‘Kremlin' councils need to go
Resource Minister Shane Jones has called the Otago Regional Council "the Kremlin of the South Island" after an application to expand the Macraes gold mine ran into trouble.
Mr Jones, who is also the regional development minister, said the council was full of "KGB green zealots" and the episode showed why regional councils needed to be scrapped.
The Otago council's assessment of environmental effects — which recommended Oceana-Gold's application to expand its mine be declined in full — was "ideological scribbling".
Any other investor or miner in New Zealand would now quickly conclude they had to join the fast-track application process, "which will enable these economic saboteurs to be marginalised", he said.
Council chairwoman Cr Gretchen Robertson said "name-calling" was unhelpful and the council's views were evidence-based, not ideological.
OceanaGold has been granted more time to prepare for a hearing for its proposed expansion at Macraes after the regional council said its application should be declined and the Waitaki district and Dunedin city councils also raised concerns.
The regional council's view of the company's Macraes Phase 4 (MP4) Project was troubling, Mr Jones said.
"It confirms the worst of my prejudices, that the regional council in the South Island, that the Otago Regional Council is the Kremlin of the South Island," he said.
"These are the reasons why people should be backing me to disestablish regional councils in New Zealand.
"Their role is as catchment boards and looking at the discharge and the allocation of water, water take.
"I am astounded at a time where the economy is still recovering from the Covid experience, a record number of New Zealanders are moving to Australia, and we have these Politburo apparatchiks destroying hundreds of jobs, undermining scores of millions of dollars in the local economy.
"For a dead moth.
"It's an ideological attempt to defeat mining.
"It truly is unbelievable.
"This is a part of New Zealand where no-one goes.
"There are some easy mitigative steps that can be taken, but the Kremlin and its KGB green zealots completely and utterly show me why regional councils need to be disestablished."
The "nationally vulnerable" moth Orocrambus sophistes, which lives in short tussock grasslands, was found at Golden Bar, one of three open pits about 55km north of Dunedin that OceanaGold has applied to expand.
The regional council's recommending report highlighted the moth alongside the proposed expansion's actual and potential effects on surface water quality, aquatic ecology, natural inland and ephemeral wetlands, and lizard habitat.
The effects would be "significantly adverse" and could not be avoided, minimised, remedied, offset or compensated for.
It would also have significant adverse cumulative effects on cultural values, "and it is not yet known if these can be managed by conditions", the report said.
Cr Robertson said the report was prepared by qualified professionals under the Resource Management Act.
"It is a technical, evidence-based assessment — not a political statement.
"Our staff are simply doing their jobs within the law as it stands.
"Name-calling only undermines confidence in both central and local government."
Regional councils across New Zealand welcomed "meaningful dialogue" on how to best deliver the services they were intended to — flood protection, biosecurity, civil defence, environmental management and public transport, she said.
"Here in Otago, we remain focused on our responsibility to protect the environment while supporting sustainable economic development.
"That balance is not ideological — it reflects the law, and we believe it reflects the values of our region: caring for both our environment and our livelihoods."
A minute issued by independent commissioner Rob van Voorthuysen this week said the hearing for OceanaGold's proposed expansion had been postponed from next month to December at the mining company's request.
The company's lawyers advised more time was required to consider the recommendations from the councils, he said.
OceanaGold senior vice-president Alison Paul said adjourning the MP4 hearing, originally scheduled for next month, would give the company more time to prepare its evidence, including addressing all three councils' reports and recommendations.
hamish.maclean@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
7 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Kiwis in the dark over social media account suspensions
By Lucy Xia of RNZ A dancer, a dumpling restaurant owner and a makeup-artist are among New Zealanders whose Instagram and Facebook accounts have been suspended, as thousands globally call for Meta to be held accountable for what they say are wrongful bans based on false accusations. More than 37,000 people around the world have signed an online petition advocating for ordinary users impacted - who they said were being silenced by Meta's "broken AI enforcement systems". Meanwhile, Meta said it was using a combination of humans and technology to take down accounts that break its rules - with content such as child sexual abuse material. In June it admitted to a glitch in the system that resulted in Facebook groups being wrongly taken down - however, it said that had been fixed. Auckland dancer Assryia Brady said her Instagram account was suspended in June, after Meta told her she had breached community standards with child exploitation material. Brady, who mainly posts dance videos, said the claim was baseless and had harmed her reputation. She said despite being a Meta Verified user, paying $30 a month, she received no support from the company to get her account back. Freelance make-up artist Tallulah McLean had her Instagram account suspended earlier this month on the grounds of breaching community standards relating to child exploitation, abuse and nudity. She said the only child photos she had on her account was of her doing make up for her brother when she was a child. McLean said the ban was devastating for her livelihood. "I do all my work as it comes through Instagram, it's my online portfolio, it's where I can meet people, like clients, and form connections with other make up brands, PR brands. It's everything, so this has impacted every form of income for me, like my business, my livelihood, it's shattered it," she said. McLean said her efforts to contact Meta to appeal the ban were met with chat bots and automated responses. She