20 YEARS AGO: Some thoughts on property rights

Since we have changes to the RMA based, its said, on property rights, I figured these few quotes posted here 20 years ago might be useful ...

... it seems timely to post Tom Bethell's chapter on 'The Blessings of Property' (taken from his book The Noblest Triumph), and Tibor Machans's authoritative piece on the Right to Private Property: "The institution of the right to private property," says Tibor, "is perhaps the single most important condition for a society in which freedom, including free trade, is to flourish."

And for some further thoughts on property and freedom ...

They who have no property can have no freedom. ~ Stephen Hopkins

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. ~ Karl Marx

The right to life is the source of all rights--and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave. ~ Ayn Rand

If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization. ~ Ludwig von Mises

Where there is no private ownership, individuals can be bent to the will of the state, under threat of starvation. ~ attrib. to Leon Trotsky

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~ Frederic Bastiat

The moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist. -~ ohn Adams

Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of. ~ Thomas Jefferson

No other rights are safe where property is not safe.  ~ Daniel Webster

The right of distribution over private property is the essence of freedom.  ~ Merrill Jenkin

Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort. The doctrine that human rights are superior to property rights simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of human. ~ Ayn Rand

If we would have civilization and the exertion indispensable to its success, we must have property; if we have property, we must have its rights; if we have the rights of property, we must take those consequences of the rights of property which are inseparable from the rights themselves. ~ James Fennimore Cooper

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can. ~ Samuel Adams

A man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. ~ James Madison

The American moron . . . wants to keep his Ford, even at the cost of losing the Bill of Rights. ~ H. L. Mencken

Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty. ~ John Adams

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. ~ James Madison

Liberty and property is the great national cry of the English. . . It is the cry of nature. ~ Voltaire

The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonweaths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property. ~ John Locke

The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. ~ Garret Hardin

It is precisely those things which belong to "the people" which have historically been despoiled- wild creatures, the air, and waterways being notable examples. This goes to the heart of why property rights are socially important in the first place. Property rights mean self-interested monitors. No owned creatures are in danger of extinction. No owned forests are in danger of being leveled. No one kills the goose that lays the golden egg when it is his goose. ~ Thomas Sowell

The dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. ~ Potter Stewart

Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property. ~ Ayn Rand

No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent. ~ John Jay

A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach further than the concrete form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offense. . . ~ Decision in Boyd v. US, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)

Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ~ C.S. Lewis

Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience. . . ~ John Locke

RMA replacements "look like an improvement (which wouldn't be difficult), but it still relies excessively on trusting politicians"

"[T]he replacement of the RMA, it looks like an improvement (which wouldn't be difficult), but it still relies excessively on trusting politicians to protect property rights.

"There is clearly potential for improvement, but I fear that National Policy Statements, once the other lot get into power, could make it all much worse, by having a nationwide de-growth approach to put development into sclerosis. Chris Bishop and Simon Court talk a lot about private property rights, but it's unclear quite how important they are [here'.

"Certainly on the face of it, this isn't a reform that puts private property rights first. It could have, but the idea that MfE (which didn't exist before 1986) would ever do that or that an expert group dominated by planning lawyers would propose that, is a stretch.

"More simply there does not need to be any kind of 'resource management' law. There should be property law protecting people from infringements of property, and there are commons (that aren't going anywhere soon) that need protection from tort and nuisance from private property."

~ Liberty Scott 

"A climate-risk industrial complex has emerged in this space and a lot of money is being made by a lot of people."

"Climate advocates have embraced the idea of a climate-fuelled insurance crisis as it neatly ties together the hyping of extreme weather and alleged financial consequences for ordinary people. The oft-cited remedy to the claimed crisis is, of course, to be found in energy policy: 'The only long-term solution to preserve an insurable future is to transition from fossil fuels and other greenhouse-gas-emitting industries.'

"However, it is not just climate advocates promoting the notion that climate change is fundamentally threatening the insurance industry. A climate-risk industrial complex has emerged in this space and a lot of money is being made by a lot of people. The virtuous veneer of climate advocacy serves to discourage scrutiny and accountability."

~ Roger Pielke Jr. from his post 'The Climate-Risk Industrial Complex and the Manufactured Insurance Crisis' [hat tip Andy Revkin]

So let’s review what Australia’s media ban has actually accomplished here...

 

"Australia’s social media ban for kids is now in effect. ... And, of course, it’s not working. Kids are always going to figure out ways to get around the ban:

It took 13-year-old Isobel less than five minutes to outsmart Australia’s “world-leading” social media ban for children.

A notification from Snapchat, one of the ten platforms affected, had lit up her screen, warning she’d be booted off when the law kicked in this week – if she couldn’t prove she was over 16.

