Is it true the Greens are now wanting to interfere in our kitchens

With no double ovens, 2 burners on stoves and more

Surely this latest rumour isn’t true?

I stole these questions from KB, they should be answered.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog, Seems you were deceived by a missing end to the italicised quote from BB, a possibly confusing example and, consequently, a misinterpretable closing sentence.

big bro asked…
Perhaps I can ask this question again and see if one of you Greenies will give me an honest answer.
When (or if) I do build my new home (which may well be in Aussie given the way this election looks like going) can I have the following;
1 The water pressure and flow rate that I WANT or will I be restricted by nanny state?
2 Will I be able to heat that water the way I WANT or will I have to do it the way somebody from nanny state wants me to do it.

The answers to both questions is yes.

This whole debate is due to not recognising the difference between guidelines and rules or regulations .

I’ll clarify the example:
In 1930 a Dept of Transport study of coroners reports identified “driving to fast for the nature, condition and use of the highway and amount of traffic a driver should expect to encounter” as a leading cause of fatal car crashes. Further investigation revealed limited visibility of these factors, especially child pedestrian traffic, as the underlying cause in many of these speed related crashes so the Dept proposed a system of speed limits based on hazard assessment. Parliament responded by introducing a blanket speed limit for municipal roads and streets. Totally not what the expert evidence demanded. It took politicians 70+ years to fix that mistake without publicly admitting that a mistake had ever been made. The guidelines issued in 1997 failed because the previous mandatory law was perpetuated. It was only when the guideline replaced that mandatory law as a new mandatory law that most local authorities actually spent the money needed to review their urban speed limits. A good example in support of your argument that prescriptive laws are rarely the best way to go but a rather poor example of the difference between guidelines and rules. But then, road safety is about protecting people from violence from complete strangers so it is an area where laws are a legitimate government response. Energy efficiency mainly addresses self-inflicted deaths rather killing others so it is not an area where the government has moral authority to legislate, except for spec-builders and landlords who are inflicting loss of life on others. Although that could be adressed through existing contract law.

This is a technical issue. There shouldn’t be any submissions or consultation. The politicians should do what the technocrats tell them to do instead of compromising with popular opinion. Thats how we ended up with blanket speed limits. Fortunately the public wasn’t directly consulted about the new speed limit system. Democracy really does prove the old adage “too many cooks spoil the broth”.

To clarify my original last sentence:
Yeah, you might want to worry where this going to lead in the fullness of time. That’s when not making early and easy changes to prepare for peak oil and AGW will demand a “crisis” response from governments.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Big bro needs to have unrestricted hot water -if he stinks as much as his perverse and stupid arguements. Good luck in Aussie Big bro -you won’t be noticed – they already got snakes!!!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Anatomy of a crisis

The left proposes trivial restrictions upon the use of incandescent light bulbs and high flow showers. The right screams for its freedoms, and wails against nanny state. The left’s tacit message for these spoilt brats of the regime is that they will only be asked for a token sacrifice. The right’s response is to refuse even the slightest infringement upon its right to act howsoever it pleases.

As real privations start to grip, the working classes will be unimpressed by those who tabled these trivial proposals, and outraged by those who so arrogantly rejected them. Left and right are playing out the role of Charles XVI and Marie Antoinette, either merely tinkering with the machinery of a discredited regime, or else blithely oblivious to the looming catastrophe. Token measures will have no substantive impact upon the evolving social and environmental crisis, but the self-indulgent attitude which underlies the rejection of such measures will bring the regime to the abyss.

http://www.republican.co.nz

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

big bro Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 8:44 pm

> kahikatea

> Do you think that a good dose of restorative justice might be best for these poor murdering terrorists instead of the bullet?

No, I think life in prison would be the best punishment. Seems to me it’s the only one that’s likely to deter copycats.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

kahikatea

Do you think that a good dose of restorative justice might be best for these poor murdering terrorists instead of the bullet?

