New Zealand’s economic future is imperiled by activist judges, politicians who do not understand science and the “weaponisation” of Maori culture, according to Shane Jones.
The Minister of Resources and Associate Minister of Energy was speaking to a breakfast of energy professionals in Wellington.
In this speech, NZ First's Jones outlined his vision for New Zealand in 2040, saying extractive industries like mining should have a respected place in the economy.
“I will be a champion for working families who derive their income, their hope and their purpose through a flourishing, growing and forward-leaning energy sector," said Jones.
“You and I have allowed ideologies to conquer what is a legitimate part of the New Zealand economy, ie digging things up.”
Jones called the idea of not needing natural gas by 2030 “fanciful”, saying the previous Government’s ban on oil and gas exploration offshore endangered New Zealand’s sovereign risk, and he went on to attack the intellectual quality of political debate on this matter.
“I have little confidence that we are producing politicians other than a small group in the current government who want to fight this fight on the basis of economics and science,” he said.
“That has been surrendered some time ago to religion….if I want to apologise to God I will see you in church on Sunday.”
Jones also assailed the use of Maori culture to block economic development that he believed was essential for everyone.
“I am personally horrified by the notion that the prospects of offshore mining can turn on the courts’ view of Tikanga Maori," he said.
“I am Maori, I learned the language from my grandmother, and I put my credentials up against any one in New Zealand."
“(I oppose) the weaponisation and distortion of my culture by people who want to substantially change the ethos and the direction of our country on the basis of eco-catastrophisation and colonial guilt.”
Jones then chided the growth in power by the courts over parliament, saying it was undemocratic, and he cited a recent Supreme Court decision concerning the activist Mike Smith.
Smith was recently granted the right to sue seven large greenhouse gas emitting companies, including Fonterra, Z Energy and Genesis Energy.
In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld his right to go to court over their emissions after he had been denied earlier in the Court of Appeal.
Jones told his audience questions like this were complex ones and they should be decided by parliament, not the courts.
“There will be trade-offs on environmental decisions, but who do you want to make those trade offs?” he asked.
“Do you want elected representatives to do that on your behalf or do you want the Supreme Court to do it.”
And Jones argued this action by Smith would be the first of many.
“I see a situation where the next random litigant will be taking on the fishing industry, and then they’ll go to other elements of the extractive sector, and even horticulture.”
Jones said matters like this must be decided by the people’s elected representatives, not by an “Americanised” court system which gives increasing power to unelected judges.
32 Comments
There has to be a balance of growing the countries economy vs environmental protection. The thing Jones is so wrong about is that the oil and gas exploration offshore is planned to be done in protected areas or areas of the environment that are already under huge stress.
Surely the logical approach is to allow it , but limit it to areas not deemed protected ( literally by law) or at risk. Common sense seems to be amiss in nz politics on both sides of the fence.
StJ - That was 80s talk; 'balance'.
You can't, and do exponential growth. The result is that wild animal biomass is now 3%; the rest is us and our attendant animals. Wanna push that further?
Balance schmalance - things are either REALLY sustainable; in that they can be maintained more or less indefinitely, or they're not.
Mining is not sustainable. Farming, as practiced (the process of turning many calories of fossil energy into few calories of food) is not sustainable. Cities as constructed, are not sustainable.
But go on believing in 'balance'. All good.
Jones is the epitome of an ignorant politician.
Politicians always do the 'sorting' - courts merely interpret (natural justice aside - and that may become a very real point, very soon).
Running economics and science together, is ignorant in itself. Economics is science-ignorant.
And this piece, yet again, is reporting, not journalism. Just sayin'. Sure, there will always be idiots spouting idiocy to the choir, but how about we challenge them with researched questions, Eric?
Jones is right, the justice system is today so compromised [read biased] that everything is now decided by the elites [read judges] on their own behalf, leaving the great unwashed [us all] outside the building.
From the de-educationalists, through the [s]media, squeezed through the sickly state services & backed up by [elite again] legal interpretations representing the left's proclivity for [so-called] equity, it's proving extremely hard to have a decent conversation/debate about many things these days. If we are to have any form of discussion on any issues with any common sense at all, then parliament needs to be the place for it to happen & vocally backed up by the voters of New Zealand.
Today's parliament is the most important parliament this nation has had for the last 40 years. It could be the last time the conservative [peaceful, democratic] voice has to have any input into what has turned out to be a very woke western world. It is beginning to change in Europe. It will happen in America this year. It needs to happen here today. All power to Shane Jones & those like him.
