Saturday, January 02, 2021
I have noticed, particularly in the past year, writers - and often social media posters - throwing in Maori words into their contributions. Now I quite often use Maori salutations, particularly when writing to people who are Maori, or when responding to people in institutions who are making an effort to be bicultural and use them when writing to me, or when I am opening some spoken contribution. I am not talking about those uses.
Some Maori concepts and the words for them have been borrowed into New Zealand English because they were useful. I am thinking of Tapu and Mauri for instance. There are others that could be gainfully added. Nothing wrong with that - it is to be encouraged, enriching our English and cross-cultural understanding. Recently I have been trying to render vowel length in names correctly using macrons and reflect it in how I say place names.
What I find odd is scattering words into NZ English as equivalents for perfectly standard words in English
Kai for food
Moana for sea
Awa for rivers
Whānau for family
The list is long. Does the substitution add anything? People doing it are still writing sentences in the structure of English. Visitors or new arrivals here must find it an additional barrier.
I am a poor student of languages. In a lifetime of mostly living here I have picked up quite a few Maori words and have some delight in their appearance in place names, but I have not gone beyond that to learn the language and I do not consider using them as substitutes in English sentences as having some sort of merit.
There are many proverbial sayings and expressions in Maori. Know some and listen to formal speeches and they pop out - borrowing those into writing can help understanding. There are several about adzes - a tool much studied by archaeologists and I have used these proverbs on occasions.
Real virtue would be learning the language. Random word replacement in English sentences is I suggest not.
Tuesday, December 29, 2020
Listener Jan 2-8 2021:
“Miranda on the Firth of Thames commemorates a Royal Navy warship whose guns were fired on the Māori settlement of Pūkorokoro in 1863, Few tears would be shed if the Geographic Board decision to rename the locality Pūkorokoro-Miranda resulted in Miranda falling into disuse.”
The Listener describes it as having a “discomforting historical association”.
Well let’s not defend Grey’s invasion of the Waikato, of which this was part, but a name in long service has other associations that it acquires.
The name derives from the character Miranda in Shakespeare’s The Tempest and this ship was the first of three ships so named: HMS Miranda - Wikipedia. Like many of the military here she had earlier served in the Crimea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Miranda_(1851)
Miranda is not just a locality – there is a cemetery, a hall, two roads and Miranda Hot Springs that bear the name. The shorebird centre has adopted the dual name change – but that seems the only instance.
The troops on the assault built a redoubt – called Miranda Redoubt – still there.
What should it be called if Miranda is to fade away? It would simply be nonsensical to call it anything else and certainly not after the village that the troops bombarded and assaulted.
Last but certainly not least is my wife Miranda. Her ancestors owned land in the area in the 1800’s, sold on some of it and lost the last part in a bankruptcy in the great 1890s depression. Their descendants recycled the name.
To us tears would be shed and we will not be falling into disuse!
Names matter and contrary to the Listener they do not have singular associations fixed in time.
Sunday, November 08, 2020
The end of the Trump presidency will come as a relief to many New Zealanders. Will that end have a return to the normalcy of international relations that we might have seen as settled 10 or 20 years ago? It is unlikely.
Biden may have won an easy majority of the cast votes for president, but the Democrats did not carry much with him in the other national and gubernational races.
The beliefs that underpinned Trump, of
• disillusionment with elites perceived as disconnected from everyday issues,
• the perception that America was being disadvantaged in international agreements,
• America was overly relied on by others in geopolitical tensions,
• dissatisfaction with the decline of earnings in the rust belt,
• fear of socialism,
• belief that corruption was rife,
• fear of the ‘other’ overwhelming the ‘now’ – immigrants, protestors, anti-police, green zealots, non-whites.
- are all still matters in political play in the USA. The slight change in the makeup of the congress just reinforces this. America is not suddenly different.
If these political issues remain then why did Trump loose? What is personal to him is the poor corona virus response and his lying persona. It is not hard to see these as the crucial matters.
Who might marshal these other matters in future? Trump is allowed a further turn, perhaps one of his family – dynasties are not uncommon in the USA. Perhaps someone from the present Senate.
The Republicans are not so silly that they will not carefully scrutinise where their potential for growing future support lies, so expect messaging to adjust to that.
One can see there will not be a vast step change back to internationalism by America.
Where does that leave a small nation like us, who have long felt comfortable being closest to the USA on international issues? As well, as a strong supporter of internationalism, which gave the opportunity for enhanced influence beyond our small numbers, minor economy, and a location of little strategic importance, where does future influence lie?
