Hamilton
broken clouds
17.6
°
C
17.6
°
17.6
°
89 %
3.4kmh
83 %
Sun
21
°
Mon
21
°
Tue
21
°
Wed
22
°
Thu
14
°
NZD - New Zealand Dollar
USD
1.7836
EUR
1.9985
AUD
1.2425
CAD
1.2506
GBP
2.3618
JPY
0.0113
CNY
0.2665
INR
0.0184
Be a part of this community
Support YSB to keep bringing you valuable content! Your generous donations help us grow and share more inspiring stories with the world.
When an elected councillor becomes inconvenient, what happens next?
That is the question sitting underneath the removal of Far North District Councillor Davina Smolders from the Te Kuaka Committee.
And no, this isn’t simply about whether you agree with Davina Smolders. It isn’t even about whether you support Te Kuaka.
The bigger question is this, how much room does an elected representative have to disagree before disagreeing becomes a reason to remove them from the room?
Because what happened in the Far North deserves a closer look.
On 27 August, Far North District Council voted 7–3, with one abstention, to remove Councillor Davina Smolders from Te Kuaka, the council’s Māori Strategic Relationships Committee. Smolders had only been appointed to the committee in March, after a narrow 6–5 vote. Five months later, she was gone.
And this is where things get interesting.
Te Kuaka isn’t some little social committee that nobody pays attention to. It was established to strengthen Māori participation in council decision-making, build relationships with iwi and hapū, provide strategic leadership and make recommendations to the full council. It has elected councillors sitting alongside eight externally appointed iwi and hapū representatives, who have speaking and voting rights.
So let’s be clear about what I am actually questioning here. I’m not saying Māori shouldn’t have a voice. I’m not saying iwi and hapū representatives shouldn’t be involved in local government.
I’m asking a much simpler question. Who is accountable for the power being exercised, and what happens when an elected councillor challenges the way that power is structured?
Smolders wasn’t removed from council. She remains an elected councillor and still has the mandate given to her by the people who voted for her.
But she was removed from one of the council’s major committees after months of publicly challenging its structure, the role of unelected representatives and the council’s approach to partnership arrangements.
Then came a formal complaint from Te Kahu o Taonui, the Northland Iwi Chairs Forum represented on the committee. The complaint alleged that Smolders had made statements about iwi, hapū, Māori representatives and co-governance that were hostile, misleading or demeaning, and that her comments risked encouraging hostility towards Māori participation in local government.
Smolders disputed the process.
She said she had not been given the complaint beforehand, had not been given a proper opportunity to respond, and argued the matter should have gone through the council’s Code of Conduct process.
During the meeting, she challenged Mayor Moko Tepania over whether the motion should even proceed. The mayor rejected that argument, saying this wasn’t a Code of Conduct hearing. It was the council exercising its power to appoint and discharge committee members. The motion then went ahead.
And this is where we need to separate two things. The council had the legal power to remove her from the committee.
Schedule 7, clause 31 of the Local Government Act 2002 expressly allows a local authority to appoint or discharge members of a committee.
So no, I’m not going to pretend this was automatically illegal. It wasn’t.
But having the legal power to do something doesn’t automatically mean every way of using that power is fair, reasonable or good for democracy.
That’s the part I want people to think about.
If allegations about a councillor’s conduct are being used as part of the reason for removing them from a committee, then surely some pretty basic questions should be asked.
Was the councillor told exactly what was being alleged?
Were they given the complaint?
Were they given a meaningful opportunity to respond?
Were the allegations properly tested?
Was the same standard applied that would have been applied to another councillor?
And most importantly, was the decision genuinely open to being changed, or had the outcome effectively been decided before the councillor even had the opportunity to defend themselves?
Those aren’t extreme questions.
They’re basic questions about fair process.
And they matter even more when we’re talking about someone who was elected by the public.
Because an elected councillor isn’t there simply to be agreeable. They aren’t elected to sit around a table, nod their head, keep everyone happy and vote with the majority. They’re elected to represent people.
Sometimes that means asking uncomfortable questions. Sometimes it means challenging the majority. Sometimes it means digging into the numbers. Sometimes it means saying, “Hang on. I don’t think this is right.”
That’s democracy.
And here’s another point that needs to be made because it is important.
