14 Responses to “Hypocrisy”

1. Draco T Bastard says:

   January 23, 2011 at 11:11 pm

   Hypocrisy and corruption. There’s no way that the ministers should have interfered with that decision.
2. ghostwhowalksnz says:

   January 24, 2011 at 8:11 am

   I remembered seeing it online on the weekend , but now its ‘disappeared’.
   However here is a TV3 report from the end of last year

   Environment Minister Nick Smith has approved the joint application from Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and the Department of Conservation to amend the order to also protect indigenous vegetation, fisheries and cultural characteristics.
   “Lake Ellesmere should be a Canterbury icon, not an eyesore. Further steps, as well as considering changes to the water conservation order will be needed to improve this lake,” Dr Smith said.

   But that is not the National Cabinet works, cronyism means that favours for friends overide government policy.
3. ghostwhowalksnz says:

   January 24, 2011 at 8:15 am

   Here is the original report

   Greenpark dairy farmer Barry Clark was told by DOC in May that his grazing licence on conservation land near Lake Ellesmere, south of Christchurch, would not be renewed.

   Official documents released to The Press under the Official Information Act reveal Clark complained to National’s Selwyn MP Amy Adams, who raised the matter with Wilkinson.

   Clark, whose family had grazed the land for more than a century, said he was advised early in 2010 by DOC that his lease would expire in June and he was asked to reapply – which gave him the impression that a “renewal was available”. DOC’s decision not to renew the licence was overturned at a meeting in August involving Canterbury-based ministers Wilkinson and Carter, Clark and Mahaanui area manager Bryan Jensen, and a five-year extension was approved.

   Extending the lease contravened DOC’s policy of removing grazing from the lake edge to protect the environment and upset some DOC staff.
   It also contradicted what Clark was told by the department in 2004 – that the next five-year term of his lease would be his last.

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/4569314/Ministers-step-in-on-DOC-lease
4. ianmac says:

   January 24, 2011 at 9:32 am

   Appalling to see that Ministers can interfere when usually the say “Can’t interfere in Operational matters.”
   ……and he was asked to reapply – which gave him the impression that a “renewal was available”.
   How on earth does that translate as a right to renewal?
   In short Wilkinson and Carter do what they like regardless of the consequences, perhaps like boy racers?
5. Tracey says:

   January 24, 2011 at 9:35 am

   C’mon you are all forgetting it’s not hypocrisy if

   a. you are in power; and
   b. you are right

   Funny how the NAts and ACT were so upset about how they thought the last PM thought she knew what was best for us. See a and b above for explanation.
6. softstarter says:

   January 24, 2011 at 11:03 am

   What? A case of politicians saying one thing and doing another? Well knock me down with a feather, I’ve never heard of such behavior.

   Is is right though, makes you wonder about having friends in places. Also, why haven’t Ngai Tahu said anything about it?
7. ianmac says:

   January 24, 2011 at 12:15 pm

   I think that the original report said that Ngai Tahu were not pleased about the decision.
8. paul says:

   January 24, 2011 at 2:15 pm

   Umm – sounds like ecan revisited – and sounds like ole Gerry is taking his ‘powers’ and wielding them. And like always, media will do nothing and he and his cronies will continue to get away with it.

   Surprised (a little) that Nagai Tahu were merely ‘unhappy’ – but wonder if they got a quid pro quo instead – another forestry deal perhaps? Sounds cynical perhaps but has happened in the past where they trade off one thing for another – just not that publicly discussed.
9. ghostwhowalksnz says:

   January 24, 2011 at 3:07 pm

   Ngai Tahu not pleased ??.
   I would think a lake that is dying due to runoff from surrounding farms would have a lot more to say, if they could.

   Just as well we have a conservation department that looks after the natural habitat, or it was until Wilkinson turned it into another rubber stamp for Canterbury farmers. Sounds like Ecan was only the start.
10. Paul 2.0 says:

    January 24, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    I don’t know.. if the said farmer has been grazing the land (as his family has) for the last 100 YEARS, then, that should count for at least something before just cutting him off .. there’s more to this, obviously.
11. paul says:

    January 24, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Its not about just cutting them off – the farmer had 5 years – and I assume they knew there was run off – to allow it to continue to pollute is stupid. He had 5 years to find an alternative solution – but no – instead goes running to the blue team crying foul. Thats hardly good planning. From reading between the lines of your post Paul2 – it seems you think because they have farmed there 100 years they have the right to keep on polluting it? Hows that help the generations of the future?
12. Bob says:

    January 24, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    It seems that farmer Clark knew in 2004 that his time on that land was up.
    He must have good friends in the party!!
13. Tracey says:

    January 25, 2011 at 8:08 am

    Businesses get curve balls thrown at them all the time. Think of the guy with the factory beside the new motorway in Auckland. Not many get 5 years notice that they need to change their model. I find it hard to believe that Fed Farmers and other grants weren’t available to help him change, adapt, bring in different technology or whatever.

    I wonder how some Maori feel about the farmer using the 100 years argument? Some think relying on something from that far back is nonsense (wink)
14. ghostwhowalksnz says:

    January 25, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Funny that some seem to think heredity privilege still applies when leasing land that has a 5 year term.