What we should do:
• Welcome reengagement with the USA on international issues but make it clear our usual position is sustained; that unconditional support is not what we are about,
• Work with like minded nations to strengthen international institutions, and especially work to the removal of any big power vetoes over their operation which have been so misused by Trump and could be by a future president,
• The big international issue is climate change – before all else. Get the US reengaged,
• Engage with Australia at a moral leadership level. They do not respond well to being told what to do, but well to inspiring examples.
Friday, August 28, 2020
Last year when we were
all in shock from the horrific events in Christchurch I heard the perpetrator had
put a manifesto on-line. I found it (I did not look for the video). I read the
first page – and recognised it for what it was and did not bother to read any
I recognised it
because I had read its like 50 years before – Mein Kampf – speed read over an
evening when I saw it on the bookshelf of a place I was visiting. What struck
me then was how mundane most of that book was. He expressed his frustrations
with the outcome of the war and how he and people like him, were a victim of others.
Its appeals were to some accepted truth, common prejudices and common sense,
defined as his opinions.
Back then, 50 years
ago, some people in social situations would seek to identify you with them by
the most outrageous racist statements and jokes, expecting your agreement or at
least tolerance of the statements. Racist ‘common sense’ opinions could be
heard around many work lunch-room tables at least among men. Some of it was
directed at Japanese (though I doubt many had any direct experience of them) –
more often at Maori. Fortunately there is less of it now, and it is tolerated
Hitler had no intellectual
power in his arguments – many were common-place – mundane. His book did not
epitomise evil as I had expected it might. Nazism was what evil men could do, or
lead others to do, through political action, if enough people accepted the erroneous
premises on which it was based.
So back to the Christchurch
perpetrator, was he mad? No – he could not have planned what he did if he was.
Was he evil? - Yes. Was he frustrated?, did he blame others for his and his self-identified
group’s situation?, was he seeking to inspire some sort of redemption? - all of
that. Was he narcissistic? – I probably didn’t read enough, but his behaviour
in court ……..
His manifesto was
taken down and it is a banned document in New Zealand. See here for the
I did not read far enough to come to parts about
justifying the particular attack and encouraging others to do the same. I do
not object to people reading Mein Kampf
– it was educational for me. Perhaps the Censor is justified in treating this differently:
“He said while
the screed would not have persuaded the vast majority of readers, it was not
written for them.
"It was written for the small number of readers who are already on
the pathway to violent extremism. Sadly, that small minority of readers could
well be impressed by the example set by these vicious atrocities.
The perpetrator was
Australian. I am a citizen of both places. There has been little public recrimination
over his origins, in the pleasant small town of Grafton NSW – though post-sentencing
there is some call for him to be repatriated, which may have some origin in seeking
some national blame. Overt racism is sometimes more apparent in Australia than
New Zealand, but in both places there is institutional racism, inadvertent racism
through not challenging stereotyping, failure to call out overt racism. Ardern
famously said of the victims – They are us. If we look at the
perpetrator, he could have come from either country. Whoever he circulated
amongst while he was here failed to call him out. He is also us, a much less
pleasant realisation. He is ours to deal with what ever the cost in dollars may
be - and populists: be silent.
A neighbour was
discarding old books a few weeks ago
I picked up a bundle and
took them home. One I recognised, despite the loss of its cover and the first
20 pages, as a Coles Funny Picture book, an Australian production common in
both countries, which I remembered from my childhood. From the content I judged
this one to be from around 1900 to 1910. Jingoism, imperialism and racism were
all on display.
– I would guess this book is a No2. Version whereas in the 1950s I was reading Version
No. 3. The 1950s version may have
imprinted some of its stereotypes on me. No. 2 was my mother’s generation.
Here is some defence of the books and their
original author: https://www.news.com.au/news/life-in-funny-pictures/news-story/ae9825d18a8fab2dfac4765c8080f7c7?sv=aa3278a4f78593436241597ea8b8703-
not all bad perhaps.
A common defence of racism is it was just a
joke - not. It is no longer a funny picture book.
I would never put this
edition in the hands of my younger grandchildren. There are some charming
illustrations in it, but I will be binning it.
We have come some way
in the past century.
Saturday, June 27, 2020
One view: Statues aren't our history. They're our archaeology.
An opinion piece worth a read.
Statues were erected by democratic processes - let's respect the process and decide if they come down that way too. Certainly there are some that are obnoxious enough that their continued exhibition should be challenged. But let's also think where this might be going - location names, street names, sites and buildings, books? It might be a slippery slope.