The unelected iwi and hapū representatives did not vote Smolders off the committee. The final decision was made by elected councillors.
That distinction matters.
But it doesn’t make the accountability question disappear. Because Te Kuaka itself has been deliberately structured to put externally appointed iwi and hapū representatives with voting rights around the same table as elected councillors.
That is a legitimate governance model to have a debate about. And I think New Zealanders are entitled to ask how that model fits with democratic accountability.
An elected councillor ultimately answers to voters. An appointed representative answers through a different mechanism. Those aren’t the same thing. That doesn’t automatically make appointed representatives illegitimate. It does mean we should be very clear about who has influence, who has voting rights, who appoints them and who ultimately holds them accountable.
And this isn’t some theoretical argument.
Smolders had been challenging this structure from the beginning.
When she was appointed to Te Kuaka in March, it was already controversial. The vote was 6–5. She then continued questioning the committee’s structure, including the voting rights of unelected representatives, while also pushing for greater financial oversight and clearer confirmation that Te Kuaka was advisory and that final decision-making remained with elected council.
So this didn’t just suddenly happen. There had been months of disagreement. And that is exactly why the circumstances deserve scrutiny.
Because there are two very different ways of looking at what happened.
One possibility is that Smolders genuinely behaved in a way that damaged relationships and failed to meet the standards expected of somebody sitting on a committee specifically established to build those relationships. If that’s the case, then council is entitled to act.
The other possibility is that an elected councillor challenged a governance structure that she believed was wrong, refused to simply fall into line, and was eventually removed from that committee after complaints were made about the way she expressed those views.
If that’s what happened, then we have a very different democratic problem.
And the only way the public can properly distinguish between those two versions is through a transparent and defensible process.
Not accusations,Not counter-accusations,Not calling one side racist and the other side authoritarian.
The process.
Show us the rules,Show us what was alleged,Show us what Smolders was told,Show us what opportunity she was given to respond,Show us why the decision was made.
And show us that the same standard would have been applied to any councillor, regardless of their views on Māori representation, co-governance or Te Tiriti.
Because if the process stacks up, then fine.
People can disagree with Smolders and still accept that the council acted properly.
But if an elected representative can have serious allegations made against them, not be given a proper opportunity to respond, and then be removed from an important committee by a majority vote, we should be asking some very uncomfortable questions about where the line is.
And this isn’t just about Davina Smolders, It’s about every elected representative in New Zealand.
Imagine a councillor questioning a major spending programme.
Imagine them challenging a powerful organisation.
Imagine them refusing to support a popular proposal.
Imagine them repeatedly asking where the money is going.
Imagine them simply refusing to agree with the majority.
At what point does being “difficult” become grounds for removing them from the room?
Because that’s the bit that concerns me.
Removing Smolders from Te Kuaka doesn’t remove her from council. That’s true.
And Councillor Arohanui Allen made that exact point, saying Smolders could still scrutinise, challenge and oppose Te Kuaka’s work because the full council retains final decision-making authority.
But let’s not pretend being outside the room is exactly the same as being inside it. Where you sit matters. Being there when reports are discussed, questions are asked, information is presented and recommendations are developed is not the same as receiving the finished product afterwards.That’s why committee membership matters in the first place.And this is where I think we need to be very careful.
There is nothing undemocratic about Māori having a voice. There is nothing automatically wrong with iwi or hapū representatives participating in local government. There is nothing automatically wrong with a council deciding who sits on its committees.
But there is something uncomfortable about any system where an elected representative can potentially lose their place at the table after repeatedly challenging the people and structures around that table.
Because if that becomes normal, the lesson for other councillors is obvious.
Don’t ask too many questions.
Don’t challenge the consensus.
Don’t upset the wrong people.
Don’t make the powerful uncomfortable.
Just keep your head down and vote.
And that’s not what I think we should be asking of elected representatives.
We should be asking them to do the opposite.
Ask questions.
Challenge decisions.
Follow the money.
Scrutinise spending.
Represent the people who voted for you.
And sometimes, yes, be a bloody pain in the arse.
Because that’s part of the job.
Democracy isn’t everyone sitting around a table agreeing with each other.
Democracy is people disagreeing, arguing their case, examining the evidence, challenging the majority and still being allowed to participate in the process.
