Down the end of my street there is a primary school.

In the next town over there is two schools, both a primary school and a secondary school.

In the other direction there is a town with five schools; three are primary, one is secondary, and one is a Christian school.

Hm.

‘Christian’ school; what exactly does that mean?

What specifically does this Christian school teach?

Can atheists go to this Christian school, or is it a school exclusively for Christians?

Does this Christian school teach NCEA accredited curriculum, or does it focus more on teachings of religious scripture?

Does a Christian school teach students how to be scholars, or how to be better Christians?

Hm.

In New Zealand we have public schools for regular folk who are happy to let the Government pay for their education and private schools for students whose parents believe it will be better if they pay for it themselves.

We also have ‘Christian’ schools; is a Christian school taxpayer funded, parent funded, or God funded?

Boys’ school for boys, girls’ school for girls; Christian school for people who think that everything they see was constructed by a 32-year-old carpenter named Jesus and his godly father.

Seems wrong, having a school that is basically the same as other schools, but which reserves its schooling for Christians.

If Christian schools teach Creationism rather than Evolution, does that mean their historical studies won’t mention dinosaurs?

Will it mean, at this Christian school, students won’t delve into the history of the Universe; will it mean, instead of going back aeons, world history for these Christian students will stop at around 10,000 years?

Where public schools are sometimes pressured to include in their teachings the myth of Creationism, are these Christian schools ever under pressure to forego their historical make-believe to include the reality of Evolution?

Hmm.

A Christian school made especially for Christians yet, like churches, not funded by God.

Geez, feels almost as though we’ve gone back to 19^th century segregation; like having a white school and a black school – you know, in the same way that Methven has a blue pub and a brown pub.

No, of course, Christian schooling couldn’t possibly be spawned from something as serious as racial segregation; religion, after all, exists primarily in one’s mind – a belief system – while race is inherent reality.

Surprising, at a time where Political Correctness holds such inexplicable strength and being ‘woke’ is seemingly more important than getting your eight hours’ a night, that such a depiction of exclusivity as a ‘Christian’ school is still accepted by the masses.

Much like ‘cultural differences’, ‘human rights’, ‘disabilities’, or ‘body-shapes’, religion is a topic that, as a society, we appear have deemed ‘untouchable’ and thus, irrespective how inappropriate, repugnant or downright ghastly logic tells us one of these situations has become, it must be respected for what it is.

The ‘Theory of Wokeness’ maybe needs to be introduced as part of the curriculum in Christian schools.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Jesus H Christ

Photography by Sam Ara Tonne

As established in the last Inflation, attempting to solve a nation’s economic woes through the printing (handing) out of money, does little but increase inflation.

Having just read through the first Inflation, I realise I could have basically condensed that 1000+ word article into just one line: ‘if you are receiving more for doing no more, you are doing nothing but contributing to inflation.’

The above line is why the New Zealand Government would do well to stop being so ecologically precious about ventures such as West Coast goldmining and start seeing an opportunity for what it is.

Any high-profit business in New Zealand, from our Socialist Government’s perspective, is effectively printing money; in a financial year, for example, if an electricity company takes $300 million revenue, then is taxed at 33%, the Government will effectively skim $100 mil – now we begin to see maybe why Government allows utilities to charge consumers increasingly high electricity prices.

Internationally, gold prices have reached a new peak; incidentally, international trade is the best way to increase a nation’s wealth without dramatically increasing inflation.

Known global tax havens – Switzerland, Luxembourg, Bermuda, etc – where income tax is extremely low, yet individual wealth is comparatively high, acquire that wealth primarily through foreign investment, enticed by their miniscule income tax rates (sometimes less than 10%), compared to NZ’s 33%.

Therefore, where Switzerland imposes around one third the taxation of New Zealand, that taxation is against perhaps 10 times the cashflow thus, in the previous scenario, the Swiss Government will still accumulate over three times the wealth of the New Zealand Government.

Of course, a wealthy Government does not necessarily equal a wealthy populous although, as the New Zealand populous has surely witnessed over past decades, if the incumbent Government is focused on short-term political popularity rather than long-term national prosperity, that wealthy Government might take the easy route to success and, instead of using its wealth to build a future financial stronghold for the people, that Government might simply pander to the people, essentially handing out money thus making the people also wealthy and temporarily, for a few months anyway, very happy, until inflation catches up; then the people are again struggling and Government coffers are again short.

Regarding those wealthier nations, then, Switzerland, Luxembourg, or Bermuda, how do they prevent inflation from rendering their currency worthless?

Aha, they have clever, forward-thinking Governments and, along with other tax-haven countries such as Andorra and Netherlands, they seemingly understand that a government’s foremost concern has not so much to do with people’s finances but rather ensuring the contentment of said populous.