Statues are part of our streetscapes and names of our history, or at least the history identified by some of us. Anyone who has had the experience of trying to erect public art knows it is a fraught process, so perhaps there is a case for 'one for one'.
The default location proposed for unwelcome statues seems to be museums. Do museums deserve that? They are not required to be the places to exhibit or explain our past colonialism, racism, imperialism, patriarchy, though the existence of more than a few have some connection. They may at times choose to do that explaining, but then only with objects that they chose, not those foisted upon them.
But let's not get too upset with a bit of paint. It is not a very imaginative protest, though certainly an affront to some. In art affront it is rather passé - though now a long tradition. Graffiti is a form of debate. It is removable - and repeatable, which is not the case with a statue removed, by decision, or by iconoclasm.
Sunday, April 26, 2020
Level 4 to Level 3
Our daily new cases are back to a level we last saw in early March.
Our current cases are back to the level we last saw in late March.
Our deaths while sad are at a level below other serious health challenges and all the latest seem to have been source traced.
Ongoing testing is not revealing unknown cases.
We still have a trickle of new cases and while they mostly seem to get traced back to source the concern is that our earlier tracing and isolation efforts did not isolate the pathways and end them before there were new cases.
Our borders can never be absolutely impervious. Some returning New Zealanders will carry the disease.
Ongoing broad based testing can never be enough to eliminate the existence of the virus in unknown sources.
It’s a tricky virus, quite infectious and infectious before symptoms, and in some people infectious with very few symptoms.
We are an island without immunity in a world with far more potential sources of new infections than when we went into level 4.
Level 4 has reset the clock back to where we were in March – not fundamentally eliminated the risk.
A new sports event, or a wedding or social function with a single source of infection, radiated out to the community, or worse through another cycle of like events, could easily have us back to hundreds of cases, and back in level 4.
A vaccine and its delivery are not short term prospects.
“Zero Tolerance” rather than elimination sounds like a political reorientation – and it probably is – but certainty = elimination is a tall and probably unrealistic order.
Forget about large social / spectator sports events.
Social distancing is a new norm, for a bit longer yet.
Do not hold out for international travel outwards. But there is at least a prospect of an ANZAC bubble, perhaps with Niue and the Cook Islands. (Go the ABs? (ANZAC Bubblers))
Inbound tourism and sports exchanges are a very distant prospect (with the ANZAC exception maybe).
Inbound students may be possible with quarantine – but that has a cost, may be unwelcome to potential students and would need to be coordinated with Aus.
Airfreight may be constrained for quite a while. (Most went in cargo holds below passenger aircraft decks, and all-cargo aircraft are hen’s teeth right now).
We and the world are going to have a big financial hit.
We need to keep up border restrictions, testing and case tracing (even if we have seemingly a lot of tracing capacity just waiting).
We need to work hard on identifying what we can do here to benefit from our effective control of the pandemic here by being good risk managers for future levels 2 and 1 and the timing of the transition to those levels (… and push back against precautionary principle mongers. That is risk aversion not management).
Saturday, November 16, 2019
Philip Jew died this week aged 90. He reported to me in the Auckland Regional Council structure for a few years. He was a person of enormous energy and integrity and the emergence of the ARC Regional Parks as one of its great achievements was in very great part down to him.
The time we worked together was the aftermath of the "New Deal" political era where the territorial local governments had been trying to limit the functions and powers of the ARA. While there was money for running the existing parks there was none for new ones and no political will for even strategising where they might be, let alone using designation powers to acquire them. Phil had existing parks to develop and he was good at stretching funds to get as far as he could with them, perhaps not always quite where they were budgeted, but always to the general intended effect. His skills in managing countryside parks mixing pasture with existing and new indigenous vegetation was considerable. I see few others that are done as well.
While he had been formerly second tier in management it was a reflection of the lesser importance some politicians put on parks that he moved down to third tier, but my privilege that he was given to fit under me in the structure. I don't know what he thought of reporting within an engineering centered structure but I think he recognised my love of Auckland and its landscapes, and someone who had visited enough of the great botanic gardens of the world to be at least sympathetic to them.
We acquired a couple of additions to existing parks during that time, buying adjacent land. Phil was well aware where opportunities might arise and adept at developing political will when they did, but it was all opportunistic.I thought he should have an explicit strategy about where to go next but he pushed back. Perhaps he was right - it was not the time. While it was not written down at that stage, later when the opportunities to again purchase new parks arose under his successors the effort went to places that I am sure he would have been happy with.