“I got a photo of my mum, and I stuck it in front of the camera and it just let me through. It said thanks for verifying your age,” Isobel claims. “I’ve heard someone used Beyoncé’s face,” she adds.

“I texted her,” she gestures to her mum Mel, “and I was like, ‘Hey Mummy, I got past the social media ban’ and she was just like, ‘Oh, you monkey’.”

"Or how about this “hack”:

Either way, Adams and her friends don’t plan to go quietly. When one app asked them to submit a selfie for an age verification system, they used a photo of a golden retriever they found on Google.

It worked, she said.

"So let’s review what Australia’s politicians have actually accomplished here: They’ve alienated parents who don’t appreciate the government deciding how to raise their kids. They’ve taught an entire generation of young people that adults don’t trust them and that circumventing authority is both necessary and easy. They’ve cut off legitimate support networks for vulnerable kids while doing nothing about the actual harms that those same kids face. Indeed, they’ve actually pushed kids towards more dangerous places online while making it more difficult for them to learn to use the internet appropriately. And they’ve created a system so trivially easy to bypass that a golden retriever can pass age verification."

~ Mike Masnick from his post 'Australia’s Social Media Ban Goes Into Effect As Pretty Much Everyone Realises It’s A Total Mess'

"mRNA vaccines weren’t the problem. The virus was."

In the very first large study of long-term mortality by vaccination status—assessing the impact of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among French adults aged 18 to 59—French scientists found there was "no increased risk of 4-year all-cause mortality in individuals aged 18 to 59 years vaccinated against COVID-19, further supporting the safety of the mRNA vaccines that are being widely used worldwide."

Their research with 22.7 million vaccinated individuals and 5.9 million unvaccinated individuals found that "vaccinated individuals had a 74% lower risk of death from severe COVID-19, and no increased risk of all-cause mortality over a median follow-up of 45 months."  

This is the largest study of this kind in the world, and the results are significant. (There was a large Japanese study during the Omicron wave, which earlier vaccines had some trouble covering. This did see an increase in mortality in the over-70s which didn't discriminate towards vaccinated or non-vaccinated.). 

Blogger with the unfortunate name of Snarky Gherkin summarises the French results:

This study used real-world national health data... not surveys, not estimates, not “my cousin’s friend is a nurse on Rumble", not laminated placards of nocebo hysteria. 

They followed 22.7 million vaccinated adults and 5.9 million unvaccinated adults aged 18–59, median follow-up 45 months (nearly 4 years). 

They matched the groups on age, sex, region and over 41 health conditions (so it was adjusted for comorbidities). 

Then they looked at hard endpoints such as all-cause mortality, COVID-related mortality and long-term mortality trends.
The Findings...

• Vaccinated people had 74% lower risk of death from severe COVID-19.
• 25% lower risk of death from ANY cause.
• No increase in mortality for 4 years after vaccination.
• Results held even after excluding COVID deaths.

What this means... if vaccines were causing secret waves of heart attacks, cancers, turbo-autoimmune-disasters… we would absolutely see it here. 

Instead, vaccinated people (on average) lived longer. 

The authors did note that vaccinated groups had slightly more cardiometabolic issues,
yet still had better outcomes. (That’s the opposite of “healthier people bias.”) 

This is one of the strongest long-term safety signals ever conducted and released.
Link here, have a read. 

Summary: 

mRNA vaccines weren’t the problem.
The virus was.

Feel free to question the summer-upper. And/or read the full research.

Those RMA Replacements: "not a sort of RMA 3.0, but a TCPA 4.0 plus a separate environment thing."

Yesterday I was looking at the announcements. Today I'm looking more at the two replacement Bills themselves, mostly the Planning Bill. [ONLINE HERE.] (Although I can't help noting, of those announcements, that anybody who can seriously assess these sort of changes to produce 46% fewer consent applications, not 45% or 47% but 46%, has a problem only assuaged by a large consultancy cheque).

Still, if the needle were shifted to that extent it would be a start. Would the replacements do that? We have a nation who hopes so, and a Minister who seems to intend so.  But then they all told us back then that the RMA was permissive ....

So, thoughts upon reflection:

** Iignore the major hype. Property rights are still not explicitly mentioned, except as a reference to matrimonial disputes.

** Where they are mentioned implicitly, it's in terms of compensation (see below), and of effects. (Again, this follows the RMA in being allegedly "effects-based." So prepare to be underwhelmed.) Yet whereas the RMA looked at ill-defined and undefinable "effects" like "amenity values," "natural character" and "the architectural style or colour of a neighbour’s house," this seems to be somewhat more objective. A big emphasis is on which effects should be ignored, about which it is quite explicit, and which areas it insists councils meddle (equally explicit, see subsection (2)).