If an affluent government uses its wealth to provide for its people by subsidising everyday commodities such as food, childcare, and electricity, rather than handing out cash, the result is a populous of financial contentment which does not need as much money; this is in comparison to an avarice-driven but cashed-up populous who watch the price of commodities being continually pushed up as inflation rises rapidly.

When commodities are affordable people do not need to be driven by avarice and subsequently, because people are not price-gouging one another across every available commercial avenue, the cost of living comes down thus poverty becomes non-existent; simple, right?

Government wealth and populous contentment notwithstanding, if a nation’s inflation is to remain low, there does need to be income inequality; as with every Socialist country, in New Zealand, tax from the higher income earners takes care of citizens of lesser fortune and if not for that higher income taxation, the country’s economy would cease to function – for instance, if every person was on a high income, first commodity prices would inflate accordingly then, if every person was making the same, how would one define a ‘high income’, anyway?

Pay attention.

Ultimately, one of the best ways for a country to get rich is through foreign investment (that or oil and, you know, eco-issues), and John Key knew that.

Unequivocally, the best way to abolish poverty is for a wealthy Government to subsidise the cost of everyday commodities – food, childcare, electricity; Key was working on that one, too.

Alternatively, if your wealthy Government has already given away all its money, essentially in cash form, while the cost of everyday commodities continues to rise and inflation is set to go out of control, if aspiring businesses must battle through barriers of bureaucracy and pointless eco-regulations only to find themselves still struggling then I don’t know, maybe you voted the wrong way in the last election.

Just saying.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by John Keenew

Photography by Future National

Coffers are running low thus taxes are soon to run high as our nation verges on insolvency.

That said, why is the New Zealand Government not doing more to support viable economic ventures?

Why is the Government restricting rather than supporting potentially lucrative prospects, such as goldmining, in New Zealand?

Gold is still plentiful around the country and equipment for goldmining still exists; while excess bureaucracy means that most of that gear currently sits idle the value of gold has never been higher yet, for some reason, this is a revenue-stream on which the New Zealand Government is unwilling to capitalise.

Statements akin to the following might be familiar to struggling Kiwi entrepreneurs: ‘The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has shut down a West Coast gold mining exploration venture that was injecting $500,000 a year into the local economy.’

Gold can be lifted from our lakes, rivers, and landscapes throughout New Zealand without causing destruction to our eco-system; goldmining would create potentially thousands of jobs across the nation and ultimately, it would revive a forgotten industry.

Like the drilling of oil – which can be harmful to our eco-system – goldmining has been vilified by ignorant eco-warriors who erroneously assume that, because this is another form of mining, goldmining must also be damaging to nature; again, gold can be mined across New Zealand with minimal effect to the eco-system.

New Zealand’s Department of Conservation is, expectedly, responsible for the stymieing of goldmining production, undoubtedly, under coercion from an incessantly interfering Green party, ignorantly, under the impression that such efforts would cause irreparable harm to West Coast rivers’ natural beauty…

The following is an exasperated quote from South Island farm owner and hopeful West Coast goldminer, Peter Morrison: “We applied a year ago for a mining permit but we’re still waiting.”

…Peter Morrison owns 500 hectares of land on the West Coast and has already invested around $2 million prospecting for, and discovering, gold on his block; now, it seems, New Zealand Government is preventing him from extracting, thus being heavily taxed on the value of, that gold.

While New Zealand Government’s Financial sector struggles to source funding to continue to hand out money to the people, the flourishing Bureaucratic sector continues to find reason to hamper business progress.

‘But after being told by MBIE he was breaching the exploration permit and threatened with massive fines, Morrison has been forced to pull the plug.’

“We applied a year ago for a mining permit but we’re still waiting.”

The above bureaucratic delay seems to be the norm in New Zealand; unless you’re someone of eminence, the only time Government takes notice is if you’re doing something illegal.

Potentially millions more dollars to be spent on this potential goldmining endeavour with umpteen potential new careers across the district; so much potential prosperity for so many people on the West Coast, now lost, because the New Zealand Government would rather borrow future millions from China than take them from taxable business enterprises in the South.

This is an example of one more business prospect to become entangled amid the web of bureaucracy cast by New Zealand’s Socialist governance; the problem, realistically, is that our ever-influential band of Eco-warriors has never been supportive of anything relating to progression, efficiency, or lucrativeness – goldmining is potentially all three.

Additionally bothersome is when the New Zealand Government is bound by bureaucracy to such an extent that they are unable to incarcerate or deport an ISIS-supporting potential-terrorist and must instead spend tens of thousands of dollars employing officials to basically babysit the shithead, until he starts stabbing people, then they can finally get rid of him.

