About the Author

Avatar photo

Dr Muriel Newman

Climate Justice

Print Friendly and PDF
Posted on

ChristchurchSouthshoreShould fact be the only issue that drives public policy?

That is a question that is no doubt being asked by the 24,000 coastal residents in Christchurch whose properties have been designated by their Council as being at risk of sea level inundation because of global warming. The warnings, based on a 100 year forecast, have been placed on their Land Information Memorandum (LIM) reports, not only restricting their rights to develop their properties, but carrying implications for insurance cover and costs, as well as property values.

This extremist approach is being promoted by the Ministry for the Environment, which recommends that councils should plan for a future sea level rise of at least 0.8 metre by 2090, based on the alarmist projections of the melting of the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets, by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This has led the Christchurch Council to adopt as its guidelines a worst case scenario, to produce a sea level rise of 0.4 metre by 2065 and a one metre rise by 2115. In adopting the UN’s radical projections, the Council has ignored local evidence of coastal accretion.

According to Professor Chris de Frietas of Auckland University, the same thing happened in New South Wales in Australia, where the the government ordered local councils “to consider evidence for sea level rise on a beach-by-beach basis. The move is reaction to punitive planning conditions set by local authorities based on sea level rise predictions contained in reports by the UN Panel on Climate Change. It is also a reaction to observations that showed local shoreline sedimentation rates in many places were making beaches bigger.”

Local councils are required by central government to address coastal hazards in their long-term plans. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement requires councils to “Identify areas in the coastal environment that are potentially affected by coastal hazards, giving priority to areas at high risk of being affected.” The fact that these hazard risks are to be assessed over an excessively long 100-year period and are to include ‘sea level rise’ and ‘climate change’, indicates that the measures are primarily designed to ensure councils are protected from future accusations of negligence.

It is the responsibility of each individual council to decide on what guidelines to use regarding coastal hazards. While common sense suggests they should be basing them on the historical record of local coastal change over the last 50 to 100 years, they appears instead to prefer the alarmist recommendations of the Ministry for the Environment, based on melting ice sheets.

The Christchurch community is now organising itself to fight against the Council’s changes, and so they should. In 2013, when the Kapiti Coast District Council took a similar approach, ignoring local data showing a long-accreting shoreline, to follow the advice of the Ministry for the Environment and global warmers at the UN, property owners fought back. The Council was challenged in the High Court. Justice Joe Williams described the 50-year and 100-year hazard lines as starkly simplistic, and said they had the potential to seriously affect the value and marketability of coastal properties: “there must be millions of dollars at stake… it would be a callous council indeed that was unmindful of that potential impact”. The Council removed the information from LIM reports.

The responsibility for these debacles could be said to lie with the Ministry for the Environment. In spite of the fact that there has been no discernable escalation in global temperatures or sea levels for over 18 years, the Ministry is still promoting the UN’s alarmist predictions.

Isn’t it time the government stepped in and directed the Ministry for the Environment to change their coastal hazard guidance to councils to recommend they consider local evidence of sea level change on a beach-by-beach basis?

The point is that even if government bureaucrats are sympathetic to the UN’s climate change cause, it is simply not acceptable that they are allowing their ideology to override the facts. That is not to say that international forecasting should not be used – if it is found to be accurate, of course it should. But until it is shown to be accurate, it should be ignored.

This was an issue that New Zealander Dr Michael Kelly, the Prince Phillip Professor of Technology at Cambridge University in the UK and a Fellow of the Royal Society, touched on in a recent article in a British newspaper, when he wrote, “Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise, but since 1998 there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures at all. This flies in the face of the confident predictions made by nearly all the climate computer models that the temperature would continue to rise as it did from 1975 to 1998.”

While all of the UN’s global warming predictions, including sea level rise, are based on computer models, modelling the climate is notoriously difficult. The climate is an extraordinarily complex system that averages weather over time and space. To date, we still cannot predict weather with much accuracy beyond about five days. Mathematically speaking, it is a chaotic system, and very small differences, such as rounding errors, can produce such widely divergent outcomes that long-term predictions are virtually impossible.

