Mahia: Now A US Nuclear Base?
'This raises serious questions about compliance with New Zealand's Nuclear Free legislation,' said Valerie Morse, member of Peace Action Wellington.
'We have been very concerned that the national security assessments by MBIE of Rocket Lab launches are insufficient. In particular, US military launches that are 'classified' means that New Zealand officials have very little knowledge about the military capabilities and targets of these satellites.'
'The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment who oversee space launches specifically state that 'payloads that contribute to nuclear weapons programmes or capabilities' are expressly prohibited. Yet without the actual access to classified information from the US we have incomplete information about what these satellites do.'
'Moreover the integration and consolidation of command systems means that satellites may serve multiple outcomes including the operation of nuclear weapons. The US's Joint All-Domain Command and Control or CJADC2 is the concept that the Department of Defense has developed to connect sensors from all branches of the armed forces into a unified network powered by artificial intelligence.'
'Mahia has become a de facto outpost of the US military where it can do what it wants, when it wants with very little real oversight and no concern for the implications of that for New Zealand independence as a nation. '
'The threat of nuclear war is at the highest level it has been at in 40 years. New Zealanders rejected nuclear weapons two generations ago, we should not give up our principled stand under any circumstances, but particularly not by stealth under the cover of US 'classified' programmes.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Pretending the internet doesn't exist won't protect our young people from harm
As parliament's inquiry into the online harm encountered by young New Zealanders gets under way, there are concerns it will follow the same rushed process that resulted in Australia's social media ban for under-16s. New technologies that upend long-established ways of communicating often spark concern over how to ensure young people use these tools safely. We all want young people to be safe, and to grow up to be responsible citizens, but too often these concerns manifest in the form of punitive measures that seek to control young people, rather than teaching them the critical thinking and emotional skills they need to use new forms of media safely. From outlandish concerns that the Harry Potter books were bringing children into contact with drugs and the occult, to the (debunked) argument that video games make children violent, concerned adults, despite their best intentions, have historically been quick to blame new media and new trends for problems that almost always stem from an intersection of complicated social and economic factors. The most recent source of unease for parents and policy makers has been social media – a term vague enough so to allow policymakers to lump niche messaging applications like Telegram together with large gaming platforms like Steam, and other video platforms like YouTube and TikTok to create an all-encompassing monolith that poses a risk to young people. Driven by (thoroughly debunkable) claims that social media use is the direct cause for a generation of anxious youth, legislators across the globe have called for inquiries into the use of social media among society's 'most vulnerable' demographic. Aotearoa has recently followed this trend with the government's Education and Workforce Committee recently announcing an inquiry into the harm young New Zealanders (might) encounter online and how government, businesses and society should work to counteract these harms. The terms of reference for the inquiry solicited responses from people addressing 'the nature, severity, and prevalence of online harm experienced by young people in New Zealand, including but not limited to online bullying, exploitation, addictive use, mental health impacts, educational impacts, and exposure to harmful content', with a particular eye to develop practical, cost-effective solutions to counteract online harm. Written submissions closed on July 30, with the committee hearing invitation-only oral submissions this month. It plans to report its findings to parliament by the end of November. The concern with an inquiry of this nature is that it risks following the same rushed process to ban people under 16 from social media that the Australian government is set to implement at the end of 2025. The Australian approach was not only rushed, but was undertaken without seriously consulting the demographic that the bill claims to protect. Instead of teaching young people the skillset needed to be responsible, critically informed and safe digital citizens, the proposition to ban everyone under 16 from the vaguely defined monolith 'social media' instead takes the convenient route of simply pretending the internet does not exist. Out of sight, out of mind. But that approach is increasingly at odds with the reality of growing up in the 21st century for a range of reasons. Young people are taught using digital technologies, many of the skills they learn online will help them later in life to navigate increasingly digital economies and workplaces, culturally and linguistically diverse youths use social media to access and enhance their English, many of the civil services that they will need to grow up and navigate are offered online, and at a general level, the internet serves as a vital infrastructure for remote and disadvantaged youths to find solace with others in similar circumstances. Of course we all want to protect young people from harm – whether online, or in real life – but framing social media bans as a step taken to 'protect' young people from digital media actively works against the more realistic approach of working to protect them within the digital environment. This isn't just opinion, it's backed up by evidence. In the response that a group of colleagues and I submitted to the Education and Workforce Committee, we argued that Aotearoa would do well to take an evidence-based and potentially world-leading approach to the education of young people that will equip them with the tools they need to be responsible, sensible and ultimately safer within the context of the digital environment. In the response, we walked through some of the common charges brought against social media. Chief among these charges is the argument that social media is to blame for a generation of mentally ill youth. This is a claim that is easy – and often politically convenient – to agree with. But taking a closer look at the surrounding social and economic factors involved in youth mental health, the claim that social media is the root cause of mental illness in youth doesn't quite add up, especially in the New Zealand context. Instead, there are many competing issues at play in Aotearoa: a broken mental health system, the inability or unwillingness of politicians and large corporations to act to prevent the climate crisis, and a general feeling of malaise that is solidified through the erosion of democratic processes and expansion of the surveillance state. In some ways, social media actually provides young people with the infrastructure needed to begin countering these issues: there is evidence that engaging with political issues on social media translates into real-life civic engagements like showing up to protests, volunteering and contacting elected officials. But systematic issues remain firmly entrenched. For instance, in