Others in my position might have reduced his political contact to that more common in third tier, but because he was good at it, it was risk free and more than that, essential to keep the political support that Parks needed to succeed. Skeptical committee members turned into supporters under Phil's influence. His budgets I had to support upwards and they were always adept
I gave him my opinions on the Botanic Gardens - which were politely received. I have no idea if they had any influence, probably not. I argued that the proposed rose trial garden was too big and would take too much staff effort to sustain. It is now smaller. I certainly pushed on better attention to cultural heritage and with an eye to what was to happen with the water department catchment lands coming to parks, raising their skill levels in conservation. I hope my more personal advice on preparing for retirement, taking leave, less 'low flying' in the ARC car and that you could do some things other than 12 hours a day 7 days a week work on overseas visits, all had some good effect. He was an awful delegator and I don't think I cured that.
At his funeral I found out he was a lifelong Roman Catholic as well. I never knew it. It was never on his sleeve, but it was consistent with his decency, integrity and honesty.
Not many like him - It was a privilege.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Extraordinary how people latch on to the wrong idea. Since the announcement that Solid Energy is in financial trouble it has been a consistent message repeated by many, is that part of their problem is that they made bad investments in green energy. In the next breadth Southland lignite is mentioned. Nothing to do with Southland lignite is green. The very best green news that there could be about Southland lignite is that it is going to be left in the ground. Sadly the near demise of the firm and the consequent loss of jobs may be what it has taken to get there.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
change of control at Eden Park is a welcome move, but it is not enough. The pre-World
Cup arrangements where the site was supposedly run independently were always a
farce. Three times to my memory the Trust had to be bailed out by Auckland City.
Strangely the City seemed to tolerate this and never forced a change of control. The Government in funding some of the stadium
upgrade for the World Cup insisted on appointing a majority of the board. Now
it has handed that right back to the Auckland Council.
decision to use Eden Park for the World Cup was a controversial one but it was
the best option. The many temporary seats installed for the event lessened the risk
of over-investment but still the stadium is overly large for almost any purpose
– the chairman of the time spoke of wanting to leave a legacy – well that is
has a somewhat ill-matched collection of stadia but the Council is showing
willing to prioritise what is spent where and what is played where. The Council
is the guarantor of a substantial loan taken out by the Eden Park Board. The
stadium barely breaks even and does not cover its depreciation. Is there
another bale out on the way ? – well probably. Was the control transfer to avoid the Government
being called on for more funds? It is
hard to imagine the Government would have been sympathetic in its present
circumstances. It could have easily said no with little embarrassment or
consequence, so it was probably more to get the responsibility where it should
How that responsibility should
be exercised is the question – the transfer is unfinished business. Auckland Council
should have the Trust wound up and assume direct responsibility itself –
through its regional Facilities CCO would be best. That ways we can see the
stadium is put to its best use, stem any more legacy projects and reduce the moral
hazard of the Trust operating off an implied guarantee from the Government or the
Sunday, January 13, 2013
The reported move by the Government to consider
consolidating local government water business into a lot fewer entities is to
be welcomed, not least as it shows it has not spent its reformist bent in
creating Auckland Council.
Watercare is indeed a good model to start with, for it shows
the benefits of scale, focus and business-like disciplines, lead by a
commercially experienced Board. There are like Australian water businesses that
could be compared – some with quite different regulatory settings. Water is a
highly capital intensive business and the best results only emerge after
decades of good decision making on capital projects – so while there are some
immediate gains on offer, the best may only come in a stable regulatory and
governance environment where good long term decisions can be made. It is the
business environment that needs careful consideration for what has worked so
far for Watercare may need some further consideration before being applied
The claimed advantage of the ability of a larger business to
pay for the cost of upgrades in neglected areas, or in servicing new areas is a
dubious one. Heavily cross-subsidised services ferment poor investments. Nor would greater use of private capital be a
very likely outcome of a new industry structure. It is not precluded now. It is
not popular here or in Australia simply because the cost of private capital is
higher than public capital and the benefits of competitive design,
construction, maintenance, operation and of combinations of these, have already
been taken up by the industry with little more a private long term capital
provider can add. Nor is this change cost and risk free to local government –
they will have legacy costs of shared systems no longer used by the water
businesses, like call centres and they will lose the abilities of the
transferring staff in application to things like civil defence and other
Council services. Some staff who enjoy the wide range of council work and the
public interaction resulting may find the change unattractive. Councils too
will not welcome service area decisions being separated from themselves, for
water services can be a powerful driver of land development which has a myriad
of other costs to a council.