** Contrast all this with a common-law system – something commentators still don't understand. (Here's one ignoramus who thinks the RMA's subjectivism is an example of common law, FFS!). Common Law protections have the unique beauty that they protect both property rights AND the environment—the stronger the property-rights protection, the more the law sets up "mirrors" reflecting back to us our own actions, especially long-term ones. (As Aristotle already knew, when people need to heed their own stuff, they are more careful than when they deal with commonly-owned resources.) Here’s how it could be done. 

FIRST, ENACT A CODIFICATION of basic common law principles such as the Coming to the Nuisance Doctrine (the ideal antidote to zoning) and rights to light and air and the like. 
“Second, register on all land titles (as voluntary restrictive covenants) the basic 'no bullshit' provisions of existing District Plans (stuff like height-to-boundary rules, density requirements and the like).
“Next, and this will take a little more time, insist that councils set up ‘Small Consents Tribunals'…” 

** Anyway, I put that paragraph there to show the distance from that idea. So what do we have here? Much of the format, plans, rules, standards and zones of the RMA are still with us. Councils will still write Plans. The Plans will still have Zones. Zones will have Rules and Standards. A council planner will assess your Consent application. And then you, your planner, their planner, your lawyer and theirs will work hard at it until your bank says "That's enough." Much of that will still be with us, even if terms are changed. 

There will be fewer zones, and fewer plans, but so what? It doesn't matter whether you have 17 rules saying "no" or one-hundred and 17 ... if the rules are still telling you "no." (So ignore the headlines about that announcement as well.) It does mean that much of the law built up in courtrooms over the last thirty years is still applicable. But when much of that law should be shovelled out, that's not altogether a bonus.

** If there is a "balance" required from the law here, it's simply between the rights of land-owners to build and the effect of that choice to build on others' land, and on themselves. Note that each owner has equal rights: the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property—the boundary between land and actions being defined by that right (my rights to do whatever the hell I like, including enjoying my spread peacefully, ending where your equal right begins). That's what good law should (and common law did) recognise. it should recognise it, not restrict it. 

** The RMA had a Purposes heading, Part 2 (sections 5 to 8), around which all parts revolved. What it contained was mostly mush, the residue of the nineties non-sequitur of so-called "sustainable management." It was this wherein judges had to adjudicate on what "sustainable management" might mean for your carport extension, or whether that boundary retaining wall might avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of activities on the environment. Or not. (This, for Henry Cooke's benefit, is the source of much of that 'judge-made law' he talks about, not the common law with which he has it confused.)

Instead, the replacement Planning Bill replaces Purposes with Goals. You can see that terms like "well-functioning" and "incompatible" will get lawyers' invoices juiced, but for the most part an effort has been made to keep things moderately objective. Except for section (i), which allows for virtually everything here to be outsourced....

** Compensation: Early opponents and the Property Council have both signalled that compensation from taxpayers for regulatory takings is a big part of both replacement Bills—which is not by any means the same thing as protecting property rights, despite what some people still think.

In the replacement Planning Bill at least, they take this form...

** Standing: I'd understood that to object to an Application one needed to have standing, e.g.., to be a neighbour on whom the effects of an application might have objective and measurable harm. Naturally, section 11(1)(i) above vitiates that, but we'd been told that, for instance, someone from Bluff couldn't object to a project in Kaikohe.

That doesn't appear to be the case (but happy to be corrected).

Sections 123 to 125 lay out the decision-making process around public notification of an Application. But I don't see that "Standing" (i.e., having a sufficient connection to and harm from the action or decision) is explicitly laid out.

** As a halfway house between a council decision and the Environment Court—a sort of limbo-land it might take months/years and several hundred thousand dollars to cross—the Planning Tribunal looks to be useful. Not game-changing, but useful.

** Remember, this replacement is resolutely top-down. Instruction comes from above. Zone are determined. Zones will be prepared with their various Rules and Standards. So a lot still rests for each property owner on what will be included as Rules or Standards with which to comply. For all the talk of "effects," when it comes to the home-owner the rubber hits the road in terms of a Rule or a Standard in a Plan. The more restrictive those Rules, the less one can do without a formal Planning Application. 

The argument of the RMA's authors' was that the RMA was more permissive than the more prescriptive Town & Country Planning Act it replaced because Application would be straightforward, with only 'effects' being assessed by council. But in reality, most home-owners did all they could to avoid an Application's perils. So the Zone's particular Rules and Standards became a sort of lockdown.

The irony is that while the  Town and Country Planning Act gave less scope to go outside those Rules and Standards, it's more prescriptive Rules and Standards themselves were often more permissive than those applied under the RMA. It was more prescriptive, but within that prescription at least one could act. 