The message appears clear: stabbing people in New Zealand is bad, goldmining in New Zealand is good, and there is too much bureaucracy in New Zealand for the future prosperity of either.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Stabby McGee

Photography by Burrow Chrissy

I sometimes lie awake in bed working through arithmetic problems.

Admittedly, there must be better ways to put one’s mind to sleep but this is me; I enjoy doing sums.

Recently, I was remembering how, years ago, regarding a potential solution to the New Zealand ‘child poverty epidemic’, I believe it was a naive young Green MP by the name of James Shaw who maintained something along the lines of, ‘The reason the poor are poor is because they have no money, therefore, the best way to make them not poor is to give them more money – hey, why not give everyone more money? Across New Zealand, financial woes will be no more – we’ll fix it – we’ll just get the Reserve Bank to print more money, everyone in New Zealand’ll be rich!’

That memory went back to better times, when John Key’s National party were in power and, perhaps understandably, with transcendent financial revelations as aforementioned, James Shaw’s Green party along with Andrew Little’s Labour were in Opposition; also, this was seemingly at a time before people understood that ‘epidemic’ is a term to be used not only in metaphors.

The thing is, from my perspective, lying in bed, pondering, calculating; idealistic as Mr Shaw’s plan was and, to the less educated economist, maybe, viable as this concept may have appeared, I was aware that it would not work – I had enough financial knowhow to understand this is not how money works.

The mathematical difficulty increased, and I recall feeling that heat of frustration; I recall at one point almost falling asleep and having to snap my mind back into focus.

Task at hand and all that.

I knew MP Shaw’s idea was nonsensical, I just wanted to work out specifically why; how?

How, if the New Zealand Government handed out money across the populous thereby rendering every person wealthier, why, would it not work?

What was the rudimentary logic that I was missing – where was the folly?

Truth is, I have attempted in the past to perform this very kind of logical reasoning, often in bed, sometimes while half asleep; usually resulting in an immovable mental block…

Not tonight.

Start simple; person A provides a service for person B, person A is then paid by B and B subsequently receives money from the company above them, C.

This is the basis of economy; currency is awarded value, where it is then given in return for goods or services.

The amount of currency given obviously depends on the value of the goods or services; the value of goods and services is determined by people, in relation to comparable factors.

This value can also vary, though, according to supply and demand; a good or service will become more valuable when supply is less and similarly, more valuable if demand is more.

One hypothetical day, one wayward political leader had a brilliant idea; a short time later, New Zealand’s Reserve Bank began printing an excess of money and the Government started distributing it to the people via supplementary package; household income across the nation increased by around 5% and the people were overjoyed.

Few weeks later, person B calls back person A to perform a similar task but, when the bill comes, B is surprised to see, reportedly due to increased cost of related supplies, A has had to raise their prices by 3.5%; fortunately, B’s company has recently given them a 4% wage increase though, so they can easily afford to pay the increased bill.

Person C, at the company, is currently struggling under another Government-imposed minimum wage increase, which has forced them to effectively raise wages across their entire employee base to maintain wage equality, costing them millions of dollars annually, leading to a general rise in commodity prices to cover the company’s financial shortfall.

Under Government instruction, the nation has been flooded with new money from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and, in the beginning, the people are loving it.

Six months later, particularly in the impoverished regions of the country, the people’s excess of money doesn’t seem to be going as far as it once did; everything costs more now and, ultimately, nobody is any better off than they were six months ago.

With people again struggling, this misguided and terribly short-sighted political leader instructs the Reserve Bank to print more money and prepares the people for another cash injection.

Few months later, money comes in, people are elated; prices go up, everything costs more, new money becomes devalued, people are again demanding wage increases.

A short time later, precipitated by yet another Government-imposed minimum wage increase, wages across all sectors are increased; retailers are forced to raise the cost of commodities to cover their increased wage bill while, of course, producers are also suffering under the burden of increased expenses, so now, everybody is paying more for everything and again demanding more money.

Meantime, official inflation figures are out of control.

Interest rates have become similarly high and even house prices are increasing steeply; despite exorbitant interest rates, financially astute people can appreciate, with national inflation having risen to over 4%, money in the bank is rapidly losing value thus property investment is the only prudent option.

The above (strictly hypothetical) scenario will only deteriorate, leaving the above nation in financial disrepair; yet there is a solution.

Rather than behaving like a short-sighted ignoramus and, in the hope of reducing national poverty, doing something as misguided as printing more money or worse, mandating repeated minimum wage increases, which will only result in inflation thus the devastation of a nation’s economy, if a government genuinely wants to eliminate poverty it needs to shift its focus to domestic business; it needs to support the prosperity of those businesses and remove the obstructions impeding a business’s success.

The intention here is to gradually restore or to boost a nation’s economy which will, in turn, increase overall national wealth; in the future every other sector will benefit from a prospering business sector – health, education, transport etc – without lifting inflation terribly.