That’s why this needs to be bigger than Davina Smolders.
Don’t just ask whether you like her.
Don’t just ask whether you agree with her.
Ask the more important question:
What protections should an elected representative have when they challenge the consensus?
Because once elected representatives start believing that dissent could cost them their place at the table, democracy doesn’t disappear overnight.
It changes quietly.
The questions get softer.
The criticism gets rarer.
The votes get safer.
And eventually the people elected to scrutinise the system become part of the system they were elected to scrutinise.
That’s not the democracy I want.
And I don’t think it’s the democracy any New Zealander should want.
So don’t just argue about Davina Smolders.
Ask the Far North District Council to explain the process.
Ask what rules were relied upon.
Ask what opportunity she was given to respond.
Ask whether the same standard would have been applied to anyone else.
And ask whether our local government system gives elected representatives enough protection to disagree without being politically sidelined.
Because an elected mandate should mean something.
It should mean you can ask the awkward question, challenge the majority, follow the money, say no, and still have a seat at the table.
That’s not being disruptive.
That’s what the voters elected you to do.
From FB Phillip Conroy
‘Te Kuaka …has elected councillors sitting alongside eight externally appointed iwi and hapū representatives, who have speaking and voting rights.’
And it’s those voting rights I disagree with. Those people were not elected by the rate payers, they should have no more right to influence the conduct of council business than any other rate payer. Go along to committee meetings, yes, have your say, yes, vote on the outcome, no.
Waitaki dc wants to choose who takes the late mr hopkins place at the table , the sitting councilors and mayor will do anything within and outside their powers to stop the leader of the rates protest from winning a by election . Councils are crooked as feck.
i think vikey has hijacked Eds account.
It seems like the maoris have got the bit between their teeth.
….. [Smolders] “I therefore ask that this motion will not proceed to determination and that the complaint be first dealt with through the council’s established code of conduct process.”
Mayor Moko Tepania rejected that argument and allowed the motion to proceed.
“This is not a Code of Conduct hearing; this is simply the power that this council has to appoint moving forward.”
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2026/08/27/far-north-district-council-votes-to-remove-councillor-davina-smolders-from-maori-committee/
The committee is easy when no one challenges, as they not only do not want to hear about other concerns or about consequences.
Then just present their demands.
So it seems “tikanga” ongoing mission creep.
All quietly backed by the systemic Judiciary as the “new normal” to bring about control over every one.
Here’s my take on the situation: Davina Smolders and the Price of Dissent – No Minister
You can plainly see DARVO in action, too.
Never seen the definition of DARVO before….but realise that it is quite a common tactic of defense.
I won’t say DARVO is an exclusionary tactic of the Left, but it is a popular one for them.
I also believe it is important to highlight the Left’s tactics, so people are more generally aware of them.
It’s the principle our adversarial court trial system is based on.
New Zealand Patriots
REMEMBER KAREL SROUBEK? FALSE PASSPORT, DRUG SMUGGLING — AND SEVEN YEARS LATER, HE IS STILL HERE
Remember Karel Sroubek, also known as Jan Antolik?
You may remember him from the massive immigration controversy that engulfed the Labour Government — and the claims at the time about connections between Sroubek’s social circle and Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford.
And here’s the part that really gets me.
Sroubek has been fighting his deportation for years.
Seriously?
Since when does a convicted drug smuggler who entered New Zealand using somebody else’s passport get to spend SEVEN YEARS fighting deportation?
What the hell?
This is another immigration case that really pisses me off.
Sroubek entered New Zealand in 2003 using somebody else’s passport and subsequently obtained residence under that false identity.
Then came the drugs.
In 2016, he was sentenced to five years and nine months in prison for importing 4.9kg of MDMA — ecstasy — into New Zealand.
False passport.
False identity.
Residence obtained under that identity.
Almost 5kg of MDMA.
You would think deportation would be straightforward.
It wasn’t.
LABOUR’S IMMIGRATION MINISTER DECIDED TO LET HIM STAY
In 2018, then-Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway — now General Manager of the Opportunity Party — made the extraordinary decision to cancel Sroubek’s deportation liability and grant him residency under his real name.
It looked remarkably like an attempt to quietly legitimise his immigration status and hope nobody would notice.
Well, New Zealand noticed.
