Apparently the Green Party of NZ have only this week heard about this thing called the Overseas Investment Act


The line currently being used by Green activists  to defend the total incompetence of allowing China to steal more water is just nonsense.

“But we was following da law’ Green apologists scream.

Apparently the Green Party of NZ have only this week heard about this thing called the Overseas Investment Act.

Of course the law is set and constructed in a way to allow the molestation of NZ to occur as easily as possible by large corporations, but the role of the Minister can go well beyond the bullshit straightjacket they’ve been consigned to.

TDB Recommends

Hold the decision up, create a reason to hold off till a later date, plan to change the law and delay the decision until then, demand more information, demand actual proof of these so called jobs.

How many will be local, how many will be created overseas and shipped here?

The law demands that any  Minister must consider “substantial and identifiable” benefits to New Zealand’s economy, how the Christ is 60 measly jobs over 4 years a “substantial and identifiable” benefit to the NZ economy?


There area  dozen creative ways a Minister can delay a decision, the Greens have explored NONE of those to arrive at this one.

For a Political Party of activists who regularly consider breaking the law for environmental reasons, this bullshit shrug of the shoulders and a ‘the law is the law’ response by Green MPs is heartbreaking and further proof that they are ill equipped to play the game of politics.

I’d ask the Greens directly what the fuck they think they are doing, but seeing as they’ve handed a large chunk of their Parliamentary Questions over to the National Party, perhaps I should ask Simon Bridges if he can ask Labour to ask the Greens what the fuck they think they’re doing.

This decision to allow China to take more of our water on a planet that is rapidly warming is cowardice as well as treasonous.




  1. Yeah, made your jobs harder now those new metrics used to indicate environmental capital has to work first time ie translated into Chinese.

  2. Well we need to change our laws the problem is does our current trade deal/s prevent us from doing this? if so we need to look to see if there is a provision to stop this immediately. What about the protection of Propriety rights of Maori can we utilise this to stop foreigners from taking our water? Surely there must be something we can do before it is too late. We need to work together if we want a good outcome and stop bickering cause while we are fighting our water is being raided and sold back to us and others and all the profits are going offshore.

  3. The Greens have failed to explain to the public why Eugenie Sage didn’t challenged the so-called benefits. It looks as if she just rolled-over.

    For example, 60 new jobs over 4 years isn’t a substantial benefit to NZ. There were 81 jobs listed in the region in the last month alone.

    Export revenue that will largely return to the offshore owners isn’t a substantial benefit to NZ.

    Capital investment to upgrade and expand the existing bottling plant will be used to increase their water take, hence company returns (which will largely head offshore) thus again, isn’t a substantial benefit to NZ.

    Therefore, there were/are good grounds for Eugenie Sage to argue there are no real substantial benefits to NZ from this sensitive land sale.

    • Problem is most of these plants are fully automated and require very few human beings.

      Look what happened when Coca Cola Amatil in Mt Wellington automated it’s plant in Mt Wellington, they made most of their people redundant.

      It would be interesting to see their labour projection’s for the next 20 years ?

      The artesian water in these aquifiers are 100 years old filtered through the soil, why do New Zealand companies not do this ?

  4. ve realy stuffed up here so badly they are begging to become irrelevent now arent they sadly.

    Thank god i left the party in 20002 before the good old real greenies left like me.

    Time again to rebuild that party I say.

    NZF appear to be now more green than they are looking at how the coalition is hanging.

    GP need now to take stock of their policies and alliances.

    They really need to step up and make good of at least one major Environemtal policy such as the Zero carbon act policy road show going on now as they go around selling there zreo carbon policy and they must plan to alivate using major increased rail freight policy as Pete Hodgson planned to do when he was partnering greens as he produced the “National rail strategy” 2004.

    Here is our submission to greens ‘zero carbon bill’ policy roadshow.

    17th June 2018.
    Subject; public community submission to; Introducing the Zero Carbon Bill – June 2018 James Shaw. – Climate change minister.

    Point 1/

    Please re-introduce and incorporate MP Pete Hodgson’s “National Rail Strategy” as part of his climate change policy he produced as the former Minister of Transport and “Ministerial group on Climate change” under the previous Helen Clark Government.
    • Minister of Research, Science and Technology: 10 December 1999 – 21 December 2004
    • Associate Minister for Industry and Regional Development: 10 December 1999 – 19 October 2005
    • Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change: 14 August 2002 – 19 October 2005
    • Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: 13 November 2000 – 26 February 2004
    • Acting Minister of the Environment: 23 February 2001 – 27 March 2001

    Pete Hodgson produced the excellent policy of using rail under the “National Rail strategy” – 2005 “To ensure environmental sustainability”.

    • Here is the references in this document from the Ministry of Transport.

    Pete Hodgson’s forward in this “ National Rail Strategy” policy paper;

    National Rail Strategy to 2015 May 2005 ISBN 0-478-10005-1

    “ It is my pleasure to present the Government’s new National Rail Strategy.

    When this Government came to office in 1999, we had already made a very firm commitment to give clear directions to the New Zealand transport system that would reflect the realities we shall face in the 21st century.