Thriving local business leads to stoic consumer confidence resulting in financial fluidity and a strong stock market; as any competent financier will agree, ‘A healthy stock market is a healthy economy’.

The National party have always employed the above strategy, it’s just that many of New Zealand’s voting public appear more interested in immediate results, subscribing to the old Labour strategy of money-in-pockets now; the above is a long-term project which John Key was in the process of accomplishing – global recession notwithstanding – when he stepped down to be succeed by the Labour party.

The other facet to this issue is that in New Zealand we have a comparatively small population (less custom per capita) of whom, over half expect to be wealthier than the rest; do the math, that does not compute.

This next bit’s important, so please pay attention.

Simply raising prices to make more money than the rest is never going to lead to success; money needs to be earned – if you are receiving more for doing no more, you are doing nothing but contributing to inflation.

Ultimately, anyone who claims that ‘printing more money’ is the best way to remedy poverty, clearly has not given the issue enough thought.

…I should really get some sleep now.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Prinda Money

Photography by Ian Flate/E C’Namy

March 2020, while I was making my way in Vietnam, in New Zealand you were experiencing your first nationwide ‘lockdown’ and with that, so began the COVID viral lingo.

From my residence in Buon Ma Thuot, Dak Lak, central_Vietnam, via my stalwart HP laptop, plumbed into Vietnamese WIFI, channelling ROVA, streaming New Zealand Rock Radio, during the months of March and April 2020, from what I was hearing, somebody had overhauled the English language and, from across the world in my COVID-free paradise of Buon Ma Thuot, seemingly, I had been left unaware of this.

March, April 2020, despite advertising throughout my adopted Vietnamese town ‘English Lessons from a Native English Speaker’, regarding the supposedly Kiwi radio broadcasts I was receiving, it felt almost as though I was tuning into a different language.

Never could I recall hearing groups of people referred to as ‘clusters’, or a group’s personal space classified as a ‘bubble’, or how, if not part of that cluster’s bubble, one must practice ‘social distancing’, use ‘hand-sanitiser’, ‘wear a mask’, or sometimes even ‘full PPE’.

The ‘global pandemic’ initially named ‘Coronavirus’, or ‘Corona’, was presently followed by ‘COVID-19’ or ‘COVID’ for short, before earning the decidedly less official title ‘Covid’, which was followed by a sobriquet of unnerving familiarity ‘the virus’; the virus inspired a unique vernacular, probably more akin to ‘epidemiologists’ and ‘virologists’ or people – ‘infected’, ‘symptomatic’, ‘asymptomatic’, or otherwise – languishing in ‘managed isolation’ or ‘quarantine’ (later to be given the trendy pseudo-espionage abbreviation, ‘MIQ’, not to be mistaken with ‘QR codes’ with which everyone in your bubble needs to have ‘scanned in’).

As a global populous, during these unprecedented times, most of us had little trouble adhering to a set of similarly unprecedented standards; alas ‘cases of COVID’ have fluctuated with ‘new waves’ caused by ‘outbreaks’ of ‘community transmission’ which often leads to ‘isolation’ then sometimes ‘lockdown protests’ from people who are not ‘essential workers’ resulting in higher ‘case numbers’ at the ‘testing station’.

With ‘border closures’ in effect, the ‘travel bubble’ bursting repeatedly, and ‘MIQ spots’ running short, if nothing else, COVID-19 has produced a rapidly changing, always interesting and often entertaining, dialect.

Coronavirus, Corona, COVID-19, COVID, Covid; Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and now the ‘Delta variant’ has exemplified ‘viral evolution’, and now the ‘Pfizer vaccine’ might be our best hope of returning to normalcy, as we await the ‘vaccine rollout’.

Think about it, now is the only time one can utter the words freely and without offering affront – ‘get vaccinated’.

What a time to be alive.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Wad A Tame

Photography by Toby Alive

In fifteen years, when the bulk of New Zealand’s transportation is powered by electricity, what’s going to happen – how’s it all going to work?

New Zealand has a multitude of renewable sources from which to generate electricity – wind, solar, hydro, geo, bio – and through these we currently have over 100 power stations around the nation yet, be it through ‘low lake levels’, ‘excess usage’, ‘nationwide shortage’, or some other tenuous reason, at some point each year, without fail every year, power companies claim ‘insufficient generation’ and through this, they justify raising electricity prices to ridiculous levels.

The above might suggest there is a shortage of electricity being generated around New Zealand but, here’s the thing, in no way can this be the case; having seen the facts and studied the figures, across our existing 100-plus power stations and over the previously stated methods of generation, even if our hydrogeneration fell to half its usual megawatt output (for example, in an unprecedented nationwide drought event), at least on paper, there would still be sufficient megawatt generation to balance this shortfall through wind, geo, bio, and solar.