received two calls from overseas call centres after telling Meta she would be sending legal letters to them. She said the callers told her there was nothing they could do, and she needed to wait. Meta reinstated McLean's account within hours after RNZ sent queries about her complaint, but it refused to explain why McLean's account was suspended. Response 'non-existent' Auckland dumpling restaurant Sumthin Dumplin also had its business Instagram account suspended for breaching community standards about two months ago despite only posting photos and videos of food and its staff. Its owner Shane Liu said the response from Meta was almost "non-existent" other than chat bot stock responses, even though he was paying about $2000 for his Meta-verified account. "I didn't know what to do, what do you do? Did the sales dip? Of course it did. Thank God I built a brand that was beyond just an Instagram page, and it didn't dip that much, but I was definitely affected." Liu said he paid thousands of dollars to a marketing company in Dubai, who eventually helped him reinstate his account. Meta said it took action on accounts that violated its policies, and people could appeal if they thought it had made a mistake. "We use a combination of people and technology to find and remove accounts that break our rules," it said in a statement. "We're always working to improve the enforcement of all our policies - including our child nudity and exploitation policy - to help keep our community safe. No system is perfect, which is why we give people the opportunity to appeal decisions if they think we've got it wrong," it added. The tech giant did not answer RNZ's questions about how many accounts had been wrongly cut off, and insisted that it had not seen evidence of a significant increase in incorrect enforcement of its rules. In July, Meta said it was expanding on teen account protections and child safety features, and cracking down on accounts breaking rules. The BBC reported that Meta was removing 635,000 Instagram and Facebook accounts over sexualised comments and imagery in relation to children. Artificial intelligence expert from Victoria University Dr Andrew Lensen said the recent shift was surprising, as he thought Meta had in the past taken a conservative approach to suspensions - often not taking down violent and sexual content. Now they had gone too far in the other direction, he said. Dr Lensen said while social media platforms had been using automated systems to moderate accounts for a decade, they continued to be increasingly reliant on automated tools. He said the increasing sophistication of AI powered moderation tools could be a double-edged sword. "It's really hard to increase your detection of the really bad stuff, without also accidentally increasing your mis-detection of accounts that are actually legitimate," he said. Dr Lensen said it was hard to know what the motives behind Meta's recent shift were.
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Te reo Maori is ‘normal'; stop treating it like it is not
Not ''abnormal'' language. PHOTO: ODT FILES If you can say the word "car", you can say the word "karakia". If you can say the word "for" you can say the word "koro". Unless of course if you are the minister of education, in which case, the complexity of using the same vowel sound for the same letters in both English and Māori words is too great a language hurdle. This is the official reason for the elimination of common reo Māori being removed from the Ready to Read Phonics Plus series of books. This decision by the minister has caused widespread condemnation and was recently described as "white supremacy". Some people will struggle with this term being used to describe the actions of the minister and ministry. White supremacy invokes the common image of skin-headed Nazis, hateful violence and destruction. So, is the minister's decision an act of white supremacy? White supremacy is a term that is not just used to describe individuals. It is an ideology that arises from the settler-colonisation of Aotearoa and Te Waipounamu and from a desperate grip on monolingualism seen almost nowhere else in the world. It is a term used to describe how racism is built into the systems that govern us. When racism is built into our systems of governance in Aotearoa New Zealand, we see it when the language, culture and people of Māori and other non-Pākehā ethnicities are treated like an aberration or not "normal". The treatment of non-Pākehā culture and language as "not normal" is evident in many ways. We saw an example recently when the minister for justice described the haka in Parliament as lacking "civility". But it is most prominent in the different ways te reo Māori is being eliminated from public view. The argument government uses is English is "normal" and te reo Māori is not "normal". It is untrue, and when this false argument drives government policy, that policy can be rightly described as white supremacy. The Māori Language Act 1987 made te reo Māori an official language of New Zealand, the first time any language was legislated as an official language. Legislation confirming New Zealand sign language as such followed in 2006. The effect of these two Acts is to give all New Zealanders the right to use te reo Māori and New Zealand sign language in legal proceedings and it places obligations on public services to make provision for their use. The use of te reo Māori is therefore protected by law. This was a great start. The kohanga reo movement, kura kaupapa Māori and the oversubscription of adult te reo Māori classes across the country all pile on evidence of the fact New Zealanders are increasingly using and wanting to use te reo Māori in their everyday language. It would be quite reasonable to think then te reo Māori is normal. And it is. Most likely, whether you "speak" te reo or not, you also use Māori words like kiwi, kai, waka and mana. You may often say "ka pai" when your kids do something well, "ka kite", or the peculiarly New Zealand slang of "ka keets" when you drop your kids or your "moko" at their "kura". You might baulk at the use of the word "Pākehā", but you still say it and know what it means. You almost certainly say, or know what kia ora means, especially when someone overseas says it to you when they discover you are a New Zealander. You may sign your colleagues' leaving cards with aroha and know what it means when it is written in yours. You might even