I think you can safely say you won't see one like the last one for a very long time (if ever - Labour, will get in again eventually, but they won't be like last time - but the greens are finished). The only reason you have so many idiots that came out of the wood work with these stupid crazy woke ideas is because it was encouraged by a bunch of very stupid people. I get that those people are still moaning that their free stuff is being taken away, there will be no more toilets for men in dresses to go to, their kids will have to go to school, they will go to jail if they commit crimes etc etc, but those times are over. The crazies will still remain, but they won't have a voice any more. Hopefully that is for ever.
Ironically, though, Wrong John (appropriate moniker) is proposing merely anti-intellectualism (albeit aspirationally as "common sense"), which is a great shame to see rising again in parts of the Right. Neither is free stuff being taken away, just redistributed to different favourites - the govt recently announced another $40 million taxpayer handout to commercial property owners, for example.
Economic and environmental worsening will drive changes of government in future, including to more green-leaning options. The only thing that might avert that is further anti-intellectualism. Perhaps that's why there's such a push that way.
WJ - bollocks..
It's nothing to do with left or right - he's advocating digging into a finite collection of resource-stocks, to promote 'growth'.
You can only get away with that, it the choir are math-ignorant too.
Growth is exponential; therefore conforms to 'doubling-times'. Depletion is therefore exponential too.
And entropy is probably too long a word for Jones. Although he clearly succumbing to it.
As usual, you conflate.
The reality is that we are an ecologically-overshot species (not anything special, not above nature).
We levered that overshoot, by digging up fossilised sunlight. Lots of it, in a one-off frenzy.
Arguing that some folk who are part of that overshoot, somehow justify the denying of it - is ignorant too. I don't want to die - but am 100% sure I will. It's not too hard to apply that with bigger numbers, is it? Logic, eh? It is the must useful tool.
Unlike Jones...
As usual, more dribble. According to you, Australia would not exist as a country, as they are almost totally reliant in mining and digging up to much fossilized sunlight (what pills are you actually taking). Please tell me how you would convince them that they need to stop it right now with your droning comments. Then also go tell most of the middle east that they can sell sand for sandboxes instead of drilling oil. See how that goes.
Of course it would exist as a country - as it has much longer than human history.
Try apples with apples and accuracy; you mean that Australian society, as set up post-European colonisation and using fossil energy, would not exist .
That is a truth - and it will be the truth at some point, mining and fossil energy being temporary. Same in the Middle East - and they, or at least the Saudi leadership, know it.
The only question, on behalf of other species and descendant ones of our own, is: What to do about it?
Your answer seems to be 'hide'.
But Australia doesn't exist. Well, at least, not according to the flat earthers:
Why Australia doesn't exist according to flat-Earthers (starsinsider.com)
Othe websites are available.
Ah, another way of discrediting fact.
Brilliant.
8 billion of our species are destroying the life-carrying capacity of the planet (talk about mangling English) for themselves, and large numbers of other species - perhaps even the majority of other species, if we weren't going to collapse as soon as we inevitably will.
Nothing to do with being genius - why is that a prerequisite? - just logical. Shooting a message requires fact, not the shooting of the messenger. Do you have it as fact that mining - supplying exponentially-increasing consumption (virtual wealth is merely a lag-time in physical-demand terms) - can go forever? And if you don't (and you can't); then what?
Ah, of course, it won't stop because you are scared of what would happen if it did.
That's a lot of things - but it ain't logical.
.
New Zealand’s economic future is imperiled by activist judges, politicians who do not understand science and the “weaponisation” of Maori culture, according to Shane Jones.
Unfortunately, Shane Jones has again illustrated he's also another of the politicians who doesn't understand the science.
As usual pdk, you are exhibiting your prejudices. What was actually said was "GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you? PALIN: They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
Everyone other than the terminally stupid accept that what she said was correct. Even Newsweek, hardly a rightwing scandalsheet, wrote
"While many made fun of Palin's comment, it was actually accurate. Alaska and Russia are separated by the Bering Strait, which is just 55 miles wide at its narrowest point. Within the strait are two small islands that are located less than two and a half miles apart. One of the islands, Big Diomede, is situated within Russian territory and the other, Little Diomede, is part of the U.S. On a clear day, it is possible to see the Russian territory from the Alaskan island."
What you are quoting is what Tina Fey said on SNL. But then for your thinking, it has never extended past the two dimensional cartoons. It is shown in most of your other comments as well.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.