https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350157805/new-zealand-backs-away-deep-sea-trawling-restrictions
So first we have Judith Collins making problems for the Foreign
Minister, now Shane Jones u-turns on an international fisheries
agreement.
No wonder Luxon appears to have disappeared . . .
So first we have Judith Collins making problems for the ForeignPolitical rhetoric (aka bloody nonsense).
Minister, now Shane Jones u-turns on an international fisheries
agreement.
No wonder Luxon appears to have disappeared . . .
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:02:28 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350157805/new-zealand-backs-away-deep-sea-trawling-restrictions
So first we have Judith Collins making problems for the Foreign
Minister, now Shane Jones u-turns on an international fisheries
agreement.
No wonder Luxon appears to have disappeared . . .
Rich you have not commented on the actual content of the article. You
have drawn a purely political bow on it. What is your opinion on what
the article covers? Too late - in a rational world you would have
posted on this first up. You don't care about what Shane Jones as
Fisheries Minister has done do you - but you do care about the
political implications you can draw from it.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:56:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Stop your blubbering, dry your eyes and grow a spine. Hide your head in shame at the last government's truly reprehensible attempt to destroy our democracy. You are nothing but political rhetoric and zero humanity, well beyond redemption.
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:02:28 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350157805/new-zealand-backs-away-deep-sea-trawling-restrictions
So first we have Judith Collins making problems for the Foreign
Minister, now Shane Jones u-turns on an international fisheries >>>agreement.
No wonder Luxon appears to have disappeared . . .
Rich you have not commented on the actual content of the article. You
have drawn a purely political bow on it. What is your opinion on what
the article covers? Too late - in a rational world you would have
posted on this first up. You don't care about what Shane Jones as >>Fisheries Minister has done do you - but you do care about the
political implications you can draw from it.
I find it reprehensible that this is the second time a Coalition
Minister has compromised the reputation of New Zealand with other
nations by effectively reneging on previous policies on which both
Labour-led and National-led goverments have agreed in the past.
Changing international agreed positions not a good look for the new >government but in addition it smacks of putting private industry
interests ahead of long term interests of New Zealand.
I had credited those reading nz.general with being able to open a link
and reading it; I am surprised you cannot see the multiple issues of >favouratism for a donor to NZ First over what had been an agreed
position.by past governments.
Without posting the whole article, try these extracts :
"At last year’s gathering, the Cook Islands, backed by New Zealand,
proposed measures to reduce bottom-trawling.
Once agreed by members, New Zealand delegates further developed the
proposal into a paper, revising boundaries, which was presented to a
meeting of SPRFMO scientists in September.
But now, the new National-led government has abandoned the proposal
—baffling delegates and infuriating marine conservationists.
Ocean consultant Karli Thomas, of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition,
is an NGO observer member of the body. “To the world, it looks like
we're walking away from our commitments under what was a completely >consensus-agreed decision a year ago,” she said."
&
"Jones is unapologetic about championing the $5 billion industry.
“I'm no stranger to the concerns and the criticisms that a person of
my background should not be the fisheries minister. It's actually the >opposite: a person with that background is ideally suited because our >government is very focused on export-led recovery and ensuring that
our industry generates the revenue and the dividend that helps keep
people in jobs.”
"The row centres around a decision to restrict the areas where bottom >trawling is allowed to take place. The fishing method is controversial >because of damage done to slow-growing coral, and sea sponge, an
integral part of the underwater ecosystem.
Just a handful of national fleets use the practice of dragging heavy
fishing gear across seabed features, and New Zealand is the only
country doing it in the South Pacific.
The initial proposal developed by officials in Avarua and Wellington
would have banned trawling on 70% of biodiversity hotspots, like sea
mounts. It was adopted, but other member states had pushed for 100% >protection."
&
"At the same time, New Zealand has also submitted a proposal pushing
for three years of orange roughy in one year. It is a response to a
decision taken last year to halve the allowed catch of the
under-pressure species in the high seas.
“It appears that New Zealand is preparing to renege on an agreement
that it, along with other SPRFMO member states, negotiated in a
working group throughout 2023, and for which New Zealand scientists
have gathered the data and mapped out boundaries,” Thomas said.
Kayla Kingdon- Bebb, WWF’s New Zealand chief executive, said she had
received messages of concern from international colleagues about the
U-turn.
“There is a lot of concern about New Zealand resigning from the
rules-based order. Historically, New Zealand has been seen as a
good-faith operator, and then for a country to turn away from a
decision taken by consensus is quite significant.”
Kingdon-Bebb said Jones was also doing a disservice to industry
players who were taking a lead on sustainability. “The big operators,
the ones that are commercially savvy ... are aware that market
conditions are shifting in a way that mean going backwards on
environmental protection and climate action is, long-term, going to
shoot them in the foot.”