On top of that, a large number of factors influence weather and the climate, including the sun, oceans, mountains, the poles, wind, rain, clouds, humidity, atmospheric pressure, even the earth’s magnetic fields, gravity and orbit. Natural events also have a huge impact – lightening that strikes the earth dozens of times every second, giant cyclones that occur every four days or so, major earthquakes every ten days, volcanic eruptions every couple of weeks, and tsunamis every couple of months.

the fact is that global temperatures have been constantly changing since the earth was formed some 4.6 billion years ago. There have been periods when the planet has been completely ice free, with oceans covering around a third of the present land area. But then the earth would start to cool, snow would fall on the mountains and reflect the sun’s heat, the poles would begin to freeze over, glacial ice would start covering the land, the sea level would fall, and an ice age would begin.

Within an ice age there are cycles of warmer weather called interglacial periods, when the earth’s temperature increases but permanent snow and ice remain. These interglacial periods are followed by colder glacial periods where the temperature cools and glacial ice sheets advance.

The earth is presently in an interglacial period within an ice age. These interglacial periods usually last for around 10,000 years, followed by glacial periods of around 100,000 years. With the present interglacial period having already lasted for some 10,500 years, history would suggest we are overdue for a new glacial period.

The following chart shows how temperatures have changed since the earth’s formation:


And this chart shows how carbon dioxide levels have changed compared to temperature:


Carbon dioxide has been described as the lifeblood of our planet because of photosynthesis – the process by which green plants use the sun’s energy to convert CO2 and water into the food we eat and the oxygen we breathe. To claim that CO2, which has been present in our atmosphere at levels more than ten times what they are today – long before mankind had evolved and during periods where the earth’s temperature has been very hot and freezing cold – has suddenly started destroying the planet, just doesn’t make sense.

The reality is that unfortunately, carbon dioxide is being used as a political football. When radicals embraced the environmental movement in the seventies, driving out people like Dr Patrick Moore the founder of Greenpeace, they used the climate debate to conceal their real agenda – the global redistribution of wealth.

But their end game is now starting to emerge as leaders of developing countries form themselves into a global alliance, claiming that any adverse weather event has been caused by man-made global warming and that the ‘rich’ nations – including New Zealand – that they say are responsible for the problem, should be forced to pay them compensation.

The issue that started life as ‘global warming’, then changed into ‘climate change’, once world temperatures stopped rising, is now being transformed into ‘climate justice’.

As India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi said last week, “In my view, the most adversely affected by climate change are the poor and the downtrodden. When a natural disaster strikes, they are hit the hardest. When there are floods, they are rendered homeless. During a quake, their homes are destroyed. During droughts, they are affected and during extreme cold too, the homeless suffer the most. We can’t let climate change keep affecting people in this manner. Which is why I believe the discourse must shift focus from climate change to climate justice.”

This is one of the main items on the agenda at the forthcoming climate talks in Paris in December, when all nations are expected to sign up to binding targets for carbon dioxide emissions and climate compensation.

In this debate, the USA has always been a beacon of common sense. While they have domestic laws to reduce pollution and promote safe environmental practice, they had stood aside from the economically destructive climate change goals of the United Nations. However, now that President Obama is nearing the end of his presidency, he appears to have become a global warming ambassador and is busy preaching climate Armageddon claiming that last year was the hottest on record.

I asked this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Cambridge University’s Professor Michael Kelly, if he could reconcile these two viewpoints for us – how can he be right, in claiming that there has been no global warming since 1998, while President Obama can stand on the world stage and claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record? Professor Kelly explains:

“President Obama said that 2014 was the warmest on record. That is disputed in many quarters. It was as warm as many other recent years, but not significantly more so. When you can only measure the temperature to an accuracy of 0.1C, you are not allowed to use a difference of 0.02C from several averages to quote a positive increase – it is well within the error margin.

“It is 25 years now since climate model predictions have been made, and the vast majority have been overestimates, some gross overestimates, of temperature change.  Every freak weather event is now, quite erroneously, attributed to man-made climate change. I retain faith in the self-correcting nature of science, and if the temperature does not rise for another five years, climate scientists will be back to the drawing board, as the probability of such a temperature stasis over 25 years in the models is vanishingly small.  Watch this space.”

Professor Kelly finishes his article by asking whether we should “take future climate change seriously, just in case, and pay an insurance premium?”  In response he says that we should not consider unaffordable ‘premiums’, but should be taking ‘prudent’ measures to protect ourselves against any future changes in the climate.

And that is why it is so absurd that the Christchurch City Council has based their coastal hazard guidelines on wildly inaccurate models over an unacceptably long timeframe, to declare that 28,000 homes could be at risk of the ice sheets melting in 100 years time.