There's a sneaking suspicion that with the replacement Environment Bill being separated, and this replacement Planning Bill being based on top-down prescription, that any sense of permissiveness will be similar. That (as one wag put it) what we have in these two Bills is not a sort of RMA 3.0, but "a TCPA 4.0 plus a separate environment thing."

"The New Zealander prides himself on his common sense"

"The New Zealander prides himself on his common sense—that 'settled truth can be attained by observation'[10] and is 'knowable and graspable by our own experience.'[11]

"For the most part this is held so assuredly that 'to reason against the [evidence of sense and memory] is absurd'; these are held as 'first principles, and as such fall not within the province of reason, but of common sense.' [12]

"This was the argument of the enlightened Scotsman Thomas Reid, whose 'last phrase stuck' and came to New Zealand with Scottish settlers. 'It helped to produce a cultural type that some consider typically American, but which is just as much Scottish' and equally applies here: 'an independent intellect combined with an assertive self-respect, and grounded by a strong sense of moral purpose.'[13]

“'The teachings of these Scots became known as the philosophy of Common Sense: it was the real basis of the Scottish Enlightenment,'[14] and probably our own."

~ yours truly from my post on that other blog 'New Zealand: A Nation of the Enlightenment'

[10] McCosh, J. (1875). The Scottish Philosophy, Biographical, Expository, Critical, from Hutchinson to Hamilton. London: MacMillan & Co, 194

[11] Herman, A. (2001). How the Scots Invented the Modern World. New York: Three Rivers Press, 262

[12] Reid, T. (1823). An Inquiry into the Human Mind: On the Principles of Common Sense. London: Thomas Tegg, Cheapside, 28; Herman, 2001, ibid, 262

[13] Herman, 2001, ibid, 263-4
[14] Fry, M. (2025). How the Scots Made America. New York: Macmillan

RMA Announcement: Live blogging

1:23pm

It starts badly.

“A core failure of the RMA was the absence of clear direction from central government,” Mr Bishop says.

No. The core failure of the RMA is the complete absence of private property rights. It's starting position instead being: "You need our permission!"

This "reform" promises property rights, but it looks like it simply delivers more planning documents. And little more, if any, permission.

We're promised "fewer, faster plans"; "30-year regional spatial plans"; "nationally set policy direction"; and "planned national standards." So anyone who's ever said "the problem with this country is not enough planners" will be happy.

And what about property rights? “When you put property rights at the core and remove excessive government rules from people’s lives," says Mr Court, "the benefits will quickly follow." 

I'm still looking for how exactly property rights have been put at the core. I'll let you know when I find where he's put them ...

1:25pm

“The new planning system strengthens property rights and restores the freedom for New Zealanders to use their land in ways that affect nobody else." You keep saying that. Show me the evidence.

"Councils will be required to provide relief to property owners when imposing significant restrictions like heritage protections or significant natural areas." So apparently planners imposing restrictions still have more freedom to "use" your land than you do. Righto.

Not going well so far...

1:32pm

"More than 100 existing plans will be reduced to 17 regional combined plans that bring together spatial, land use and natural environment planning in one place, making it easier for New Zealanders to know what they can do with their property." That's not freedom for New Zealanders to use their land in ways that affect nobody else, is it Mr Bishop. That's the "freedom" to act under permission. 

So let me look at the specifics. I don't see "property rights" as a heading in the major release. So let me begin studying topic 'The New Planning System: Simplifying residential development ...

1:37pm

Blah, blah, "clear national priorities" woof, woof "land will be zoned" whitter, whitter "councils will have to ensure there’s enough land and infrastructure" wank, wank "regional spatial plans will guide future development "... It makes you wonder how anything ever got built here at all before town planning arrived here in 1928. 

<searching for "property rights" gives no hits in the document> <searching for "planning" gives me 18 hits>

1:46pm

"Certainty" is promised through "clear long-term spatial plans" telling investors what council planners will allow, and "front-loading decisions," whatever the hell that means. "This means clear rules and fewer surprises," says the boiler plate. Oh, and there'll be "A digital platform [that] will make it easier for you to access information, apply for consents, and track progress." That's nice, isn't it.

A key feature? "Standardised zones and overlays will make planning rules simpler and more consistent across the country." As if it makes a real difference whether there's 17 or 117 different zones and overlays telling you what you can't do. It hardly gives freedom for New Zealanders to use their land in ways that affect nobody else, does it.

"A new Planning Tribunal will offer you a low-cost way to resolve disputes, with limited council appeal rights." Possibly good, but there are still no details on this.

"Councils will also need to respond more quickly to private plan change requests, making it easier to unlock new areas for growth." Given the many problems with making councils respond quickly, how will this work? Given the cost of applying for a private plan change, how will this work?