A man who originally entered New Zealand using somebody else’s passport was being allowed to remain under his real identity — after being imprisoned for importing almost 5kg of MDMA.
The decision caused an enormous political scandal.
THEN CAME THE POLITICAL CONNECTION
One of Sroubek’s friends and supporters was Richie Hardcore.
RNZ reported Hardcore as a friend of both Sroubek and then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
Hardcore had Ardern’s personal phone number and, after the decision allowing Sroubek to remain, texted the Prime Minister directly praising the decision and thanking Ardern and Lees-Galloway for giving his friend another chance.
Ardern’s office said the message was unsolicited, that she didn’t respond and that it arrived after Lees-Galloway had already made his decision.
There were also public claims at the time about Clarke Gayford and connections within that wider social circle.
Whatever people make of those connections, the documented political proximity surrounding this case attracted enormous scrutiny.
THEN IT STARTED FALLING APART
Further information emerged.
Immigration New Zealand subsequently concluded Sroubek should never have been granted a visa in the first place, because his previous Czech convictions meant he was an excluded person.
There was another remarkable revelation.
Sroubek had argued that he feared returning to the Czech Republic.
Yet it emerged that between 2007 and 2009 he had travelled back there three times.
Lees-Galloway eventually reversed his original decision.
Sroubek became liable for deportation.
That was 2018.
SEVEN YEARS LATER — HE IS STILL HERE
His deportation battle continued through the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the courts.
In November 2025, it was confirmed that Sroubek remained in New Zealand.
On 24 November 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed his latest appeal.
Yet seven years after the deportation controversy began, he is still here.
Just think about that history.
Entered New Zealand on somebody else’s passport.
Obtained residence under a false identity.
Imported 4.9kg of MDMA.
Sentenced to five years and nine months in prison.
Iain Lees-Galloway initially cancelled his deportation liability and granted him residency under his real identity.
A friend and supporter who was also a friend of Jacinda Ardern personally texted the Prime Minister praising the decision.
Further information emerged.
The Minister reversed his decision.
Deportation proceedings followed.
And seven years later, Karel Sroubek is still in New Zealand.
HOW MANY CHANCES DOES ONE PERSON GET?
Ordinary migrants are expected to follow New Zealand’s immigration rules.
Yet a convicted drug smuggler who entered this country under somebody else’s identity has been able to spend years using New Zealand’s legal processes to challenge his deportation.
Seriously — how is this acceptable?
So Immigration New Zealand and the Government have a very simple question to answer:
WHY IS KAREL SROUBEK STILL HERE — AND WHEN IS HE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE DEPORTED?
Viking
Given the background and delays, it would appear that he has friends in VERY high places – and apparently (given that luxflakes et al have made no moves to remove him), on both sides of the House.
Kim Dotcom repeated….
temu kim dot com
Behind the scenes, the connections not only to Ardern, but also Iain Lees-Galloway.
Who is financing the costs of the ongoing legal challenges?
Who owns whom?
A form of “deep state”?
If Top has any power, connections, after the next election, undoubtedly Karel Sroubrek will be granted citizenship. 🙃
Did Karl Sourbitch have a Royal Warrant to supply the white powder and giggle juice to the Labor Government and Parliament for the duration of Cindy’s term of power. I can’t see the boy in short pants altering the terms of supply!
Still waiting
In 2018, police announced they were again investigating the disaster after the incoming Labour-led Government committed to re-entering the Pike River drift and gathering evidence that had been inaccessible since the explosion. ( pecifically that was the noisy Dwarf from NZ First. Remember that?
Pike River: Manslaughter among charges considered in $35m police criminal investigation into mine disaster
The new investigation into the Pike River mine disaster, which killed 29 men in 2010, has cost police at least $35 million in what appears to be the most expensive criminal inquiry in New Zealand’s history.
The Herald understands the inquiry has reached its closing stages, with Crown prosecutors currently studying police recommendations on possible charges after eight years of investigation.
Manslaughter charges are among those being considered, the Herald has learned.
The newly released information shows the scale and cost of the investigation that was reopened in 2018 after the Government embarked on the re-entry of the Pike River mine on the West Coast.
It followed an earlier police criminal investigation which ended in 2013 after investigators found insufficient evidence for manslaughter and decided against pursuing a lesser criminal nuisance charge while separate health and safety prosecutions were underway.