The Christchurch Council – and all other councils around New Zealand for that matter – should base their coastal hazard projections, on what has happened in the past. There is no perfect predictor of the future, but looking at what has actually happened in the past is better than seizing on unreliable models developed by those driving a political agenda.


Should the Ministry for the Environment be required to advise councils to base their sea level rise guidelines on local evidence, rather than UN modelling? 

Vote x 120

 *Poll comments are posted below.


*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.

Click to view x 120


In 2006 the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council was obliged to draw inundation hazard lines on its Coastal Erosion Plan, showing the 2010 extent then the 2015 extent. These lines cut through many properties causing grief to the owners. Here we are in 2015 and guess what? Nothing happened. Alec
Makes sense. The problem is Councils and their representative bodies have signed up to UN Agenda 21 and this fits under that objective. Democracy? Peter
Absolutely not Climate change in the biggest con trick since Ponzi, Doctor Goebbels would be proud of the nutty Greens for repeating the big lie that the sea in going to rise by whatever amount in the next 70 to 80 years until now a lot of so called intellectuals now think it is true. Next vote all these “greenies” off the local councils and in 2017 get the greens out of parliament. Colin
Typical of a Labour-led council to come up with unbelievable UN modelling. As though Christchurch residents haven’t been through enough in the last 5 yrs. Monica
There is no evidence of sea level rise due to global warming. Governments should stop providing funds to people to promote thre idiocy in believing in fantasy. Allan
The Ministry for the Environment is in lock step with the UN IPPC which lies as it sees fit. Bruce
Climate change science is far from settled. Frank
There is just too much political and sadly for true science, suspect agenda’s, to really make costly regulations. The Indian Prime Minister is right. Maurie
The supporters of climate change/Global warming would be good script writers for Hollywood disaster movies and seem to have as much validity as those epics. When there are leading protagonists who have stooped to selective sampling and recording to support their claims, how can a responsible Government Organisation continue to issue predictions based upon their findings. Are they part of the Global conspiracy also? Michael
Science is based on evidence, so the council’s should use this evidence rather than a computer guess. Bob
It’s all a lot of crapp designed to make the perpertrators a lot of money. Clark
Local historical knowledge is indispensable – shonky climate modelling very dispensable! Andrew
Problem is believers are not concerned with facts.. Ken
Stick to accurate, scientifically proven data, not emotional reactions coupled with greed!! Wolf
Bah! Humbug. Robert
With what is happening in the middle east, climate looneys I wonder if it un has out lived its usefulness and we should star thinking about leading the way out. Hugh
No one should be legislated to support a religion such as the UN climate modelling is just a new religion. The minister for the environment should instruct to advise councils that it is not their responsibility to legislate in support for a religion. In fact it is a personal choice not a legal consideration. All UN studies have been fabricated to fit a biased opinion by scientists who are in the pay of the UN. Read “AIR CON” by Ian Wishart Investigative journalism at its best.. John
I simply don’t agree with global warming as I have not seen it. Why can’t we just stick to facts? Eric
Absolutely. The UN driven con of the century has failed to establish any credibility and its dishonest ‘models’ are promoted by highly paid zealots and naive followers. Gordon
Councils make rules that will cause them the east flak. They are scared of having their boat rocked. John
Only time will tell the truth! Thedorus
It is practical common sense and allows reviews should local evidence chasng offer revised projections. Alan
Thanks to sensible commentary, the global warming cause is being rubbished, as it should. Grant
“The sky is falling !” Jack
Man made climate change is the biggest hoax since y2k. I have lived through 74 summers and winters and nothing changes, some good, some not so good, I hope I live long enough to see the ipcc rubbished. We must be the laughing stock of the world regarding cattle passing wind affecting the climate, if it is changing mother nature is in control. it is presumptuous of man to think he has any. Bill
Forget the UN modelling. Fiona
Local evidence surely is more accurate for that particular area??!! Maddi
Climate has changed since time began. Natural causes are a greater contributor than anthropogenic means. Except for rain forest destruction and man has the means to replace all those C4 plants with other C4 plants like Maize, Sugar Cane, Hemp, Atriplex, etc. Geoff
Of course they should, but when was the last time common sense had any-thing to do with anything. Tell a lie often enough, & indoctrinate a whole generation or more with a theory being preached as fact, & bingo, the world leaders have us doing exactly what they want to ensure their positions of power are safe & unchallenged. While a whole new industry is created to solve problems that don’t exist. Better than unemployment they claim.. A.G.R.