the case of Aotearoa's strained mental health system, a survey of 540 psychiatrists across Aotearoa revealed that 94% of respondents found that the mental health system was unfit for purpose, and that increased funding was needed to better understand the socio-economic drivers of mental health issues. This is not a unique finding: other studies have revealed similar dissatisfaction among practitioners and patients in the mental health systems in Aotearoa. Globally, young people face a set of crises. Climate change, declining socio-economic equality, an increasingly polarised political landscape premised on hate and homogeneity and the fact that it is increasingly unaffordable to be able to live are much more likely to be drivers of mental health issues among young people. A policy designed to keep young people off of the internet is not going to help solve any of them. Climate change, socio-economic inequality and the mental health crisis will not be solved by pretending the internet doesn't exist. It will actively harm young people and future generations. Many of the crises that we face today require policy that is not purely content with cost-effective, simple solutions that the Education and Workforce Committee is soliciting. Instead, policy can and should be designed to educate, empower and ultimately let young people have a say in decisions that directly impact them and their future.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Christopher Luxon needs to remember he is a politician and no longer a CEO
More to NZ rugby than Mo'unga Firstly, may I state that Richie Mo'unga is an excellent first five and I fully support him going overseas to earn good money to support him and his family in the future. New Zealand rugby has become obsessed with his absence as if the All Blacks' future lies fully in his hands. Mo'unga is a very good first five but will never rank up there with the likes of Dan Carter. Mo'unga enjoyed the benefits of playing behind the great Crusaders pack, which gives a first five the time and space to play expansive football. Let's not forget that the World Cup is still two years away and a lot can happen in that time. So can the All Blacks selectors stop obsessing over the loss of Mo'unga and get on with developing their local talent. Just watch some of the school First XV games and see the talent that is available, just waiting to be discovered. Jock MacVicar, Hauraki. Top marks NZ! Give tax breaks to the better-off. Cut funding for science. Sack civil servants. Remove environmental protections. Remove EV subsidies. Make it harder for disadvantaged people to vote. Deny public health advice. Promote drilling for oil and gas. Deny hand-ups to those needing help to achieve equality. Deny history. 10 out of 10 New Zealand! Bill Irwin, Nelson. Troubling trend for sports The article (August 9) on the termination of the Mountain Green Archery Club's lease of its base on Ōwairaka (Mt Albert) highlights a troubling trend in Auckland. As with speedway and Western Springs, council officials seem disconnected from the community, expecting volunteers to perform miracles while juggling jobs and personal lives. Fostering Olympic-level talent in sports like archery is becoming harder. Motorsport and speedway — once breeding grounds for champions such as Bruce McLaren and Liam Lawson — are being pushed out, possibly accessible only to the wealthy. Even golf and horse racing clubs face pressure to relocate or restructure. Meanwhile, football codes thrive with ample fields and support, producing future Warriors, All Blacks and All Whites. There's nothing wrong with football — but other sports risk drifting further from reach, even for school-aged kids. We're at risk of becoming a football-and-beer nation, losing the diversity that makes our sporting culture rich. The council should start listening and advocate for all sports, the community and the volunteers who keep them alive. John Riddell, Hobsonville. Green shoots? The idea of the Green Party leading the next (or any) Government is political positioning rather than political reality. Chlöe Swarbrick is right that most New Zealanders lament politics. Most New Zealanders also seem to have little enthusiasm for the kind of 'progressive' and 'transformational change' the Greens advocate. The revolution is unlikely to take place in 2026. Brendan Jarvis, Wellington. Make a climate stand George Williams (August 11) rejects the opinion of Emma Mackintosh (August 8) that we should be actively reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and says that a strong economy is more important. He is correct that our total emissions are but a drop in the bucket on a global scale, but does this give us the right to carry on our high per capita fossil fuel use? New Zealand has led the world in the past and we could make a stand now, at an individual and a government level to reduce our emissions. Our grandchildren will be living in a very unpleasant world. I hope they can look back with pride at our actions today. Linda McGrogan, Taupō.
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Government Moves To Strip Protections For Water Quality
The Environmental Law Initiative says last-minute Government amendments would gut core protections for New Zealand's rivers, lakes, and streams. Minister Chris Bishop today released an amendment to the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, consisting of changes that were never scrutinised by a Select Committee. "They include sweeping changes to section 70 of the Resource Management Act that will make it easier for polluters to continue damaging our most degraded waterways — and to start degrading clean ones," says ELI's Senior Researcher, Anna Sintenie. For decades, New Zealand law has set clear bottom lines for water quality — limits on oil slicks, foams, scums, suspended materials, colour changes, odour, farm animal drinking safety, and harm to aquatic life. The new amendments would: Allow regional councils to permit ongoing pollution where rivers are already degraded, including where there, conspicuous colour changes, or rendering of water that unsafe for livestock drinking. Completely remove the prohibition on discharges that create floatable or suspended materials, enabling councils to allow new pollution even in pristine waters. 'These are not minor tweaks — they are the removal of safeguards that have been in place for decades, and developed over generations,' says Sintenie. 'Where pollution has gone too far, the answer is to fix the pollution, not change the law so it becomes legal.' Industry lobby groups, including DairyNZ and Federated Farmers, previously asked for these changes during the Select Committee process, and were turned down. The Government is now handing them back these concessions at the eleventh hour, without public scrutiny. 'It is a conspicuous example of how far vested interests are controlling this Government. 'This is not democracy, and it is certainly not law making for the public good.' says Sintenie. The amendments to section 70 apply to proposed plans notified before, on, or after amendment comes into effect, including plans that are subject of an appeal and or ongoing court proceedings. ELI has taken a series of legal proceedings tackling what is says is unlawful allowances of nitrogen pollution to freshwater. 'The Government has introduced an amendment that will lock in pollution in some of our dirtiest rivers and open the door to new degradation elsewhere. "New Zealanders expect their government to protect freshwater, not weaken the rules to appease polluters,' says Sintenie.