_________________________________
Like many others, I care about donors to political parties being able
to "buy" legislation, but I even more concerned about New Zealand
potentially losing a reputation for good faith bargaining.
From a political perspective, I wonder at the extent to which this
change in stance was adequately perused at Cabinet. As was the case
for the Defence deployment made by Judith Collins, this change from
previous policy by Shane Jones does not appear to have had much time
to have been considered by other Ministers, although I accept that
Winston Peters may not be too concerned with Jones looking after some >political donors, even if it creates problems for other international >negotiations in the future.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You are off topic, Tony, and knowing how you do dislike posters
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:56:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Stop your blubbering, dry your eyes and grow a spine. Hide your head in shame >at the last government's truly reprehensible attempt to destroy our democracy. >You are nothing but political rhetoric and zero humanity, well beyond >redemption.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:02:28 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350157805/new-zealand-backs-away-deep-sea-trawling-restrictions
So first we have Judith Collins making problems for the Foreign >>>>Minister, now Shane Jones u-turns on an international fisheries >>>>agreement.
No wonder Luxon appears to have disappeared . . .
Rich you have not commented on the actual content of the article. You >>>have drawn a purely political bow on it. What is your opinion on what >>>the article covers? Too late - in a rational world you would have
posted on this first up. You don't care about what Shane Jones as >>>Fisheries Minister has done do you - but you do care about the
political implications you can draw from it.
I find it reprehensible that this is the second time a Coalition
Minister has compromised the reputation of New Zealand with other
nations by effectively reneging on previous policies on which both >>Labour-led and National-led goverments have agreed in the past.
Changing international agreed positions not a good look for the new >>government but in addition it smacks of putting private industry
interests ahead of long term interests of New Zealand.
I had credited those reading nz.general with being able to open a link
and reading it; I am surprised you cannot see the multiple issues of >>favouratism for a donor to NZ First over what had been an agreed >>position.by past governments.
Without posting the whole article, try these extracts :
"At last year’s gathering, the Cook Islands, backed by New Zealand, >>proposed measures to reduce bottom-trawling.
Once agreed by members, New Zealand delegates further developed the >>proposal into a paper, revising boundaries, which was presented to a >>meeting of SPRFMO scientists in September.
But now, the new National-led government has abandoned the proposal >>—baffling delegates and infuriating marine conservationists.
Ocean consultant Karli Thomas, of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition,
is an NGO observer member of the body. “To the world, it looks like
we're walking away from our commitments under what was a completely >>consensus-agreed decision a year ago,” she said."
&
"Jones is unapologetic about championing the $5 billion industry.
“I'm no stranger to the concerns and the criticisms that a person of
my background should not be the fisheries minister. It's actually the >>opposite: a person with that background is ideally suited because our >>government is very focused on export-led recovery and ensuring that
our industry generates the revenue and the dividend that helps keep
people in jobs.”
"The row centres around a decision to restrict the areas where bottom >>trawling is allowed to take place. The fishing method is controversial >>because of damage done to slow-growing coral, and sea sponge, an
integral part of the underwater ecosystem.
Just a handful of national fleets use the practice of dragging heavy >>fishing gear across seabed features, and New Zealand is the only
country doing it in the South Pacific.
The initial proposal developed by officials in Avarua and Wellington
would have banned trawling on 70% of biodiversity hotspots, like sea >>mounts. It was adopted, but other member states had pushed for 100% >>protection."
&
"At the same time, New Zealand has also submitted a proposal pushing
for three years of orange roughy in one year. It is a response to a >>decision taken last year to halve the allowed catch of the
under-pressure species in the high seas.
“It appears that New Zealand is preparing to renege on an agreement
that it, along with other SPRFMO member states, negotiated in a
working group throughout 2023, and for which New Zealand scientists
have gathered the data and mapped out boundaries,” Thomas said.
Kayla Kingdon- Bebb, WWF’s New Zealand chief executive, said she had >>received messages of concern from international colleagues about the >>U-turn.
“There is a lot of concern about New Zealand resigning from the
rules-based order. Historically, New Zealand has been seen as a
good-faith operator, and then for a country to turn away from a
decision taken by consensus is quite significant.”
Kingdon-Bebb said Jones was also doing a disservice to industry
players who were taking a lead on sustainability. “The big operators,
the ones that are commercially savvy ... are aware that market
conditions are shifting in a way that mean going backwards on
environmental protection and climate action is, long-term, going to
shoot them in the foot.”
_________________________________
Like many others, I care about donors to political parties being able
to "buy" legislation, but I even more concerned about New Zealand >>potentially losing a reputation for good faith bargaining.