Bernie Monk, whose son Michael, 23, was among those killed at Pike River, said he wanted the truth about the cause of the explosion and did not believe that had happened yet.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pike-river-manslaughter-among-charges-considered-in-35m-police-criminal-investigation-into-mine-disaster/premium/B3KE7S2B6ZETVEAI3BFE3GS26M/
Here we go again. More taxpayers’ money being spent on the past.
For what gain? We have the H & S laws that everyone dreads when in business.
The way national polling is going winnie will be crossing his fingers that labour roll chippy and allow him to be pm because its looking like his only way to be in government next term.
All the people that have said it was too late to roll luxon should be worried.
Has anyone noticed the huge publicity push to get 5-year-olds flu jabbed, aided and abetted by Pharmac and Seymour on the pretence of all the sick people in the hospitals? (By the way, that’s a normal occurrence for the last 40 years.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=28573440632274027&set=a.528207707224029
Donald Trump For President
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Just Told the Iranian Regime the Game Is Up
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivered a blunt message to Iran’s rulers and anyone still doing business with the IRGC. Speaking on camera at the G20 meetings, he made it personal.
“It could be anyone who does business with the IRGC. We are tracking down the IRGC’s assets, and I will say it on worldwide TV, just so you know, we know where in the British Virgin Islands your accounts are, at these trust companies. We know the hundred million dollar houses you have around the world, and we are going to freeze those. We are going to, our partners, we are going to close all of that down.”
Bessent said the stolen wealth will not stay with the mullahs. “So we are going after the regime’s illegitimate assets that they have stolen from the Iranian people, and those can go back to the Iranian people, or they can go to the victims of terror, like the families of the soldiers who were on the USS Cole or in the Lebanese barracks.”
The goal is bigger than bank accounts. “But we will stop this regime’s ability to have a nuclear weapon, to have their current highly enriched uranium, to project terrorist power through their proxy networks, and to terrorize the Gulf. So after 47 years, it is over.”
He left no room for fence-sitters. “And we are telling people, either you are with us or against us. And everyone says to me, well, what about China? I said, we have more in common with the Chinese on Iran than we disagree with on.”
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump4President/posts/pfbid0EogeCVvyEhNXocdVW8TpKZEXXPVvvcxpxNLXd4QhCJBsJJG5yaxsAwe4xNi2wmfZl
Now that should get our anti-Trumpeter out of his fart sack for a rise. And it won’t be his tool shed rising.
Have a fun day. busy busy at last. Might check in if I have time.
busy at last? but youre taurangas sole ratepayer and nz sole taxpayer so you shouldve been run off your feet old chap.
are you saying there hasnt been many folk wanting overpriced services to clean curtains????
tell them theyre dreaming.
hilarious thing is many my age will live long enough to watch the usa lose its grip on the world and they too at some stage will be targeted like this, heavily sanctioned, blockaded, assets/reserves frozen.
it will be fucking epic to watch and we all know the world bullies fucking well deserved it too.
but we remind the gullable dumb fucks that swallow this propaganda bullshit that they done the same to russia years ago to force their surrender and swiftly end the war…. ooops, didnt do jack shit 😂😂😂.
ROL and others been telling us for 4yrs ukraine is on verge of collapse so now we’re supposed to believe absolute nutters who will fight to the last man woman and child are about to surrender…. youre fucking delussional.
all america will achieve is same as they do in every other war they start…. mass deaths of civilians, fail to reach their military objectives and then run away like like the cowards they are.
Zelensky is now threatening civilian airlines that use Russian Airspace. Not even the IRGC are that stupid.
https://t.me/rtnews/165518
Another possibly useful channel..
https://t.me/ukraine_watch
If Ukraine is winning this war, why are they press ganging recruits, while Russia doesn’t seem to have this issue?
Why are they talking of conscripting women?
Why are they “advancing” westwards?
Why are they not having elections?
Why is Zelensky constantly firing top people?
Why hasn’t SB volunteered to help them on the front line?
To be fair ROL, I read a story the other day that the Russians have had a new round of conscriptions and a lot of young guys fled to avoid it.