So the Greens are not only soft on crime but they are soft on terrorism as well it seems.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

# Shunda barunda Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

> No I am not, I am asking not to be stuffed in the closet so someone else can come out.

well then your request can be easily met, as nobody is proposing that you should be stuffed into the closet.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

big bro Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 7:46 am

> Off topic

> The good news is that the Bali bombers are soon to he shot.

I’ve never understood how the death penalty is supposed to be an effective deterrent to a group of people who celebrate martyrdom and believe they are going to go straight to heaven and get seventy two young virgins each.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The ideal government is a very small government that stays out of the way.

They should focus on their core responsibilities: ensuring markets can happen, protecting private property rights, and maintaining law and order.

Everything else is up to the people.

I accept they might have roles in other areas, but I’d take that on a case by case basis, and that role might be temporary.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

shunda – you’ve yet to say one thing that ‘your’ government would do (not something that you would do personally). We were discussing the prescriptiveness of governments (in light of your dislike for the present one) and the manner in which the government you would choose would manage affairs of the country, without being regulatory or nannyish. What, for example, would they do about sex education in schools, food in tuck shops, advertising during children’s viewing times? Put up your ideal government then tell us what they would dictate on issues like these. Please.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Seriously, what is wrong with marriage staying a heterosexual thing? To me it just seems like a bunch of radical gay activists being intollerant, the human rights have been achieved why do they want the tradition?”

Just that it seems a sham to give them all the same rights and then invent another name. When the civil union bill passed this was a big criticism from those that said marriage should be something special. Obviously, this compromise was made. I just think we should call a spade a spade, but I agree its not a big thing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Off topic

The good news is that the Bali bombers are soon to he shot.

Now if we could only find a way to do the same to William Bell and Graham Burton

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

pingpong

Will “the day” also include our kids singing daily songs of praise to our great leaders Clark and Bradford?
Will “the day” also include the one party state and yearly state visits from those other enlightened world leaders Chavez and Castro?
Will “the day” also see laws implemented that ban criticism of the govt……oh, wait a minute..

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I see the day not too far in the future BB, when you will have an allocation of carbon-producing energy to use as you wish, and it won’t be enough to support your hypothetical half hour 50 litre shower habit, so if you also want to drive and heat your home, you will either need to install a solar water system, use 100% renewable electricity, or buy extra energy allocations from someone who uses much less carbon-producing energy than you.

Does that sound fair?

And please don’t tell frog to stop it – it’s his blog and he can say what he likes – or should that be “she”?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog

Please stop it!

“Make a submission”, what a complete waste of time.

The Greens will not listen, they do not give a toss what the public think or want. You guys have a breathtaking arrogance and belief that you know how to run our lives better than we do.

The facts are that you ARE telling me that I MUST use less water and that I cannot have the water pressure or flow that I chose, you are also telling me that I must heat MY water in the way that YOU want me to do so.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>Make a submission

Like they every get listened to.

If you lot won’t listen to the New Zealand Human Rights Commission and the Law Society, what chances has Joe Citizen got?

The only chance they’ll get is in four weeks time, and I hope my fellow citizens use it to send a clear message.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Kevyn – give me a break. If the state did mandate exactly how to build your house, like it did back in the eighties, you would whinge madly about the nanny state. This process, where minimum performance standards are set but specific technologies are not prescribed, came out of the reforms of the eighties and is the political consensus on how to do things. There is no dark conspiracy here. Your only other two choices are no building code at all or back to the prescriptive code of the past.

You and BB are just whinging for itś own sake. Get over it. Make a submission. (This is a consultation process, after all.) If you dont like it, shut up and make a submission with a better idea!