The environment then: There is no public appetite for
privatisation of this service – it should be excluded. But placing businesses
in the ownership of multiple local governments in their service area can lead
to weak governance. The owners may well be divided on what the new service area
boundaries should be, conflicted on capital investment priorities and little
experienced in holding a water business to account on customer service
performance. In this environment
customers may be substantially disempowered, for their historic route of
complaint through their council will be much less effective. There needs to be
a stable expectation on financial performance.
The one applying to Watercare of no dividends and cost moderation is one
option but there are others that could be considered. Allowing or requiring a
return on new investments, at a modest level aligned to the inherent low risk
of the business is worth consideration and it may increase the discipline on
boards. The regulatory environment for taking and discharging water is pretty
much indifferent to structure so this is no impediment. The health requirements
may seem to be similar but local government has been an effective lobbyist in
resisting drinking water quality improvements, so removing their direct role
here might not be a bad thing.
The sort of settings that have applied elsewhere or in other
utilities include state assumption of ownership (surely to be avoided),
regulatory setting of a suite of performance measures and public reporting
against them, regulatory setting of performance measure targets to be met,
these set for each businesses, regulated control of service area boundaries,
reporting and vetting of asset management plans (a key investment planning
tool), customer charters setting service standards subject to regulatory
approval, customer ombudsmen and regulated customer councils to help give
customers some voice. Regulated price control is another step. However if one
puts all these in place then the environment is exactly aligned to
privatisation. That switch should not be made to be too easy. We should simply
not regulate to this extent but rather give careful consideration of each of
these. Analysis of the natural pressures on business will show some are
unnecessary. Alternatively some can be left as threat, for no business welcomes
regulation. With prices I believe the pressures on publicly owned businesses
will be sufficient that the owner’s community interest will suffice and price
regulation can be avoided. Surely though
some of these regulatory roles will be needed and where needed, the Government
needs to consider where these powers will lie. There is no obvious current
agent. There are some pretty heavy
regulation models available. Too much of that and the businesses will become
focussed on their regulators rather than their customers – usually a bad
There may be a case for allowing inset private reticulation
providers say in new development areas to give some competitive pressure but
the settings to allow this are more complex again. A general power to place and
access pipes would be needed rather than one which currently lies with local
government. This would be analogous to other utilities and perhaps would not be
a bad thing. The case for price regulation of such a private inset service provider
would be strong for the service remains a natural monopoly. As well the consequences of the performance
or financial failure of such a reticulator need to have been established and be
fair to the regional public business, which will be the provider of last
The Government has a challenging task of analysing these
options and then convincing the public of the answer. Some degree of
consultation along the way might in the end speed the process, for there is a
reservoir of distrust to be overcome.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Paul Moon: Water spirits wend way to Government's door - Opinion - NZ Herald News:
"...the demands placed on New Zealand rivers for most of the 19th century were so slight that the impression left was that there was plenty of water for everyone's needs, and probably always would be."
Comment: - Not so. There was early legislation to control the use of water for mining purposes. Rights and disputes were settled in mine wardens courts. Some rivers in mining areas were declared to be reserved for disposal of mine tailings - trumping any other uses of the river. There was early conflict over use of rivers for rafting logs, an action which destroyed Maori fishing stands - again the legislation was used to resolve use rights.
A professional historian should have known better.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Waitangi Tribunal and Water Ownership
Waitangi Tribunal found the Maori retained a residual interest in the ownership
of water it was to no-one's great surprise. To some it was a matter of “well
they would wouldn’t they” but the reality is that historically Maori made a
fairly broad use of water consistent with their culture. That use was an
expanding one up until the New Zealand Wars, including the use of water for
energy to drive flour mills. Subsequently Maori use was infringed, particularly
in the disruption of indigenous fisheries and in ignoring the identity many
Maori have with lakes and rivers. The Tribunal finding then was no surprise –
its timing though is much more a matter of opportunity caused by the
Government’s latest asset sales. The proposed
sales are not unprecedented. Contact Energy was fully privatised in the past
and took into its ownership several hydroelectric assets once Crown property.
Government’s public response seems to be limited to insisting no-one owns water
and to only consult with Maori on the Waitangi Tribunals views. Strictly that
may be true that no-one owns water but in some cases it comes pretty close to ownership.