I won’t deny that. Nobody wants to go to a war where getting shot is probable. I was conscripted, not something every man dreams of, ( except maybe SB)
ya kidding. He would never volunteer. Not his war.
you know what propaganda is ay and the twisting of words.
did i say ukraine was winning or should win? no
russia have their issues too, stop being so partisan. youre blind to the obvious. why isnt/hasnt russia won already? why is russia now suffering huge infrastructure blows?
zelensky is a cock and should be deaded but he was warning the skies are not safe due to huge amounts of drones.
learn the difference between a blanket warning and a direct threat ya dumbarse
now the big question is why ROL hasnt joined the russian front lines and single handedly won the war and become putins hero????….. aw yea, the coward fled his own country so like fuck he could fight along side tough ruskies 😂
I’m a bit old to go frolicking along the frontline. Look Russia has its issues, but, from people who visit the place or have moved there from the UK, it seems not too bad. At least you can be proud to be White there….
“UK expats living in Russia report deeply contrasting experiences, split between disillusioned critics facing unexpected hardships and content newcomers who praise the local lifestyle, safety, and traditional community. [1, 2, 3]
Daily Life and Safety
Criticisms and Reality Checks
in that top pic luxon looks a more competent old skool meatloaf then he does a politician/pm.
and cindy looks like its her first day in her new lizard skin…. hunty and ROL would still fuck it tho
Nah, we don’t like your sloppy leftovers.
I assume this will eventually happen here…
https://www.joannenova.com.au/2026/09/no-hot-dinner-for-the-poor-smart-switch-helps-people-become-living-negawatts-to-rescue-the-grid/
Just love people planning for a cataclysmic event that won’t happen…..
Can’t wait for the cooling in 2030 and all the idiots saying that CO2 made it warmer and the result is this mini Ice Age…..
“Solar Forcing vs. Radiative Forcing
Zharkova’s paper argued that the Grand Solar Minimum would lower the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) by roughly 0.22% to 0.3% (amounting to a drop of about 3 W/m²), which she claims could lower global average temperatures by up to 1.0°C. [1, 2, 3]
However, mainstream climate physicists point out a critical flaw in using this number to predict a global ice age:
Forcing ComponentEstimated Radiative ImpactExpected Climate EffectGrand Solar Minimum (Zharkova’s Model)Reduces forcing by roughly 0.25 to 0.3 W/m².At most, a temporary 0.1°C to 0.3°C drop in global average temperatures.Anthropogenic Greenhouse GasesIncreases forcing by over 2.0 W/m² (and rising).Continual 1.0°C to 5.0°C increase over the century.
The mathematical reality is that human greenhouse gas emissions exert a radiative forcing that completely overwhelms fluctuations in solar output. Mainstream scientists note that even if the Sun goes quiet, it would act like a “drop in the bucket”—briefly offsetting a mere decade’s worth of warming before the cycle reverses”
However the “Mainstream Climate scientists” are assuming a 1- 5 g=deg rise to cancel out the suns forcing, which is of course not going to happen. They don’t deny her maths. That will be fatal to their reasoning. In 3 years time we will find out who is right.
was reading some climate stuff and found this article . Worth reading.
https://judithcurry.com/2025/12/29/the-2023-climate-event-revealed-the-greatest-failure-of-climate-science/
So the moral of that story is we still dont know shit about the climate and what forces it one way or another and all the pain of climate change and adaption to it is wasted effort.
I see I see I see said the blind man who couldnt see at all.
Yup and trillions wasted in combatting climate change that could be used in so many other worth while ways…
But with such clever leaders like Luxon and Seymour, we are truely blessed to have them. Looking deeper behind Luxon, you have Stanford, another greenie high priestess waiting in the wings until Luxon is turfed out at or after the election. Just like Key, he will not stay around much longer.
Luxon has no charisma. He is a face on a thumb. I saw him in a video the other day trying to dance at some curry muncher event. I could only cringe. I find Seymour the best of the bunch. There aren’t a lot of others to choose from.
ah welcome back. You spent a few days in the sack?
I’m a busy man, I mean ” Don’t you know who I AM !🧑🌾
Been fishing with your mate then.
Have you put your name in for ACT yet?
They seriously need a new leader. that guys a fuck wit as bad as Luxflakes.