A read of Ian Wishart’s book “A VERY Inconvenient Truth” puts this whole propaganda into perspective; – though he comes up with a different basic motivator for all this tripe – A One World Government push that needed a single unifying theory to focus on. Ted
YES, and How long do we have to put up with UNs agenda 21, money and power. Athol
No brainer. Anthony
Excellent article. 31 top scientists in USA would agree that CO2 is not the Issue(see Cornwall Alliance). John
Another bunch of wooly headed idiots who should know better I n the council. Digby
Local knowledge will always be far more accurate than estimations done in afar away place. John
Rules should be based on fact not fiction. Terry
What is needed is for the bringing together all qualified sceptics to form a united body in order to demand representation at all climate change meetings to present facts. Brett
I vote yes but Councils are damned if they do and damned if they don’t! Jim
In Christchurch they also need to take into account the land settlement as a direct result of the earthquakes. Blair
Obviously the UN has another agenda. Are we as stupid as they assume? I hope not! Judith
What a shame that academics are not blessed with common sense and even high intelligence. Wonder how many fellow mensans are sucked in? Chris
Ice ages come and go without peoople involvement. Edward
Neither. With rising carbon content in the atmosphere, lower temperatures and a cooler climate are coming as well as the lowering of sea levels. Dave
If the UN modelling cannot be fully supported by factual evidence over a suitable period of time, and there appears to be enough doubt to substantiate some of those facts, then yes – councils should localise their guidelines until evidence to the contrary can be supported. Chris
It has been proven time and time again that so called global warming is a smoke screen to hide other hidden agendas that Governments, Nations The UN. Etc throw at the Media to circulate and the hidden agendas slip by without public notice. Wayne
The UN is a Politically Correct organisation of which its advice should be avoided at all times. To believe man can control both God and the power of the Sun simultaneously would equal “The world is flat”. George
The Ministry for the Environment have repetitively failed to get a grip on reality. A simple rule is that when one does not know for certain what may happen, it is best not to change anything for fear of making a very wrong call. That said, without a doubt, it is unwise to pollute the air, water and ground and only the foolish would disagree with this. However, to make guesswork based decisions affecting the lives of even those as yet unborn is patently absurd. Peter
What’s the use of having a local Ministry if they only do what the UN says? Graeme
Unprovable long term speculation is no basis for assessing the effect on coastal property. Allan
The UN model is very flawed. Mary
REPLY TO MY LETTER TO CHRISTCHURCH COUNCIL – 17/1/14 Helen Beaumont Natural Environment and Heritage Unit Manager Strategy and Planning Group Dear Rex Many thanks for taking the time to consider the Tonkin and Taylor report and provide comments to the Mayor and Council. The IPCC projections are indeed from computer based models and as such will be subject to uncertainty. The actual rate of sea level rise and the variation in this rate over time will depend on a number of complex interactions in the climate systems, as well as the influence of warming due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. That is the rate of increase may accelerate or slow in any one year or decade however the overall trend is projected to keep increasing. While there is uncertainty and variability in the rate of sea level rise in the future there is clear evidence of rising sea levels over the past century. And confidence in future predictions has increased particularly with the inclusion of the influence of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Tonkin and Taylor propose the use of 1 metre sea level rise over the next 100 years for planning purposes. This level is considered to be both prudent and well supported by international research. In future planning for infrastructure and land use controls under the District Plan the Council will consider increasing the current allowance of 0.5 metre sea level rise over the next 100 years. As new information comes forward and the scientific consensus changes the allowance for sea level rise will be subject to ongoing review. As you point out we do need to take a long hard look at the science. The Council will also be seeking central government input into planning for sea level rise as this is an issue for a large number of coastal settlements. The Council also intends engaging with the community on the options and adaptation strategy for setttlements in low lying coastal areas. A prudent and flexible approach is needed given both the level of the threats posed by sea level rise and the continuing uncertainty over how fast this may occur. The consequences for foundation costs relate largely to finished floor levels – which are higher within the Flood Management Areas delineated in the District Plan. These floor levels may be increased further in areas subject to tidal inundation. The issue of foundation costs for building on TC3 land are a little different and subject to a case by case evaluation of the geotechnical conditions on site. Once again thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Regards, Helen DEAR HELLEN, THE SEA LEVEL HAS RISEN NO MORE THAN THE SPAN OF YOUR HAND OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS – CAUSED BY NATURAL HEATING FROM THE SUN AND NOT MAN – THIS IS EXCLUSIVELY FROM EXPANSION OF WATER AND NOT MELTING ANTARTIC ICE WHICH HAS INCREASED IN VOLUMN BY 30% IN THE LAST 10 YEARS. SUGGEST YOU RECONSIDER. REGARDS REX Rex