From a political perspective, I wonder at the extent to which this
change in stance was adequately perused at Cabinet. As was the case
for the Defence deployment made by Judith Collins, this change from >>previous policy by Shane Jones does not appear to have had much time
to have been considered by other Ministers, although I accept that
Winston Peters may not be too concerned with Jones looking after some >>political donors, even if it creates problems for other international >>negotiations in the future.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:06:45 -0000 (UTC), TonyShove your sarcasm in the smelly place it came from.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You are off topic, Tony, and knowing how you do dislike posters
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:56:36 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Stop your blubbering, dry your eyes and grow a spine. Hide your head in shame >>at the last government's truly reprehensible attempt to destroy our democracy.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:02:28 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350157805/new-zealand-backs-away-deep-sea-trawling-restrictions
So first we have Judith Collins making problems for the Foreign >>>>>Minister, now Shane Jones u-turns on an international fisheries >>>>>agreement.
No wonder Luxon appears to have disappeared . . .
Rich you have not commented on the actual content of the article. You >>>>have drawn a purely political bow on it. What is your opinion on what >>>>the article covers? Too late - in a rational world you would have >>>>posted on this first up. You don't care about what Shane Jones as >>>>Fisheries Minister has done do you - but you do care about the >>>>political implications you can draw from it.
I find it reprehensible that this is the second time a Coalition
Minister has compromised the reputation of New Zealand with other
nations by effectively reneging on previous policies on which both >>>Labour-led and National-led goverments have agreed in the past.
Changing international agreed positions not a good look for the new >>>government but in addition it smacks of putting private industry >>>interests ahead of long term interests of New Zealand.
I had credited those reading nz.general with being able to open a link >>>and reading it; I am surprised you cannot see the multiple issues of >>>favouratism for a donor to NZ First over what had been an agreed >>>position.by past governments.
Without posting the whole article, try these extracts :
"At last year’s gathering, the Cook Islands, backed by New Zealand, >>>proposed measures to reduce bottom-trawling.
Once agreed by members, New Zealand delegates further developed the >>>proposal into a paper, revising boundaries, which was presented to a >>>meeting of SPRFMO scientists in September.
But now, the new National-led government has abandoned the proposal >>>—baffling delegates and infuriating marine conservationists.
Ocean consultant Karli Thomas, of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition,
is an NGO observer member of the body. “To the world, it looks like
we're walking away from our commitments under what was a completely >>>consensus-agreed decision a year ago,” she said."
&
"Jones is unapologetic about championing the $5 billion industry.
“I'm no stranger to the concerns and the criticisms that a person of
my background should not be the fisheries minister. It's actually the >>>opposite: a person with that background is ideally suited because our >>>government is very focused on export-led recovery and ensuring that
our industry generates the revenue and the dividend that helps keep >>>people in jobs.”
"The row centres around a decision to restrict the areas where bottom >>>trawling is allowed to take place. The fishing method is controversial >>>because of damage done to slow-growing coral, and sea sponge, an
integral part of the underwater ecosystem.
Just a handful of national fleets use the practice of dragging heavy >>>fishing gear across seabed features, and New Zealand is the only
country doing it in the South Pacific.
The initial proposal developed by officials in Avarua and Wellington >>>would have banned trawling on 70% of biodiversity hotspots, like sea >>>mounts. It was adopted, but other member states had pushed for 100% >>>protection."
&
"At the same time, New Zealand has also submitted a proposal pushing
for three years of orange roughy in one year. It is a response to a >>>decision taken last year to halve the allowed catch of the
under-pressure species in the high seas.
“It appears that New Zealand is preparing to renege on an agreement
that it, along with other SPRFMO member states, negotiated in a
working group throughout 2023, and for which New Zealand scientists
have gathered the data and mapped out boundaries,” Thomas said.
Kayla Kingdon- Bebb, WWF’s New Zealand chief executive, said she had >>>received messages of concern from international colleagues about the >>>U-turn.
“There is a lot of concern about New Zealand resigning from the >>>rules-based order. Historically, New Zealand has been seen as a >>>good-faith operator, and then for a country to turn away from a
decision taken by consensus is quite significant.”
Kingdon-Bebb said Jones was also doing a disservice to industry
players who were taking a lead on sustainability. “The big operators,
the ones that are commercially savvy ... are aware that market
conditions are shifting in a way that mean going backwards on >>>environmental protection and climate action is, long-term, going to
shoot them in the foot.”
_________________________________
Like many others, I care about donors to political parties being able
to "buy" legislation, but I even more concerned about New Zealand >>>potentially losing a reputation for good faith bargaining.
From a political perspective, I wonder at the extent to which this
change in stance was adequately perused at Cabinet. As was the case
for the Defence deployment made by Judith Collins, this change from >>>previous policy by Shane Jones does not appear to have had much time
to have been considered by other Ministers, although I accept that >>>Winston Peters may not be too concerned with Jones looking after some >>>political donors, even if it creates problems for other international >>>negotiations in the future.
You are nothing but political rhetoric and zero humanity, well beyond >>redemption.
deviating from the topic, I am concerned about you - are you having
some problems? Do let us know if we can help get you back on track . .
.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 124:51:55 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,769 |