Had to happen, got scare a kiwi after a natural disaster somewhere else. Got to be relevant
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/emergencies_national/1220440/mayor-says-nepal-disaster-should-spur-planning-over-milford-sound-tsunami-risk
However, Milford is not the same as Nepal. Sure in the upper slopes there may be small glaciers, but, all the valleys are essentially drowned. Major collapse would cause mini tsunamis, not the torrent of mud, rock and water that occurred recently. And virtually no one lives any where near there. So fuck off and scare someone else
youre a dumb fuck once again. my mate is part of the commitee in there planing for it. (his plan to grab ankles and kiss arse goodbye went down like a cup of cold sick)
theres a huge rock overhang, clearly the underside of it has collapsed into the sound and a basic fish finder can show you that.
if it were to go in one huge chunk theres 90seconds before it hits the village, a wave 30-40m high.
grabbing ankles and kissing your arse goodbye is infact the only thing possible but then they are proposing closing off one of the souths biggest tourist attractions as the alternative.
one of the overhangs, i doubt it would let go in one hit. there are others that look way more dodge tho.
thing is if they dont make a plan and something happens then dumb fuck know it all keyboard warriors like ROL will scream “bUt iT wAs sUpEr oBvIoUs”
theyre damned if they do and damned if they dont.
closing the place would be an over reaction but people should be advised there is a fatal tsunami risk with little warning should a major seismic event occur.
The man doesn’t win freinds does he?
Nick Rockel
I always thought Rob Fyfe was a good bugger. He’s bang on; it’s completely inappropriate for Luxon to have a dig, especially given that he may have been responsible for buying the engines that have caused so much trouble, not to mention the small matter of engine fuel prices. I’m sick of Luxon running his mouth off and running down this country.
David Seymour
The Reserve Bank has raised the Official Cash Rate 0.25 per cent, up to 2.75 per cent. This will hit floating mortgage rates, but it won’t hit fixed mortgage rates -banks were already expecting this increase when they fixed their rates.
The increase also shows that interest rates are the connection between Government spending and household spending. When the Government spends too much, it adds to inflation. The Reserve Bank responds with higher interest rates to reduce the money supply and reduce that inflation.
Government spending is not the only cause of inflation, had it not been for the Iran war, and fuel prices had stayed the same, inflation would be a quarter lower than it actually is.
But… if we had the Iran war and a Labour Government, spending, inflation and interest rates would be higher still. It’s not just that they did it last time, it’s what they’re threatening this time.
They say they’d spend 33 per cent of GDP. The Government is currently spending 32.6 per cent, forecast to drop to 30.3 per cent by 2030. That gap sounds small, but it’s 10.4 billion dollars even after allowing for their Capital Gains Tax.
That money would have to be borrowed and spent. Borrowing and spending 10.4 billion extra would set off inflation and interest rates. Just like last time Labour was in Government.
The pressure they would put on households with wasteful spending is one of the key reasons we need to Lock. Labour. Out.
reply
So when the banks have more on term deposits than for a long time and are tendering for Govt bonds at a low rate, you think that it’s sound economics to repress the community more than it is by raising loan rates. Despite the fact that your current govt has 75000 young people unemployed and many older ones struggling for a job ( and you have ALL been there 2.5 years making noise and not a lot of real action) more layoffs today announced, Local Mega 10 doing a another restructure just 12 mths down the track, The Mentanex plant to close, you send money to failing enterprises like Ukraine the most corrupt country in the world for at least 50 years, you are handing out money to Big Pharma to destroy our kids. Where for God’s sake is your head?
Apologies – I tried to copy something from FB; as can be seen, I wasn’t successful.
Seymourdoesn’t seem to learm FFS.
An enforcement order is a legally binding direction issued by a court requiring a person or organisation to comply with the law, stop a harmful activity, or fix environmental damage
This prompted Okawa to write to Minister for Regulation David Seymour, saying he was concerned about the council’s approach of charging directors personally, as well as their companies.
Okawa told Seymour he didn’t have a problem with environmental regulation itself, but took issue with the “targeting of enforcement tools, particularly in the context of climate change related storm events”.
Seymour wrote to the council in May, saying “I would implore you to keep the country’s future prosperity in mind when considering the deployment of blunt force enforcement tools against companies doing business here”.
