% of school leavers undertake workplace-based training ...
    "This represents a significant waste of human capital and opportunity, especially considering that industry training leads to many high-demand vocations.
    "The root of the problem is cultural. University education has higher status [entirely undeserved - Ed] than industry training among parents, schools, teachers, and students themselves.
    "The status disparity is exacerbated by the strong orientation of schools toward university preparation as the default setting. ...
    "If clearer pathways from school to industry training were established as a serious option for all students, esteem for industry training would gradually improve."

~ Michael Johnston from his report 'Trade Routes: Charting New Pathways from Secondary School to Industry Training'. Listen here to a podcast with Johnston discussing the report.

The New Zealand Initiative · Trade Routes: Charting New Pathways from Secondary School to Industry Training

"Treaty of Waitangi politics intrude ever more conspicuously into many areas of our society and our public life." Including internet access!

"Treaty of Waitangi politics intrude ever more conspicuously into many areas of our society and our public life. 

• "Even New Zealand’s left-leaning mainstream media have picked up on the University of Auckland's compulsory indoctrination-rich Waipapa Taumata Rau course
• "Janet Dickson’s challenge to the Real Estate Authority over their compulsion on estate agents to undertake a compulsory professional development module called Te Kākano (The Seed)
• "another example in tertiary education concerns efforts to decolonise [sic] the Massey University BA degree ...

"Such examples barely lift the lid on the extent of Treaty indoctrination across the public service, the education and research sectors, businesses and professional regulatory bodies. For example, 

• the Midwifery Council’s Scope of Practice
• the cultural safety requirements imposed on practitioners by the New Zealand Psychologists Board, and 
• the Treaty-centric competency standards for New Zealand pharmacists ...

"A very heavy focus on one population is evident in the charters, mission statements and constitutions of many organisations in New Zealand. ... [I]t seems that even the Internet cannot escape the current identity politics. ... [even if s]uch technology is universally available to the entire world and, by its very nature, is not exclusive to any one ethnicity. In fact, it is one of the most democratising of any technology ...

"[And yet] the InternetNZ Council [which operates the regional registry for New Zealand, i.e, the .nz Register]... has on its agenda the ... overarching Strategic Goal of 'Centring Te Tiriti o Waitangi' as a Strategic Priority, and ethno-centric preferences that dominate five Strategic Goals and 13 out of 25 sub-goals [including] ...  

• Implement Ngā Pae: Pae Kākano | Horizon 1....
• understand what it means to InternetNZ | Ipurangi Aotearoa Group to be Tiriti-centric....
• embed Te Tiriti through our strategies, policies, practices, people capability to achieve digital equity, digital inclusion and access for Māori ...
• [ensure] a Te Tiriti o Waitangi perspective guides everything we do. ...
• [ensure] investment priorities are guided by clear objectives that promote equity, align with priorities identified by Māori in the sector.

"It is perfectly reasonable that effective engagement with Māori, as with all stakeholders, should be part of the mission of InternetNZ. However, by declaring that it will be Te Tiriti-centric, InternetNZ, like our universities, is implicitly taking a political stance, when as a user-focused organisation it should remain entirely neutral....

"The stated goals stand at odds with the principles of [worldwide] internet governance as identified, for example, by the global Internet Society[which undertakes] the global management of the Internet.  ...

"As a critical facility for Internet access for New Zealanders, InternetNZ needs simply to recommit to the fundamental principles of a globally interconnected world, that demonstrate no preference for any particular ethnic, religious, social, economic, national, cultural or racial grouping. ... 

"[W]e must avoid even the remote possibility that access to a .nz domain name could be frustrated because the user may not support one or more of the strategic goals outlined above, or New Zealanders’ rights and responsibilities being differentiated by race."

~ John Raine and David Lillis from their post 'In Case You Were Wondering – InternetNZ and the Treaty'

“What is happening with the vandals in the White House is similar to what happened to Austral[as]ia in 1942 with the fall of Singapore.

“What is happening with the vandals in the White House is similar to what happened to Australia in 1942 with the fall of Singapore. I don’t consider America to be a reliable ally, as I used to.
    “Frankly, I think it is time we reconsidered our priorities and think carefully about our defence needs, now that we are having a more independent posture... Our future is now in a much more precarious state than it was on 19 January.
    “Trump 1.0 was bad enough. But Trump 2.0 is irrecoverable.”

~ former chief of the Australian Defence Force Admiral Chris Barrie, from the artic le '‘Vandals in the White House’ no longer reliable allies of Australia, former defence force chief says'

“'The US is utterly not a reliable ally. No one could see it in those terms ... [President] Trump is wilful and cavalier and so is his heir-apparent, JD Vance: they are laughing at alliance partners, whom they’ve almost studiously disowned.'
    "America had been fundamentally altered by Trump’s second administration and that American leadership of a rules-based international order was 'not returning'.
    "“'The speed of America disowning allies to embrace a new world order where it cuts deals with Russia and China has been so astonishing that people are struggling to grasp it, especially in this country, where people just cannot contemplate a world where America treats so lightly its alliance with Australia'.”

~ former Australian foreign affairs minister Bob Carr, from the article 'Bob Carr says Aukus a ‘colossal surrender of sovereignty’ if submarines do not arrive under Australian control'

The public interest ..."

“'The common good' (or 'the public interest') is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as 'the tribe' or 'the public'; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; 'good'' and 'value' pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of
relationships.
    “'The common good' is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it? ...
    "So long as a concept such as 'the public interest' (or the 'social' or 'national' or 'international' interest) is regarded as a valid principle to guide legislation [however, then] lobbies and pressure groups will necessarily continue to exist. 