Why, then; how can power companies claim electricity ‘shortage’, and thus charge consumers higher rates, when there is no shortage?

Aha, this issue is more sinister than it first appears.

Not so long ago (presumably trying to slide by unseen behind the veil of the nation’s COVID concerns), major New Zealand power stations were found to be ‘spilling water’ from their reservoirs, claiming ‘low lake levels’ then, obviously, they were charging consumers higher electricity prices; this patently unscrupulous act is indicative of a rapacious sector that clearly requires greater Government regulation and, in the future, that requirement for regulation is only going to grow.

This is the control we have already afforded New Zealand’s electrical industry and, in fifteen years, when the nation becomes doubly reliant on electricity, what do we think is going to happen?

Like oil companies and the fuel prices they dictate across the nation (the world), we are unwittingly preparing to give New Zealand’s utilities that same power; ten to fifteen years’ time, sure, our petrol bills will have reduced but, guaranteed, Kiwis will be paying double, maybe triple, even maybe an exponentially increased cost per electrical unit.

To the above question, ‘how is it going to work?’, this is how it’s going to work; much as they like to push the ‘friendly’ image, power companies are not your buddy, they are businesses, and they will screw out of you as much money as they can for as little effort as possible.

Fifteen years in the future, once we have afforded our utilities the power to essentially dictate people’s finances through electricity prices, if that electrical dictatorship is not heavily regulated by the Government, consumers can be certain, these rapacious power companies are going to continually push up prices until what you are paying to charge your car overnight, will be little different to pulling up at a petrol station forecourt throughout the day.

Turns out the New Zealand electrical grid does have adequate generation capacity, it can produce sufficient megawatts to keep its people powered up for years to come; our utilities just need to utilise that capacity and not be duplicitous about it.

Kiwis need to keep in mind, the New Zealand Government wants us to drive EVs to save our world, not to save our dollars.

Utilities are big businesses, high profit, very high taxes.

Amid a Socialist Empire, Government always wins.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Holden Bach

Photography by Max Power

2013 I was running the pseudonym ‘Mit Reklaw’ and had about 12 followers; skip forward to 2021 and Tim Walker has over 1000.

Couple of instalments ago I wrote a lengthy piece combining two of my more learned topics – politics and farming in New Zealand.

Compare that to, months prior, I undertook extensive research into the soulless Jehovah’s Witness religious movement then produced a series of articles which, I believed, outlined the deplorable nature of this, supposedly charitable, Christian organisation.

My recent instalment was a change-up, more of a piss-take, looking at the sometimes loveable but usually irritating, well-intentioned but foolishly compassionate, also eco-orientated-to-the-point-of-internal-combustion, Kiwi Eco-warrior; while the aforementioned documentation was written tongue-in-cheek, I do wonder how many tongues were jestingly thrust into cheeks and how many brows were furrowed over eyes in distaste.

The point is I have developed/was born with the ability to write with relative coherency over an eclectic spectrum of topics but, as opposed to 2013 and my 12 followers where I believed I was sufficiently familiar with each of my readers to enable me to tailor my eloquence into what I supposed was relatable wordplay, nowadays, such is the vastness of my demographic, I essentially have no idea what the people want me to write thus, regarding choice of topic, I often find myself floundering (exhibit ‘A’).

Few months back, under subtle encouragement from Facebook, I published a plea ‘Feedback is appreciated…’ and, although I am sure it was viewed by many, there was in fact only one reader who took the time to deliver any of the besought ‘feedback’ (incidentally, this one reader was a constituent of my original 12 so, you know, what is it they say, quality not…), which was awesome, but I feel I was already aware of the bulk of the feedback this reader proffered; it’s the other 987-plus who I don’t know, the preferences of whom I would be interested to know.

Everybody has their own idea of what makes entertaining reading, engaging topics, and captivating candour; a lot like politics, one decision will never please everybody, whatever new initiative Prime Minister Ardern unleashes upon the nation is never going to be embraced by everyone, not unless ‘everyone’ is a single mother living in Auckland.

Oh, I’m sorry, I expected most people would have long given up reading so, you know, the above inflammatory statement wouldn’t have been picked up by anyone who cared enough to formally condemn the point, querying if that kind of slur is covered by the Freedom of Expression clause in New Zealand’s Bill of Rights act, 1990, and all that.

Huh, here is the thing about Freedom of Speech, which modern-day Democracy fights so hard to protect as though those three words still stand for something, you’re still only free to say it providing it doesn’t offend anyone, therefore, given the ease with which modern-day people take offence…

In a statement regarding appearance, intellect, race, religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, living preferences, most people will take a deliberate moment to consider if what has been said might in some way maybe have the potential to upset them or someone hypothetically related to them; surely though, if it doesn’t cause unavoidable offence, why would anyone take offence?