And stop laying this at the Greenś feet. We are not the government and we did not develop this performance standard. In fact, we are making a submission ourselves to try and improve what they have built.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Some Background:
“The Green Party, through its Charter and its constitution, acknowledges the indigenous language version of Te Tiriti as the legitimate text of an agreement that described the rights and responsibilities of hapu and the Crown, and which:

1. gave the Crown the right to kawanatanga,
2. confirmed the chiefs’ tino rangatiratanga,
3. gave Mäori the individual rights of British people, and
4. confirmed their religious, spiritual and customary rights.
first steps towards healing the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual effects of colonisation on our society. ”

“The Meaning of Tino Rangatiratanga
The word rangatiratanga comes form the word rangatira which is most often translated as chief. Rangatiratanga which refers to chieftainship, approximates to oversight, responsibility, authority, control, sovereignty. It is a word used in the Lord’s prayer for kingdom, which is a word very close in meaning to sovereignty. The word tino is an intensive or superlative, meaning variously: very, full, total, absolute. So tino rangatiratanga approximates to total control, complete responsibility, full authority, absolute sovereignty.
The term tino rangatiratanga was used in the Declaration of Independence of 1835 which recognised Nu Tireni (New Zealand) to be a sovereign and independent nation where power and authority rested with the rangatira. The English version of that declaration stated that “all sovereign power and authority resided entirely and exclusively” in the rangatira.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi of 1840 also used the term tino rangatiratanga with the promise that it would be guaranteed to Maori. In the words of the English translation of the Maori version of the Treaty, the Queen agreed to the rangatira and the iwi retaining full chieftainship (tino rangatiratanga) of their lands, their villages and all their taonga including the Maori way of life.

Rangatiratanga and Kawanatanga
The Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi clearly confirmed tino rangatiratanga or Maori sovereignty over all things Maori (Article 2). It granted to the Crown, kawanatanga, a word which is a transliteration of the word governorship (Article 1). Maori would have been in no doubt as to the meaning of rangatiratanga and, on the basis of its being guaranteed in the Treaty, willing to sign it. In 1840 Maori had no desire and no need to give away their tino rangatiratanga. What they gave to the Crown was limited power, to control new settlers. That power was kawanatanga. In retaining tino rangatiratanga it was clear to Maori that their ability to control their own destiny was not diminished. In granting kawanatanga they saw that they would benefit from limited controlled immigration and the introduction of new technology (Article 3) of the Treaty did not make Maori into British subjects. It recognised the continuing right of Maori to enjoy their own laws, customs and lifestyle, just as British citizens enjoyed their own. This was reinforced in (Article 4)(unwritten) which stated that the Governor would protect Maori ritenga or custom. “

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Could someone from the Greens explain what you intend to do here:
“Celebrating Aotearoa
The Green Party will honour Tiriti o Waitangi to unite all our people and work to build a diverse Aotearoa where everyone thrives”

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

big bro asked…
Perhaps I can ask this question again and see if one of you Greenies will give me an honest answer.
When (or if) I do build my new home (which may well be in Aussie given the way this election looks like going) can I have the following;
1 The water pressure and flow rate that I WANT or will I be restricted by nanny state?
2 Will I be able to heat that water the way I WANT or will I have to do it the way somebody from nanny state wants me to do it.

This whole debate is due to not recognising the difference between guidelines and rules or regulations .

A simple example. In 1997 the government repealed the 1930′s law on setting urban speed limits put preserved the existing 50kmh speed limit until such time that a road controlling chose to review a speed limit. New and reviewed speed limits had to be set in accordance with LTSA’s Guidelines for Setting Speed Limits. This shower bizzo is similar except nobody is compelled to follow the guidelines. In 2003 the LTSA finally convinced the government to repeal the 50kmh speed limit and make the guideline a “rule”. Local authorities were given two year to comply. Although the 50kmh limit is still predominant, the new rule finally gave us the risk-based speed limit system the the Department of Transport had recommended to Parliament in 1930. It just took 70 years to get the collective intergenerational political psyche to admit that it had made a fatal mistake.

Yeah, you might want to worry where this going to lead in the fullness of time.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)