    "Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others."

~ Ayn Rand, a composite quote from her essays 'What is Capitalism?' and 'The Pull Peddlers,' collected in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Vale Bruce Moon (1930-2025)

Renegade historian Bruce Moon passed away peacefully yesterday morning. Many NOT PC readers will be aware of his work, perhaps from his contributions to the books 'Twisting the Treaty' or 'One Treaty, One Nation' (to which I also contributed), or from one of his many articles, letters, or submissions to Parliament.

Roger Child's obituary below gives us a glimpse of the man we have lost. 

The passing of leading historian Bruce Moon

By Roger Childs

"Of all the fake history with which New Zealand is swamped today, nothing is more

blatant than the claim that “Aotearoa” is, or was, the Maori name for our country."

~ Bruce Moon

Sadly I never met Bruce Moon face to face, but we did exchange scores of e-mails. Like Waikanae’s John Robinson, Bruce was a mathematician and scientist who came to history later in life. Like many of us, he couldn’t believe how many so called “respected historians” like Anne Salmond, Jock Phillips and Vincent O’Malley twisted elements of our country’s story, notably the history of Maori-Settler relations, and of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Bruce was a stickler for evidence-based history—taking notice of what people who witnessed the actual events had to say. (In his writing he was meticulous in citing his sources.) He rejected “presentism” and the dishonesty of many Maori activists and their fellow-travelers in looking back at events from a one-sided point of view, often without quoting references.

He was also dismayed at the obsession of the mainstream media in promoting the view that Natives/New Zealanders (only called “Maori” from the 1840s), had been given a hard time by settler governments, when in the Treaty of Waitangi —and in subsequent legislation like the establishment of four special seats in parliament and votes for women —they had been treated humanely.

No Maori land was “stolen,” his writing argued, and confiscations only occurred when forewarned tribes rebelled against the government. Compare the Maori’s experience of colonisation with Aborigines in Australia, the black tribes of South Africa and Native Americans in the United States.

A distinguished career

Bruce Moon was born in Christchurch in 1930 and after attending Southland Boys High School he took his degree at Otago University, majoring in mathematics. He pursued a career in computer science, working in this field in England, Australia and New Zealand. In 1981 he became General Manger of Business Computers Limited. He was a Past President of the NZ Computer Society.

Later he lectured in mathematics at Canterbury University, rising to become Associate Professor. After retiring he taught mathematics and science in a mission school in Vanuatu; was a volunteer in an Indian village for disabled people; and taught English and physics to Tibetan refugees.

When he started looking closely at New Zealand history late in life, he was amazed at how some historians twisted the truth,  basing their conclusions too often on unreliable oral history.

Bruce was also appalled at Maori academics making connections between modern-day events and past treatment of Maori.  In commenting on the 2019 Christchurch terrorist attacks, for example, Waikato University’s Leonie Pihama and Tom Roa claimed that Maori had been victims to acts of terrorism in Aotearoa in the past. Bruce took them to task in a long open letter which ended: "I accuse you of using the tragic events in Christchurch for an inexcusable attempt to advance a racist political agenda and in contempt of the fine principles of scholarship which a university should stand by."

Speaking the truth to all

For some people, Bruce Moon was a man to fear! Some years ago he was scheduled to speak on 'Twisting the Treaty and other Fake History' in Nelson, but the Council was worried there would be trouble, so would not allow one of their venues to be used. The talk now called 'A Jaundiced View of the Treaty' was held later with no problems. Not surprisingly, the House Full sign went up.

The fight at Rangiaohia [sic] for the recovery of McHale’s body, February 21 1864 (excerpt, colourised), by L.A. Wilson

A few years back Stuff made the ludicrous decision to apologise to Maori for nasty things Stuff-owned papers had said in the past. These articles, claiming to correct untruths of the past, used as their sources people like  tribal leaders and "woke" historian Vincent O’Malley. One article repeated the lies about a “massacre” at Rangiaowhia in 1864. Quite independently, Bruce and I protested in letters to the paper. Unsurprisingly neither was published.  [One of Bruce's articles on which his letter is based is here. My own piece on the incidents at Rangiaowhia, and some of their context, is here. - Ed.]

When Hamilton’s Bishop Stephen Lowe preached a sermon in 2021 about the “massacre,” he also wrote to the Catholic bishops of New Zealand. In the letter he explained the truth about General Cameron’s largely peaceful occupation of the town, and dispelled the myths about a “massacre.” In Bruce’s words, the bishops addressed had neither the courtesy nor the courage to reply.

Bruce will be greatly missed

It is wonderful that Bruce lasted into his mid-nineties. To the end he remained a staunch advocate for getting our history right, and ensuring that our children are taught the truth.

He was a contributor to the excellent Tross publication One Treaty, One Nation with articles on 'There is Only One Treaty' and 'A Very Greedy Tribe – Ngai Tahu.' He also assembled the best of his writings and letters in a collection titled New Zealand: The Fair Colony.

A stickler for truth, evidence, honesty and fairness, Bruce will long be remembered as one of New Zealand’s greatest historians— one with courage and integrity and decency.  He was truly both a gentleman and a scholar.

* * * * 

Roger Childs is a writer and freelance journalist. 

He is a former history and geography teacher, who wrote or co-authored 10 school textbooks. 

His article previously appeared at the Waikenae Watch website.