…It’s really no liberty at all.

We all have our preferences.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Prof R Rinse

Photography by Noah Liberty

New Zealand Eco-warriors have again demonstrated how their collective righteousness transcends Nature.

After rescuing a lone orca whale from the ocean near Wellington, they lovingly relocated the calf in the ocean near Plimmerton.

More Eco-warriors then scoured the ocean from above and below, on the lookout for the orphan whale’s parents which, ideally, would have been flaunting some sort of distinguishing features to set them apart from the other periodically surfacing orca whales in the ocean.

Toa – reportedly Maori for ‘Warrior’, although I thought that was ‘Wiremu’…? – as the Eco-warriors promptly named the orca, being unweaned thus not a strong feeder, sadly, days after being rescued, died.

New Zealand’s almighty band of Eco-warriors, therefore, implementing their Holier than Thou initiative, removed this baby orca whale from the ocean, the environment where ocean-going creatures live and die, and buried it amid the land, where people live and die.

As compassionate beings, the estimated $10,000 spent in a futile attempt to take care of an orphan whale shouldn’t concern us, nor should the expense of countless hours of boats cruising the waters or aircraft traversing the skies – an operation so presumably costly that no one has even dared estimate that expense – yet, what assuredly should concern us, is our New Zealand Ecologists’ arrogance.

This frightful lack of respect for an intelligent marine species which, likely due to their inability to communicate with us to point out the folly in our ways, we as people have no issue impressing upon them our terrestrial culture, along with the inane burial ritual that we hold so dear.

Whales are born, they live, then die in the ocean; how do our arrogant Eco-warriors consider that Toa the dead orca whale, was best suited to a land–based burial?

As people we like to ensure our loved ones are laid to rest in the vicinity of family – after a lifetime taking from the earth most of us like to be buried in treated timber boxes so we will not return to the earth for years to come – but Toa the dead whale’s family live in the ocean.

Whales, like all marine mammals, are supposed to die in the water; their bodies should return to the sea.

Do we think our few days of Eco-intervention warrant laying to rest this creature outside its natural habitat?

What must his pod be thinking; what would Toa’s parents say?

Arrogance.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Displays T Wail

Photography by Hugh Mann/Hugh Briss

Growing up on a sheep and crop farm on the Canterbury Plains through the ‘80s and ‘90s, as a child I quickly came to appreciate that, politically, National was a friend of the family.

At that time, I could not have even told you the name of the Opposition’s political counterpart (turns out it was Mike Moore), but indeed, National’s Jim Bolger was a household name at our place.

Even as a politically indifferent teenager I understood that, while Labour may have been a viable political strategy for much of New Zealand’s urban populous along with other unfamiliar ethnicities, it was National who was looking out for us rural folk.

Skipping forward to the 21^st century, still a teenager but now 18 years old, adorned in an oil-stained flannel shirt with a pouch of Port Royal stuffed into the top pocket, my debut vote was allocated to, the man who would turn out to be, National’s most hapless leader, Mr Bill English.

In that 2002 election Bill English was defeated by Helen Clark, resulting in New Zealand for the next few terms being Labour led; resulting in a period of stymied prosperity for farmers, for agriculture, horticulture and in fact, for any industry where ‘work’ was more likely to generate perspiration than a sore butt.

That period passed and, with Labour having been operating typically beyond its means thus leaving Government finances in a typically shambolic state, thankfully now running free with a National led John Key Government, with blossoming maturity and a politically piqued mind, I was unable to avoid noticing the stark disparities in policy of the differing political parties.

I was unable to avoid witnessing, also, the way respective Opposition leaders demonstrated fluctuating levels of passion – on a topic, argument, or opinion they held – depending on, firstly, how much political leverage the issue might afford them and, secondly, public perception, or in other words, fashion, vogue.

It was perplexing to me, in my final few teen years, amid my inception to the world of political analysis, that the leaders of any nation should be influenced in any way by anything other than tangible reality but, of course, this, many years ago, this was the beginning of the phenomenon (I) coined ‘Modern Politics’; in my youthful perception, this Modern Politics was where Political Correctness was mingled with Idealism then coupled with Public Perception and Desire for Popularity only to become fused amid a straitjacket of Bureaucratic Disharmony – where a vote cast is based not on genuine political policies but on projected bullshit, on trends, on facades, on the superficial likability, on the ostensible popularity, of a party’s leader.

Indeed, Modern Politics in New Zealand (and across the world), was becoming more about a party leader’s affability, their charm, charisma, and of course, the way their smile looked in front of a television camera.