1:59pm

The document says there will be "less need for consents." Why? is that because there's freedom for New Zealanders to use their land in ways that affect nobody else? 

No, it's because "councils will only be able to consider effects that have a minor, or more than minor impact on others or the environment." This, by the way, is precisely what the present "permissive" RMA allows. In other words, it's just the same.

It's also because, says the document, "design details that only affect the site itself, such as building layout, balconies or private views, won’t be regulated..." Except of course for the "guidance" supplied by several councils that tell you what they expect to see in your application. Oh, and "except in areas [which planners have decided enjoy] outstanding natural landscapes and heritage features." So much rurally where you want to build will still be policed to stop you fully enjoying your land; and many of the areas of our cities that were built before town planning came here will still be policed to keep them as museums. Nice.

So far I've yet to see much difference between the replacement and the original.

Let me look at the heading 'Making it easier to build and renovate your home' ...

2:13pm

Here's the promise: "The new planning system will support the Kiwi dream of improving your home or building a new one without unnecessary cost or delay." What's the reality?

"Standardised zones" blah, blah, as above.

"The public will only be notified about your project if the effects of it (the impacts like noise and shading) are more than minor." So, no different to current law then.

"Only people who are directly affected by a project can have a say." It's a lot of work to make this one small improvement.

"A new Planning Tribunal will be set up to help sort out disputes quickly and cheaply." Nice idea. But still no detail.

"You may be able to get ‘relief’, which means a form of support or compensation, if some planning controls or rules have a big impact on how you can use your land." I have a better idea, which would actually be core to protecting property rights. And it's this: outlaw every single planning control or rule that would have a big impact on how you can use your land. What about that?

This is all worse than a disappointment. Rather than a plethora of sackings of the unproductive, Bishop & Court instead propose to keep town planners hard at work. (Well, as hard as they ever get.) ...

2:32pm

Maybe I should have started with their "Overview" document instead of plunging into the details....

"Property rights" are mentioned seven times here, but only in the promises. "The new system is designed to unlock growth, reduce the costs of much-needed infrastructure, protect the environment and improve resilience – all while freeing up property rights so landowners have certainty and control over their land." That's a promise. Not a delivery.

The "expected outcomes" include "enhanced property rights through regulations that focus on only controlling impacts on the environment and other people." I'm surprised this is an "outcome" and not a guarantee. (And see above.)

"There will also be greater availability of relief," we are told, "if property rights are infringed." But here's the thing: the core is to make law that ensures property rights are not infringed.

"The proposed new system will make the enjoyment of property rights a guiding principle of reform," says the document, "so people can do more with their property." How? There are seven points under this heading including narrowing effects, simpler national rules, new national standards, binding environmental limits, better digital systems, and one Plan per region.

Not one of these seven, not one, gives any guarantee at all of protecting the enjoyment of property rights. I don't want one District Plan per region, I want none. I don't want simpler national rules, standards or limits set by planners, I want none at all, and I want the planners who write them unemployed. This idea of making the enjoyment of property rights a guiding principle of reform is less a guiding principle here than an incantation that, repeated often enough, will allow those sufficiently deluded to be convinced.

But it's not real.

The Bills promise "a fairer system for allocating resources," without defining whose those resources are, why a planner is entitled to allocate them, then admits that it will simply retain the RMA's approach to "allocation" anyway.

This is almost farcical.

The two new replacement Bills do promise "greater clarity and certainty," "clearer direction to decision-makers," and "mak[ing] the system more consistent and predictable." That's two of the four good things that objective law should do. (Protecting rights being the major one, of course, without which....) Big question still is: How?

"The Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill will each have a clear purpose statement that describes what the Bill does." Without seeing the Bill yet, that's just another promise not a delivery.

3:03pm

Am I being too pessimistic? Well, politicians have promised to "fix" this fucking thing for thirty years, and haven't. More than a generation.  They've pledged to "fix," "fudge," "reform," repair," "enhance," and at most they've made changes to make it easier for governments to build. So every promise to date has been bullshit, and this change will likely be the last chance in my lifetime for any genuine change.  To actually have property rights protected in law. And it doesn't look promising.

Tell me I'm wrong. Please.

xxx:00pm

Not much comment in the Twittersphere, which is perhaps a measure of how little interest there is? A few quips that might have legs. Worth pondering ...

It's possible that this last is the only real nod towards property rights—unfortunate really, since 'compensation for takings' is not by any means the same thing as protecting property rights, despite what some people still think.

9:31am:

Twenty hours after the announcement, ACT's Simon Court (said to be ACT's Under-Secretary for Resource Management Reform and praised by his leader as having "driven the change at a detailed level and his contribution is enormous") is barely anywhere to be seen. No press releases on the ACT website cheering about it. No tweets posting about it.  Just two patsy questions to the Minister, two five-minute speeches to the House about infrastructure and transitions, and a three-minute stand-up with his leader.

