Good question Linda. I think it's really important that we are thinking about this, as I agree that this government seems rather impervious to the will of the people and conventional ways of communicating this. I'm not sure what the answer is, but certainly helping people understand what is proposed and its potential effects is an important start.
Indeed helping us understand this government’s impacts is a vital start Melanie that you do so much brilliant work for, and that we soak up. So many experts have spoken clearly on the risks to our future the RSB, for example, and the bombardment of “urgent” socio-environmental seismic shifts the government proposes and pushes through.
We know our voices count, and we have the capacity to mobilise. Hands down our peoples will not willingly sell and “open up” 1/5 of Whenua Aotearoa.
In what form can our collective democratic antidote to these air,land and sea thefts trump the current rush of the coalition to exploit parliamentary supremacy?
We can be stuck in festering outrage, but I am sure our thinkers and leaders have ways forward beyond waiting until the next election. The COC govt is sprinting to the election in a blatant rush to divest us of our commons, before we even get to vote.
Am I just rehashing the outrage? Probably.
Hoping to collate links to the many groups working in a cohesive defence of Aotearoa.
I think that's one of the key questions. Do we only need a small sample of iconic landscapes or significant ecosystems, and anything beyond that is considered surplus? Is an area of complex ecosystem surplus because we're not prioritising spending to protect it sufficiently? The wording is concerning, and will need particular attention when the draft Bill is available. Potentially too, it could be undefined and the government of the day or the Minister could determine that, which would be highly concerning.
What can we peoples of Aotearoa organise to collectively and affectively stop this land grab?
It appears that submissions, marches and even court rulings can be ignored with urgency.
Good question Linda. I think it's really important that we are thinking about this, as I agree that this government seems rather impervious to the will of the people and conventional ways of communicating this. I'm not sure what the answer is, but certainly helping people understand what is proposed and its potential effects is an important start.
Indeed helping us understand this government’s impacts is a vital start Melanie that you do so much brilliant work for, and that we soak up. So many experts have spoken clearly on the risks to our future the RSB, for example, and the bombardment of “urgent” socio-environmental seismic shifts the government proposes and pushes through.
We know our voices count, and we have the capacity to mobilise. Hands down our peoples will not willingly sell and “open up” 1/5 of Whenua Aotearoa.
In what form can our collective democratic antidote to these air,land and sea thefts trump the current rush of the coalition to exploit parliamentary supremacy?
We can be stuck in festering outrage, but I am sure our thinkers and leaders have ways forward beyond waiting until the next election. The COC govt is sprinting to the election in a blatant rush to divest us of our commons, before we even get to vote.
Am I just rehashing the outrage? Probably.
Hoping to collate links to the many groups working in a cohesive defence of Aotearoa.
Link to the release, and the factsheet on modernising conservation management is linked at the bottom : https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-releases/2025-media-releases/unleashing-growth-on-conservation-land/
What does surplus to requirements even mean when we're talking about conservation land - it's not like they can rectify any mistakes they might make.
I think that's one of the key questions. Do we only need a small sample of iconic landscapes or significant ecosystems, and anything beyond that is considered surplus? Is an area of complex ecosystem surplus because we're not prioritising spending to protect it sufficiently? The wording is concerning, and will need particular attention when the draft Bill is available. Potentially too, it could be undefined and the government of the day or the Minister could determine that, which would be highly concerning.