Fortunately, John Key stood up not too badly in front of a camera and, although his awkwardness often shone through in the public eye, Key’s two terms of leadership – steering New Zealand so seamlessly through 2014’s financial crisis that many Kiwis weren’t even aware it was a thing before allowing the hapless Bill English to step up years later to take another National loss – in the meantime, setting up a solid foundation for tourism and importantly, for farming, in New Zealand.

In 2017, when Jacinda’s Labour used MMP to effectively steal the election – despite losing badly in the polls to National she and her cohort quickly rustled up a coalition of losers to take the majority on the day – across New Zealand, farming again fell out of vogue.

The Labour influence was felt across New Zealand’s farming community and expectedly, taxes increased while bureaucratic processes were made increasingly challenging (also costly) for farmers; after all, in Labour’s (Green) opinion, farming isn’t beneficial to New Zealand, farming is not keeping New Zealand’s economy strong, farming is damaging to the environment, farming is harmful to the image that the Labour Government are endeavouring to propagate and convey (sell) to the rest of the world.

Before naïve young Jacinda’s time were the glory years when it was the farming sector that helped to establish New Zealand’s reputation as a global agricultural exporter; through the ‘50s, when sheep’s fleece was like gold – fetching ‘a pound for a pound’ at market – where it was the strength of New Zealand’s farming community that helped pull the nation clear of the economic bedlam caused by the Second World War.

In the ‘50s folk were not concerned with hysterical portents such as warming globes, rising tides, changing climates, and the like; incidentally, New Zealand’s hottest day was felt all the way back in 1973, in the Canterbury town of Rangiora – of course, with ‘Climate Change’ not to be invented until next century, 42.3 degrees Celsius was seen as just ‘a bloody hot day’ out on the farm.

During the ‘80s, under the Labour rule of Lange, Palmer, then Moore, farming in New Zealand hit particularly hard times and, like the tourism sector of today, needed to receive support from the Government; then the ‘90s, back under ‘family friend’ Jim Bolger’s National rule, farming began to recover somewhat.

New Zealand’s farmers pushed through the next decade, as a Helen Clark led Labour Government came up with new and interesting taxation methods, seemingly intended to strip farmers of as much of their hard-earned income as they could afford to lose.

2008 began a two-term reign of National, with the Right Honourable John Key at the helm, while another venerated MP by the name of Bill English took care of the nation’s finances; it seemed the perfect union, and it was but, sadly, National’s reign could not last forever – 2017 saw the fresh-faced Jacinda Ardern step up to lead Labour and, subsequently, take hold of the nation.

New Zealand’s 2017 election, as mentioned, was a farcical demonstration of the MMP system in action; National won 44.4% of the vote while Labour won just 36.9% yet still, Labour came away from that election in Government leaving National resigned to Opposition.

Jump forward to 2020 and, unsurprisingly, COVID aside, Jacinda’s ability to please the people while bankrupting the nation has put her in good stead with the less financially savvy voter; she utters a few idealistic phrases, sprinkles some fairy-dust and with that, you are in Labour’s coin-purse for another term.

Comprising Jacinda’s Coalition of Losers is Green party leader James Shaw, and if anyone detests progress, efficiency, productivity, economy, and farming, it is Green party leader James Shaw; harbouring idealistic views of a similar vein to his leader, Prime Minister Ardern, this man appears to long for a New Zealand managed by the Amish community, but with electricity.

According to the Green party ‘Progress is Pollution’ but then, according to that same source, one of New Zealand’s most pristine rivers, the Hurunui in North Canterbury, is ‘unswimmable’ so, you know, believe what you will.

My sister’s husband happens to own the farm bordering the south bank of that glorious Hurunui River; I have fished, swum, and drunk from that river, and it is anything but polluted.

According to the Government, farming livestock is bad and growing trees is good – there is much hype nowadays surrounding businesses/companies/industries being ‘carbon neutral’ and how the gases released from mammals are damaging to the environment but trees are advantageous because they sequester carbon from the air thus improve the quality of our environment – but the Government likes to overlook an important aspect of this debate; while a farm may contain several thousand head of livestock, that farm will also produce several thousand hectares of grasslands and if you were a biologist you would know that grass sequesters carbon in a similar capacity to trees.

The current Government is full of negativity about farming and the damage it causes to the environment yet it fails to see the good; it is a fact that livestock, like people, are warm-blooded, gas and excrement-producing mammals, thus, like people, they do contribute to the warming of the globe yet, like the so-called carbon credits supposedly awarded to growers of trees (a tree is planted, rendering that patch of land basically unproductive for decades, then the tree is milled for some gain), a farmer will maintain grass cover on his land and, rather than that land for decades being unproductive while the tree sequesters carbon similarly to the farmer’s grass, that land remains productive throughout.