Is he embarrassed?

One step forwards, three steps back.

"Oops." Luxon-led policy-making takes a tumble

It's a rule in politics. The devils is not always in the details. It's often that the details reveal the real devilry.

If the large print ever giveth, then the small print will surely taketh away.

Let's look at a few examples in an area I know something about: Building.

*** Building Minister Chris Penk seems a jovial character but unfortunately he knows little about his subject area. His first move was to promise faster building consents. Exciting. Encouraging. Mighty work.

Here's hist first step: "requiring councils to submit data for building consent and code compliance certificates every quarter." There are no other steps.

He adds "hope" to the idea of anything being faster. Council inspectors "must" issue building consents in a timely fashion, he insisted.  And yet every council inspector ever employed knows how to legally delay a consent application. In fact, if you fine a council for being legally overtime, they'll just legally delay applications for even longer to give themselves some head room. Which is what they've done.

Score One for the Grey Ones.

*** Another move by Building Minister Penk was "remove barriers to overseas building products." At least, that's what it said in the headline. His idea, sensible enogh on its face, is that if enough similar jurisdictions to ours have passed a product (places like Canada, US, UK, Europe, Australia etc.) then that product would be deemed to pass here too.

Yay? No, not so fast.

First move by the Ministry who oversees these things was to rent several new floors in Wellington.  Because their idea of this (and it is they who are running it) is to set up a committee who will consider, one at a time, every morsel of regulation passed anywhere at any time to decide of we might be so lucky to have it here. 

So far, in the three months since introduction, they'e okayed some taps from Sydney. Next year, they might look at concrete codes in the US. Done properly, with due consideration, this will take most committee members through to retirement.

Score One More for the Grey Ones. 

** And then the Minister for Regulatory Reform (sic) stepped up to announce a new measure to "liberate" builders and designers. For years, some of us have suggested that instead of applying to councils for permission to build (which asks for more knowledge than council employees really have, and puts ratepayers on the hook for the risk should they fail) we instead use insurance companies to take the risk.

You know, like if you build a hot rod or street racer instead of a bog standard car, then you ask the insurance company to take the risk, and they use their acumen to discern the risk, and charge you accordingly.  

This allows for good design, with risk properly underwritten. 

But you see that word above: instead.

Rather than placing the risk and the onus on designers and builders and insurers instead of on councils and ratepayers, the Minister for Regulatory Reform is doing this as well as. So it's no more "liberation day" than were Trump's tariffs: we end up getting the worst of both worlds: councils assessing risk, and insurers granted a monopoly charging like wounded bulls. And the ratepayers? Still on the hook.

So it's Several More there for the Grey Ones.

** It's like education, where a "regulatory review" by the same Minister for Regulatory Reform intends to "clarify" and "simplify" Childhood Education's overwhelmed sector. One imagines a quick fix might be going back to say, 1996, when things were working tolerably well, and just before regulations began piling on and classrooms and centres became over-regulated, under-performing, and wholly unaffordable for parents.

Instead, the "reform" begins by (and I quote) "establishing a new statutory role, the Director of Regulation, with responsibilities for performing key regulatory functions in the Early Childhood Education system." Which means another red carpet rolled out in yet another floor of a new office building in Wellington.

Back of the Net with another great effort by the Grey Ones.

*** It's a bit like the "cap" on rate rises. 

Let's stop rate rises!! Yay!! Well, not so fast. 

We know that the "cap" will be supplemented for weepy boomers with top-ups for water use, for mayors who plead public transport debts, and councillors who claim infrastructure shortfalls. We also know that the minister "responsible" ( I use the world loosely) is happy with "soaring" council debt, just as long as the effects and the headlines are only felt after he's gone.

Not to mention that the "cap" includes a minimum rate rise as well!

Yes, a minimum. By law, councils must increase rates by at least 2% every year.

It a sop, not a cap.

Grey Ones score again.

** And not to mention that the new-fangled means by which councils can "fix" their bloody awful traffic problems—traffic jams being a clash of capitalism (in the form of car production) confronting socialism (in the form of too few roads). The "new" solution is a tax. A new tax to be called "congestion charging," which will of course not replace any other tax but just be added to all those under which we are already burdened.

And if history is any guide, may help finish off Auckland's CBD altogether.

I'm pretty sure that's a total victory for Grey.

 With this government, as with every other in recent times, it's always one step forwards, and three steps back. Too many ministers with too little nous giving too much help to the unproductive to whom too many of us must seek permission before we can do anything.

I look forward to this afternoon with trepidation.