A forestry company that called on Minister for Regulation David Seymour to implore a council to ease up on it was responsible for leaving a harvested forest in one of the worst conditions independent experts have ever seen.
Gisborne District Council has applied to the Environment Court for enforcement orders against Summit Forests NZ Ltd and associated parties in relation to the dire condition of Awatere Forest, which is near Te Araroa on the East Cape.
Summit is one of the largest commercial forest owners in New Zealand, with more than 50,000 hectares of forestry in Northland, Coromandel, Whanganui, and Gisborne. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Japan-based Sumitomo Corporation.
Awatere Forest is a 390ha pinus radiata forest on Awatere Station, which is Māori freehold land and is managed by the Awatere B Trust.
Summary
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/361027565/one-worst-large-forest-company-left-land-mess
I beleicve thats the same company that just quit Kaitaia.
It was Juken Nissho who closed their Kaitaia triboard mill. JNL is a fully owned subsidiary of Wood One Co of Japan which trades on the Tokyo stock exchange.
JNL bought the cutting rights to Ngaumu Forest east of Masterton & the same adjacent to 90 Mile Beach west of Houhora in Northland.
I stand corrected. didn’t have time to check.
Sold our place to the Forest Service, who sold it to JNL as they did Daniels Block and others.
As I understand it the land is being held to settle Treaty claims. Replanting goes on.
Friends with benefits?
What do you reckon?
RCR Bites. News for people who notice things.
Asked about Labour and National joining forces to pass the under-16 social media ban without ACT or NZ First, Shane Jones had a warning for voters:
“A grand coalition is in the offing.”
Funny how quickly political differences disappear when there’s an internet to regulate.
http://www.biteme.news
there should be a cuck chair in the corner for shane…. then he wouldnt need to charge the taxpayer for his pornos 🤣
John Banks has seen (Nationals) internal polling and says on those numbers there will be a change of Govt.
He says National have lost their way and if he was in the caucus ‘he would have voted to roll Luxon’ but it’s too late now.
He says NZ is in a bad place and people have lost hope, the two big parties have lost so much support and opened the door to TOP, which internal polling shows has taken 30% from Nats and 30% from Labour.
He says National have lost Auckland and Labour will take the election, both big parties are crap but Top will get into parliament so –
Banks says there are two ways to keep the left out –
a) Luxon does a deal with TOP (ain’t no way TOP will go with them, despite Nats insiders badly want them to)
b) Use the overhang strategy – “You do anything to get the numbers, in what is a numbers game’ vote for the National electorate candidate and part vote either NZF or Act.
John also says that if B is used “write this down Winston Peters will be Prime Minister”
Banks’ predictions at the election are :
Nats : 27%
Lab : 31%
nzf : 13-15%
Act : 10-11%
TOP : 9%
“ opened the door to TOP, which internal polling shows has taken 30% from Nats and 30% from Labour.”
If 30% of National voters would vote for TOCP (sic), that just shows that National aren’t a centre-right party.
The Nats will not become a force again until they put a strong man into the Party chair. Its been run by women for years. Plain bloody hopeless.
Should give the job to Andrew Bayly and boot out all the POC bitcheds.
Where are the Greens in his calculations?
…..”Winston Peters will be Prime Minister” ……
Winston Peters, Hannibal Lector or reincarnate Jim Bolger.
Anyone but Alopecia Jesus!
God botherers must be getting a bit desperate house is hindu owned and survived due to solid reinforced concrete construction. Nothing to do with Huey.
That is the entire premise that religion relies on for survival.
Anything bad happens…….it’s God’s, Allah’s, Jehovah’s, Brahma’s or Father Xmas’s (insert the mythical deity of your choice) will.
Anything good happens……It was God wot dun it. Let us give thanks & pray!
Either way……give money!
plenty of other christian houses didnt survive.
God must be a real cunt of a thing to put his creations through such tragic events.
fucking piece of shit
I hate to be the one to inform you but my religious advisor will be along shortly to advise that the value of your soul has depreciated to one denarius. (At the current exchange rate a denarius is worth ten political promises)
ROL will be glad to quote you on an indulgence package to fit your budget. Once payment in cash (in used notes) is received you can resume sinning & blaspheming knowing that you have a clear path to a cloud & harp for the next eternity.
The world’s births by size.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/3604419279708287