say taihoa when someone needs to slow down and "holy hika" is making a lovely comeback when something seems surprising or undesired. These are the words our children see, hear and say everyday in some form in the reading, listening and speaking of "English". For the Ministry of Education to now classify these words as "abnormal" in New Zealand English can only be an act of racism built into our system of governance, and therefore rightly described as white supremacy. I admit to being particularly offended at the elimination of the word "koro" from the Ready to Read books. That word means our grandfather, our beloved elder and when it is used by us and by our mokopuna it refers to the utter love and affection we hold for those older men in our lives. To eliminate this word in the readers is to eliminate the depth of that relationship from the language of our moko who are learning to read. If the ministry continues with its plans, the precious relationship that mokopuna Māori have with their koro will disappear in their books. The only elder men who will matter will be Pākehā grandfathers. That is white supremacy. ■ Metiria Stanton Turei is a senior law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Villages are a home, not a trap
Retirement villages are not a Ponzi scheme, Michelle Palmer writes. Brian Peat's recent column (Opinion, ODT 18.8.25) makes for fiery reading. He accuses the government of dragging its feet, calls contracts "unfair," and even compares retirement villages to a Ponzi scheme. It is a passionate critique, but passion should not come at the expense of accuracy and the facts. Retirement villages are not financial scams. They are home to more than 53,000 older New Zealanders who, week after week, choose this lifestyle because it works for them. Let us be clear: a Ponzi scheme is a fraud that collapses when no new money comes in. Retirement villages are the opposite. They are heavily regulated, legally transparent, and backed by bricks, mortar, and decades of investment. Residents receive independent legal advice before they sign anything. The licence-to-occupy model and deferred management fee (DMF) are disclosed upfront, and they fund the services, security and communities that villages provide. Throwing around words like "Ponzi" may grab headlines, but it insults both operators who act within the law and village residents who made an informed, deliberate choice. Peat's strongest criticism is over exit payments. He claims residents' money is "routinely held for years" and points to a figure of $2.8billion in "interest-free funds" as evidence. This is misleading. That number reflects the combined value of all resident units across multiple operators, not idle cash sitting in a bank account. Those funds are tied up in bricks and mortar, village infrastructure, maintenance and services, and they cannot simply be withdrawn on demand. The average time for repayment is about five and a-half months, longer than a year ago, but entirely in line with normal property settlement times and the realities of relicensing homes to new residents after refurbishment, marketing and settlement. Operators do not benefit from delay, they only receive their own return when a new resident enters. More than 60% now voluntarily pay interest if repayments take longer than six months, weekly fees stop when a resident exits, and the DMF is capped at that point. These are safeguards that ensure costs are not piling up after someone has left. The idea of forcing operators to hold all exit payments in trust sounds simple, but it is complete nonsense — who would pay the bank back for the cost of units and facilities if the money is held in trust? Retirement villages are long-term, capital-intensive projects that recent independent research by Grant Thornton shows takes more than 20 years to break even. Imposing rigid trust requirements would push up fees, increase entry costs, and ensure the demise of smaller community and charitable villages, precisely the people and places most at risk if reforms are done without care. Retirement village operators are investing in modern care facilities that directly support the wellbeing of older New Zealanders. They are the only parties building new care beds. Weakening the model would harm both the infrastructure and the people it cares for. We can see the consequences elsewhere. In parts of Australia, mandatory buy-back rules forced operators to pay out regardless of resale. The result was higher fees for residents, the closure of smaller villages, and less choice for older people. That is not the "fairness" outcome anyone intends. Mr Peat also suggests residents should share in "profits" if the model is resident-funded. That misunderstands what a retirement village is. Villages are not investment products — they are homes. The DMF is the mechanism that recovers the cost of running the community over a resident's time living in a village — staff, maintenance, facilities, and services — not a dividend pool. Without it, upfront and ongoing charges would rise dramatically, putting these communities out of reach for many older New Zealanders. None of this dismisses residents' concerns. We welcome the review of the Retirement Villages Act and support improvements like clearer contracts, fees stopping on vacation of units and stronger dispute resolution. But reform must be grounded in evidence and designed to preserve choice, not destroy it. Resident satisfaction cannot be ignored. Even Brian Peat acknowledges that all surveys consistently show over 90% of residents are happy with their decision, enjoying safety, companionship, independence, and certainty of cost and a pathway to care. To suggest they are "trapped" or "exploited" misrepresents reality and undermines the very people the column claims to defend. Older New Zealanders deserve fairness and they deserve choice. Quick fixes, sensational claims, and simplistic analogies will achieve neither. Of course, moving to a village is entirely your choice — no-one is forcing you. But about 130 older Kiwis are making that choice every week. Complaining about a choice made, especially after compulsory legal advice was required to ensure all terms were understood, is not the Kiwi way. Retirement villages are communities that thousands of New Zealanders call home and that deserves to be respected. ■ Michelle Palmer is executive director of the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand.