Contact Energy no doubt values its hydro plants on its books – but what would
they be worth without the water use consents to operate them? Alternatively picture
two farms with similar soils – one with water use consent for irrigation and one
without – which farm is worth the more? The value of water use consents then is
already capitalised and it is traded on capital markets. Sure the use rights
can be modified or even cancelled but the regulators are rightly reluctant to
do that without very good cause, because of the economic consequences. So
no-one owns water? – No, but. Simply put
water has a very substantial value to its users, often far beyond any price
they pay. Where a price is charged for water witness how little water use
varies with price. The inelasticity of use with price reflects water’s large
real value to its users. Very large parts of our community have an interest in
using water commercially and recreationally. We do not have any history of
resource use charges. We must be alarmed when such are in prospect,
particularly if new interests have the opportunity to seek rents without limit.
law seeks to separate who regulate water from those who use it. It is a
tradition going back to the gold mining days of mine warden’s courts.
Increasingly the state has reserved to itself the rights to decide maters to do
with the whole water cycle within catchments and beyond, where the infrastructure
has allowed that. That is not to say it has always done it well. Until recently
there has often been scant attention to cultural values and sometimes too
little attention to recreational and environmental values. Never the less that
control is fundamental. The consequence of the sort of private ownership of
water that occurs in many US states is entirely unfortunate for those other
values. As they say: ‘water flows uphill to money’. We should want none of
that. Some are saying Maori owning water would look after it better than we
have to date – but they are also users and have aspirations to use more. They
will end up totally conflicted – it is no answer.
If change is
in prospect the whole community needs to be consulted, not just Maori. We are
all interested. Mr Key has a mandate to partially privatise some state assets. The
mistake of his predecessors on the foreshore and seabed issue was to rush ahead
– not just say ‘let’s pause for a cup of tea’ and talk about it.
Salmond has pointed to some sage advice about managing assets of the public
domain. They align closely to what has been happening in the Land and Water
forum and are worthy of consideration. Mr Key should have a pause for that cup
of tea and then could usefully put some limits around the current debate, along
those lines. He could say that:
- The matters raised are
an issue for the whole community and any changes need broad discussion,
- The Government will continue to take the lead role in regulating
how water is used, or left unused including considering cultural, recreational
and environmental values,
- No holder of a water use consent will have it infringed
within its term, for the purpose of recognition of Waitangi rights and
- The separation of regulators and users is a fundamental that
will be retained.
leave room for Maori aspirations to have past wrongs on water to be addressed,
for Maori views to come into regulation and for water use by Maori? – In my
view yes – but they are not all matters to be fixed by placing them “in the one
pocket”. That may not be compatible with
some views of Maori sovereignty. So be it – we are one nation.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Survey shows mine water programme is working | Voxy.co.nz:
OECD report 'shows now is time for action' over water quality | Voxy.co.nz:
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Water vital resource and key to health | Columns
Government Puts $800,000 Into Wainono Lagoon Clean-Up... | Stuff.co.nz
Monday, March 05, 2012
Crown asks tribunal to dismiss SOE sale claim - National - NZ Herald News
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Radio New Zealand : News : National : Storm disrupts power and water supply
Further steps to improve NZ's fresh water | Voxy.co.nz
Plant slammed for continued sewage dumping | NATIONAL News
Friday, March 02, 2012
Lack of action will cost water consent holders | Voxy.co.nz
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
People key to success - small-business - business | Stuff.co.nz
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Water storage may mean rise in Ashburton River levels
Friday, February 24, 2012
Huge economic spinoffs from water storage
Manawatu River quality not worst | Stuff.co.nz
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Fracking the new 'nuke-free' - national | Stuff.co.nz
Friday, February 17, 2012
Water tower closed on earthquake risk fears | Stuff.co.nz
Is NZ sustainable in global market place? | Voxy.co.nz
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Wairoa man saving rivers from pollution | NATIONAL News
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Smart water meter generates its own power - FierceEnergy
River report hailed by conservationists | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Water quality to decide Transmission Gully fate | Stuff.co.nz
Farmer adaptation to change with the threat of regulation | Scoop News
Public Ownership of Energy Companies and Water | Scoop News
Monday, February 13, 2012
Drive for more water from Lake Coleridge
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Editorial: Working together for lake's sake | Stuff.co.nz
Friday, February 10, 2012
Lake Horowhenua toxic enough to kill a child | Stuff.co.nz:
Opinions in news items reported here or on pages
linked to them are not those of the site host.