Ardern: "The myth-making begins immediately."

"'Prime Minister,' the new documentary charting Jacinda Ardern’s ascent, apotheosis and eventual retreat from public life, bills itself as an 'intimate portrait' of political power. ... Most of the footage is seemingly shot by her partner, Clarke Gayford, and the result feels less like a political documentary and more like stumbling across somebody’s unguarded home videos and realising, with horror, that they want you to watch all of them. ...

"The myth-making begins immediately. We’re whisked back to 2017, those breathless days when Ardern – 37, photogenic, permanently on the brink of tears – was hoisted into the Labour leadership and proclaimed the Kiwi messiah by people who really ought to get out more. The film dwells on this moment with something approaching religious fervour. ...

"Admirers will be transported; critics will develop a nervous tic. And the rest of us will ponder whether the world truly needed two hours of Jacinda’s domestic cinema. Spoiler: probably not."

~ UK's Daily Telegraph on a new home movie

Spotify Wrapped? No. "A massive thumbs up to anyone that bought a physical copy of anyone’s record this year."

"Lots of people currently posting their 2025 Spotify Wrapped statistics and artists thanking their listeners for streaming their music, so I’d like to take a moment to thank everyone that actually bought a PHYSICAL COPY of any of my records this year. 

"In fact a massive thumbs up to anyone that bought a physical copy of anyone’s record this year for helping to keep the art of the album alive. I’m not naive enough to think that streaming isn't the dominant platform for music listening in the 21st century by a huge margin, but I also believe the relationship between a listener and a physical piece of art is still a magical and special thing that will never be replaced by ones and zeros streaming off a server. 

"So here is Steven Wrapped, 20 physical releases I listened to a lot this year ... "

~ post from Steven Wilson

"Liberal democracy is a superpower that can make a country, or a continent, great. The world needs to have at least one such liberal democratic power, to a serve as a refuge, a protector, and an example for the rest of the world."

 

"To my friends in Europe, I want to extend an apology—and an urgent warning.

"I am profoundly sorry that Americans are failing you in this dangerous and difficult time, after you have stood with us over so many years. I didn’t vote for this, I didn’t want it, I fought against it. But I am an American, and this is my country’s choice and its policy—and I am heartily ashamed of it.

"Now the warning: Europe needs to become one of the great powers of the world, and do it fast—or you will get carved up by them….

"Yet it is absurd to think of Europe as a nonentity with no standing in the world. The countries of Europe, excluding Russia, represent 700 million people. Europe is composed of advanced and developed societies, great centres of science and culture—and taken all together, it is the world’s third-largest economy, on a par with the US and China. Europe also makes up a large part of NATO, the world’s most powerful military force. Even without the US, you are more than a match for poor, backward, depleted Russia—and the UK and France have their own nuclear forces, which provide a deterrent against other nuclear powers….

"Liberal democracy is a superpower that can make a country, or a continent, great. The world needs to have at least one such liberal democratic power, to a serve as a refuge, a protector, and an example for the rest of the world. If it is not going to be America—for who knows how long—then it had better be Europe."

~ Robert Tracinski from his post 'Dear Europe: Become a Great Power—or Get Carved Up by Them'—which he reckons is "one of the most important things I wrote this year."

Yes, let's keep piling on Anne Salmond.

"Salmond claims to have been guided by a list that reads like a Who's Who in 

Postmodernity... What she does not discuss is whether these thinkers are sound guides."

Anne Salmond, who recently called for thinkers to engage with open rather than closed minds—arguing that "other cultures may have insights that elude us" —was recently called out by Dane Giraud for the very same reason: specifically, for ignoring the insights of Enlightenment culture. The only position that actively suppresses inquiry, pointed out Giraud, is her own. "What is more antithetical to free thought'" he asked rhetorically, "than declaring whole categories of knowledge off-limits to criticism because they belong to the wrong culture."

Salmond, of course, has form. Her own favourite cultural whipping person is Western. Her writing, said Michael King of her 2003 book Two Worlds, gives "a strong impression that, rather than attempting to represent both cultures dispassionately, Salmond [is] straining to case every feature of Māori behaviour in a favourable light and many features of European in an unfavourable one.” 

But in doing so, she fails to learn there either. Reviewing Salmond's work, historian and former Waitangi Tribunal director Buddy Mikaere reckons Salmond's work "turns  our tipuna into cardboard caricatures." Rather than learning deeply from other cultures, he says, she offers only a "one-dimensional characterisation." For her and several other Pākeha historians, he says, "Māori [are] invariably depicted as deeply spiritual beings who only ever acted on the basis of high-minded principles. Pākehā, on the other hand, [are] mostly unprincipled rogues or fools whose behaviour was always motivated by racial arrogance, greed and self-interest."