Additionally, New Zealand farmers cultivate and manage the land which prevents it from reverting to worthless scrub because, contrary to some ignorant Government opinion, left alone the majority of the country would not revert to lovely native bush – great stands of Manuka, Kauri, Kowhai, Lancewood, Kanuka, Totara, Rata – no, it would revert to the strongest plant in the environment, which does generally not include natives; the unmanaged land would likely revert to the noxious weed that is gorse and gorse is not good for anything (anymore, I mean, the early British thought it was awesome for hedges but, you know, it’s gorse).

Also, most farms do contain a high number of trees in the form of shelterbelts, or just a stand of trees for the sake of trees, because here’s the thing, generally, farmers like nature.

Regarding Green party leader James Shaw and his aspiring Amish lifestyle (but with electricity, or how would he charge his EV?), the idea to cease the import of internal combustion vehicles by 2035, with possibly a total ban on fuel-burning cars by 2050, is ambitious and, realistically, a little misguided.

As pointed out in past instalments electric-ii/ and electric, in this recent Government quest to render transportation electric, the price of EVs should be one of the lesser factors; from the perspective of city folk, admittedly, there is little need to drive an SUV to and from work every day yet from an industrial/farming standpoint, the suitability and availability of Electric Vehicles are pertinent issues that need to be considered.

The Government incentive on EVs? Unnecessary – the biggest issue for Kiwis buying EVS is not of price it is of desire, in that most people are unwilling to forego their internal combustion engine for an electric motor; perhaps understandably, electric is a new concept versus the proven reliability of fuel-burning.

Taxation on future internal combustion vehicles? Ridiculous – the main reason for the taxation is to fund the incentive offered to EV purchasers which, as someone recently pointed out, is largely pointless.

New Zealand transportation being totally electric by 2050? Possible – many Kiwis maintain that EVs are too expensive (seems most don’t realise they’re already paying over $3000 a year on fuel), although that’s just become the fashionable therefore the most convenient excuse to deflect from the reality.

Before the rest of the nation, including the farming industry, goes electric, a few things will need to happen: the Government needs to get off farmers’ backs regarding ‘all the harm they do to the environment’, also lift a lot of the idiot taxes that were imposed to supposedly protect the environment from farming (that or start paying farmers the carbon credits they deserve for their thousands of hectares of trees and grasslands), then maybe Kiwi farmers will be a little more inclined to get onboard with these Government plans; additionally, as earlier mentioned, the suitability and availability of industrial EVs needs to be improved along with, importantly, improvement of New Zealand’s electricity infrastructure.

The national power grid, in a New Zealand winter, is already pushed to its limit; what will happen when every family in the country are charging their EV overnight? From experience, around double the household usage; if New Zealand’s electrical infrastructure is currently at its limit – burning coal to generate electricity for the purpose of lowering the nation’s vehicle emissions – how are we going to cope when that requirement doubles?

More Government consideration of the issues; less Government persecution of farmers.

Like our power grid, farmers are already taxed to the point of exhaustion.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by John Deere

Photography by Farmer Brown

‘With the end of the demand for petrol in sight, if I were a fuel company, I’d be raising prices now, while I can still get away with it.’

Upon hearing the above statement, I first smirked them shook my head at the rapacious nature of international commerce.

‘Across New Zealand some towns are experiencing unprecedented rises in the cost of fuel.’

Upon hearing this statement, I was not surprised; the prophecy was simply being fulfilled.

I then afforded the issue additional consideration; ‘Maybe it’s not (just) the fuel companies trying to squeeze the last bit of money out of people’.

Like the cost of cigarettes, what does the New Zealand Government do when they want to vilify something?

I do wonder how much of this price increase has to do with fuel companies and how much is the result of increased Government tax…?

Thing is, the price of a barrel of crude oil has scarcely shifted – contrary to what one might assume, based on fuel price fluctuations across service station forecourts, the price of crude seldom undergoes dramatic changes – therefore, and service station collusion aside (let’s not discuss that because it’s very much an illegal practice so they obviously do not do it), there can be only one reason for the recent nationwide fuel price-hike.

Realistically, typical of a Labour Government, Jacinda has been throwing around money of late to an unnecessarily lavish extent so, obviously, like the ever-increasing cigarette tax and the drop in numbers of smokers but continuation in the medical care they require, the nation needs to recoup the money somehow.

Perhaps this is Jacinda’s way of atoning for the fact that she is offering her ‘incentive’ to future EV owners while existing EV owners receive nothing (other than the joy of driving an eco-friendly vehicle on our roads while paying no road tax as well as the knowledge that in three years I’ll have paid for my car in fuel savings alone).

I bought a Nissan Leaf on the 22^nd of March 2019; the only incentive I needed was found in my own foresight – it would take me just three years to recoup the cost of the car thus pay back my bank loan.

There you have it; buying an EV, given the rising cost of fuel, is basic arithmetic.

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Bay Six

Photography by Arth Mettick