Save us from the expensive reports of pathetic consultant’s playing GOD! Thomes
The UN should be told to go and get lost. It is full of self serving beauracrats who wouldn’t know the difference between rain and sunshine. Mike
The sea is not rising its a load of rubbish there is no real proof all weather is cyclic as anyone knows that sails or watches the weather. Peter
Ridiculous nonsense! Ed
Facebook page of the Christchurch residents’ group oppposing the council’s policy, who just posted a link to your article Muriel which is generating a bit of discussion. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ccrugroup/ Mike
There is no proof to climate change. Helen
Councils are being influenced by staff who have been influenced during their education by radical professors.We now have a number of senior planners who were all at university together.They may have failed to get some councils to agree to implement the recommendations but as we see they keep on putting them up. Bryan
Climate change has always and will always occur. The climate change industry us simply a way for rich people to get richer by trading in non-existent things like ‘carbon credits’ while terrifying the general population with future ridiculous predictions based on computer models which have been proven to be unable to hindcast, let alone forecast. It is time this nonsense ceased, but it won’t until those in power have milked it for all they can get. As an earth scientist, I agree with the article, and have predicted for 20 years now that we are in the early days of entering another period of global cooling, the next glaciation, and if you believe that the effects of global warming would have been bad, the effects of global cooling will be many times worse and will cause a decrease in global population the like of which we have never seen. Alan
Yes John
Good balanced article Muriel. Wikipedia has good info on CO2. Many people do not know % of CO2 in the Atmos is only 0.04%. Neville
Definitely so many people employed to spout stupidity – said as a climate change “denier” over many years. Di
After the Kapiti fiasco which caused great cost to some of the locals & resulted in a back down by the council, I am surprised that another local body is trying the same tactic. According to an recent article in the “Dominion Post” there is currently a slow down in the sun’s output which will lead to global cooling . Brian
I have little confidence in councils and even less in UN. Peter
Let us trust the local people who know what they are tolking about not a bunch of people with whool in their heaps. Johan
Gobal warming is just cr-p. Don
The U.N.’s Climate Change science is only second to its iniquitous AGENDA 21 programme. The two are intertwined. You will know this as we rapidly enter an era of tyranny and slavery where those who produce wealth in this world are told what to do by those who don’t. Don
There is an extensive network of sea level monitors which clearly show a relatively constant increase in sea level, with no acceleration as predicted by various models. Weight should only be given to models that can be independently verified. Henry
Bad science makes for bad advice. Barry
About time this climate change dribble was exposed for the sham it is. Peter
Definitely. David
So called global warming is a natural phenomenon which is not man made in any way whatsoever. Trevor
Yes local councils should be expected to know the area better than some office person based thousands of miles away. Frank
If councils won’t change their stance to historical facts from UN speculative modelling Council MEMBERS who vote ‘for sea level rises’ should personally guarantee full financial compensation to home and business owners ‘if’ sea level rises do not actually happen. Stuart
Most definitely. I am very concerned that this UN agenda is another tax system to an already over taxed country. And to have this biased, one sided & unproven science driving panic about man made global warming is unacceptable. Steve
But why would they when to do so would reduce their revenue collecting agenda. John
The UN is full of BS. Kerry
A smart lawyer should be able to sue The Greens and Councils for degrading asset value based on unproven theories. William
Climate change, a normal and natural phenomenon that is a reality of the entities of the universe, has nothing to do with human existence. The arrogance of these puffed up little strutters who put themselves forward as being predictors of the future climate patterns, is astonishing, and should be treated with the disdain and contempt that it deserves. Having said that, we need to clean up. There are so many people with filthy and careless habits that do destroy habitats, we need to have some punitive consequences on a micro scale. For example: folks who drop litter and pour paint down the stormwater drains, need a darn good dressing down with financial consequences. Same for those who graffiti, drop litter and dump sewerage in the sea … these things and many others are simply unacceptable behaviours. Dianna