Such is the accusation, it will be remembered, Salmond throws at the Pākehas of the Free Speech Union. It apparently never gets old.

It begins to look as if Salmond is unable to learn much from either of the Two Worlds of which she writes.

What also never gets old is re-reading the demolition of Salmond's work by the grand old man of New Zealand history Peter Munz, who destroyed her whole platform of post-modern posturing and epistemic duplicity in his 1994 review of her first major book. In her work she is guilty, he says, of not just "disinformation, but of actual misrepresentation."

Salmond claims to have been "guided by 'Heidegger, Foucault, Ricoeur, Gadamer, Habermas, [Mary] Hesse, Derrida, Eco and others.' ... [a] list [that] reads like a Who's Who in Postmodernity ...  all of whom would have helped to confirm her in her prejudices and methods."

What she does not discuss ... [is] whether [these thinkers] are sound guides. It appears that she is under the impression that these postmodern thinkers have solved the problem as to how different systems of knowledge or belief are related or, rather, not related to one another. Could it be that she is simply ignorant of the fact that there is much modern thought which rejects these facile, politically motivated doctrines of Foucault and Derrida, of Eco and Ricoeur? If she takes her stand with these people, she ought, to say the least, have produced some evidence that she has also examined the counter-arguments and, perhaps, found them wanting. But as things stand, she appears simply as an  uncritical camp-follower — which is a poor show for a professional anthropologist.

Furthermore, 

the explanations of the differences in systems of knowledge that these thinkers provide should not, I trust, be considered final. In the pre-postmodern world of good sense, belief or knowledge systems are distinguished according to whether they are true or false. ... What is really at issue and what she is trying hard to disguise by her way of constructing the past, is the brute reality of cultural evolution. ... 

[I]nstead of jumping on the postmodern bandwagon which is nothing more than a belated overreaction to the Victorian age, it is time scholars like Salmond caught up with modern thought and revised their view of evolution.

The limitations of the early mind are the result of isolation and of absence of the kind of contact which would expose beliefs and taboos to criticism. Societies and cultures, which for demographic and political reasons are exposed to contact with others, are more likely to question their own traditions, change their taboos and develop eventually a more universal system of knowledge — that is, beliefs which are more than validations or legitimizations of their own parochial cultures. In a nutshell, this is the heart of cultural evolution.

An evolution — a progress — only made possible by being open to new ideas. Says Munz:

Darwin or no Darwin, we are all descended from black Eve, and every single culture which has ever existed is a departure from the culture of black Eve, whoever she was. [I am using the notion 'black Eve' metaphorically to indicate that all existing cultures are descended or transmuted from a common stock.] ...

I would suggest ...  that one can rank the distance of societies from black Eve according to their exclusiveness. The earliest societies were totally exclusive and would not admit people other than those who belonged to their descent group. Next came societies which would admit people through marriage; and at the other end of the scale, farthest removed from black Eve, there are societies which potentially include anybody who wants to be included. Ranking in these terms is completely neutral and value-free. All it says is that while one cannot 'become' a Maori, one can 'become' a New Zealander, and that, for that reason, there is a structural difference between these two kinds of societies, and that that difference defines the distance of these societies from black Eve and that the actually exclusive structures are earlier than the potentially inclusive structures. Since this criterion is neutral, there can be no question of 'progress', only of progression. ...

[W]hatever criteria one likes to choose, the distances from black Eve can be ascertained because evolution, including cultural evolution, is a reality of life. 

If one wants to understand the coming together of two different cultures, as Salmond does, one must take into account, as Salmond does not, the different distances they have moved away from the earlier forms. Salmond has explicitly rejected evolution. 'Contemporary literature on traditional thought is still bedevilled", she writes, 'with implicit sometimes explicit evolutionism.' If she had her way, it would soon cease to be so bedevilled! I suppose she rejects cultural evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence because by making all cultures more or less equal she thinks she can heal wounds and pour oil on troubled waters and be 'politically correct'. But in the long run, there is no point in burying one's head in the sand: a distortion of reality brings about its own nemesis even if one does not quite yet know what shape that nemesis will take.

Can one say 'Ouch!'? 

The open society is the successful society

"The most secure and prosperous societies did not hide from the world. They were confident enough to remain open to trade and ideas, allowing the new to challenge the known. Progress emerges when people experiment, borrow, and combine ideas in ways no planner could ever foresee; decline happens when fear overcomes curiosity."

~ Johan Norberg from his article 'From Athens to the Abbasids to today’s Anglosphere, creativity and commerce drive greatness.' in which he explores the central lessons of history’s real golden ages in his new book, Peak Human: What We Can Learn from the Rise and Fall of Golden Ages.