Surely local knowledge is best in this case. Sheila
Common Sense. David
The council is requiring homeowners to pay a disproportionately high premium to mitigate the effects of an event which is looking less & less likely to occur. Perhaps a legal class action to recover losses caused by their policy would force them to try & prove their case rather than relying on alarmist computer models. In the event the case will be unprovable they will be at equal risk forcing them to take a more realistic approach. Michael
Whilst AL Gore has become a billionaire generating fear worldwide others have also battened on to a huge gravy train based on shonky science. Douglas
Common sense. Lance
This global warming rort is worse than the Y2K rort and one can only suggest that you follow the money when looking for a reason for its continuation. Rob
Complex but not too difficult for most of us. If the temp has been shown to rise higher and go much lower according to recordings in the past, we are probably going through a change in weather patterns rather than “climate change.” Ray
Yes the united nations outfit is a big joke run by deposed despots and other rabag countries hellbent on war for profit. James
Common sense must prevail. Cliff
About time we got rid of the parasites in the un who deliver this rubbish,,and get a mathematician to add up the worlds total ships displacement which will give people an idea that its not only melting ice caps etc that are causing the rise in sea levels but a combination of things. Richard
As though a government ministry can predict anything. That alone the weather in 100 years time. They don’t even look out of the window. This ministry should be abolished altogether. A waste of money! Colin
I have to say I am surprised the global warming / climate change junk fest is still getting any traction. John
As a beachfront resident for 16 years I have observed (in fact I have photographic evidence) the fact that our beach has grown considerably (accreted) even during that relatively short time. Of course individual beaches around the world will be growing or shrinking at different rates therefore natural justice must surely demand that any decisions should be based on local evidence rather than general computer modelling. Ruth
I don’t believe in any of this rubbish, weather changes every day, but annually I’ve noticed it follows a very similar pattern. Chris
Modeling is about ‘what if’s’. It’s not fact. Fiona
Not that it will make much difference. Colin
I responded to the” New Zealand Government Seeks Public Consultation on Emission Targets” and under question 5 asked – There are far more critical and pressing dangers in the form of tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, the threat of nuclear war and worldwide terrorism to worry about. I therefore ask that YOU provide scientific proof of the UN catastrophic warming (without using flawed computer models or consensus opinions) for your taxes. I can then add climate warming to my personal list of worries (thermonuclear war, terrorism, asteroids, tsunami, CME etc). Got no reply. Peter
Which authority has the more altruistic motive? Which as a pecuniary bas? Briar
Anyone who subscribes to the Whole Man-made Climate change is at best described as stupid and ignorant. Science demonstrates Global Cooling has been evident since 1998. refer “Heaven & Earth-Global warming:The missing Science” by ian Plimer ISBN 978-0-9582.401-5-4 and its validating 2311 References for a realistic science; not religious/quasi-religious understanding. One single sub-sea volcano can potentially discharge as much CO2 as mankind has made, but in a single day and CO2 has no influence. It’s merely used as another form of controlling religion; and extra taxation. Climate constantly changes; adapt/move but please stop blaming anything other than the sun for most of it. Zoran
Predictions that are demonstrated 18 years in error are not predictions, nor are they facts, they are blatant UN socialist Ideology being used to stiff the public. It is time Key disestablished this lefties trough just as the troublesome wharf union was deregistered in 51. When trendy lazy politics finds a gravy boat within Govt or quangos that productive taxpayers are funding or subsidizing, it has to be routed. This overbloated bunch of wannabe politico rascals hasnt produced a notable, tangible bankable benefit in years, away to the dustbin and no parachutes for resource wasting troughers. Richard
Global warming predictions from the UN have no place in NZ’s domestic policy. Murray
The Ministry of the Environment should be cleaned out – all those people pushing the environmentalists’ radical agenda have no place in what should be an idealogically neutral government advisory body. Ann
Home owners are being screwed by their councils and the MoE. It is a disgrace. Robert
How stupid that a 100 year timeframe is being used when most homes will be redeveloped after 50 years at the most. More sensible measures should be brought in, that’s for sure! Graeme
Local councils just want to pass the buck – that’s why they are happy using the Ministry’s extremist advice. They should be required to do their own research on local conditions and set their plans accordingly. Simon