    This commitment led to the New Zealand Transport Strategy being released in December 2002.

    The New Zealand Transport Strategy states that ‘by 2010 New Zealand will have an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system’.

    To achieve this we have set five objectives, all equally important:
    • To assist economic development
    • To assist safety and personal security
    • To improve access and mobility
    • To protect and promote public health
    • To ensure environmental sustainability

    Another driver of this process has been the Kyoto Protocol, which the Government agreed to ratify three years ago, and which came into force in February 2005.

    In order to meet our protocol commitments we shall need to focus on reducing transport energy use in particular.

    Under the right conditions, rail is a very energy-efficient transporter of both passengers and freight, and we look forward to seeing better use of New Zealand’s rail network.

    Now we have brought New Zealand’s rail infrastructure back into public ownership, and the vision and objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy will be applied to New Zealand’s railway network.

    Through the National Rail Strategy, the Government is demonstrating its commitment to retaining the existing network; to investigating the development of a number of new railway lines; and to maximising the use of rail transport.

    The aim is to move people out of cars for urban journeys, and freight off roads, wherever possible.

    For freight this means a focus on bulk or containerised loads, including traffic such as milk or logs. For passengers it means a focus on busy urban corridors in the larger centres, and using smart thinking to manage congestion.

    This is an exciting time in New Zealand transport, with a dynamic vision beginning to achieve real results, working towards an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system.

    The Labour Progressive government acknowledges the contribution of the Green Party to the development of this Strategy, and both the Green Party and the United Party’s support of the government’s transport policy.”

    Hon Pete Hodgson Minister of Transport

    End – of quote;

    Pete Hodgson refers to the transport emissions as being a major issue, and that half of our climate change emissions come from transport (over 46%).

    Pete Hodgson produced a ‘dedicated rail policy’ to lower the increasing transport emissions.

    By reducing road freight use was a positive goal, as road freight uses over five times the energy to transport the same amount of freight as rail does per tonne per km.

    Point 2/

    This year in February 2018 the new Labour coalition Government revealed a hidden recently discovered important rail policy document that the last government produced under National’s Bill English in 2017 but failed to release.

    But this vitally important rail policy document was never released, under the last National Government, and should now be used also as the report clearly showed that Rail in NZ was of a great economic and environmental benefit that saved $1.5 Billion Dolllars per year already and there is potential that using far more rail will benefit our climate and environment and economy if used in a more regional planned policy.


    Safety benefits Another important benefit of rail is the safety benefits of moving both freight and passengers by rail instead of roads. The safety benefit of rail is estimated to be approximately $68.78m to $60.21m. This study has calculated benefits by transferring rail passengers and freight to light vehicles and trucks and applying factors from Ministry of Transport (MoT) to estimate the extra safety incident costs and subtracting the costs of existing safety incidents on the rail network. This represents the avoided safety cost of the rail network. The net safety benefit (avoided cost) of passenger rail is $8.28m to $3.97m and for freight rail it is $60.50m to $56.24m, even though the number of incidents is similar showing that transporting goods using heavy vehicles is more dangerous than rail.


    Emissions benefits The total emission cost figure represents avoided costs from transporting freight and passengers by rail and hence for this study it also represents the value of emission benefits. The estimated extra avoided cost (therefore benefits) of emissions created from moving Auckland and Wellington rail passengers and rail freight to road is $9.27m to $8.45m. This is a net figure and the emission savings arising from discontinued use of freight trains locomotives have been subtracted from the gross total. A modest proportion of the emission benefits is from the transfer of passenger services from road to rail with the largest amount of this net extra avoided cost arising from rail freight.

    • +100 CLEANGREEN


      Q: When is a greenie not a greenie?

      A: When a greenie is a member of the ….. Party

  5. When Winston suggested New Zealand should try to open up new export opportunities with Russia he was decried as a traitor, appeaser and a madman.

    Let’s look at how many things Russia’s been accused of that China does too:

    Q1) Is China controlled by an unelected “Emperor for Life” like Russia?
    A: Yep.

    Q2) Does China brutally suppress all dissent, commit gross human rights violations and kidnap and murder dissidents on foreign soil like Russia?
    A: It sure does.

    Q3) Is China a hugely corrupt, kleptocratic one-party state like Russia?
    A: Undoubtedly.

    Q4) Has China illegally annexed territory that doesn’t belong to it and subjugated the rightful inhabitants the same as Russia?
    A: Of course it has. It’s even trying to annex an entire sea which it has absolutely no legal rights to.

    Q: So can New Zealand have trade talks with Russia to ensure that its export “eggs aren’t all in one basket?”
    A: Of course not! We should never be complicit with Russia’s crimes!

    Q: But New Zealand’s trade with the far worse Chinese government is quite alright though?
    A: Absolutely! You must be a racist or xenophobe to even suggest such a thing!

    • Most of your observations are undisputed in re China , but in serious doubt in re Russia.
      D J S

  6. If they carry on as this, the Greens will be buried a political grave same as the Alliance has been buried under years ago.

  7. Looks like one of National’s 2020 election strategies of creating a blue-green coalition partner is happening of it’s own volition.
    As has been noted elsewhere on TBD, the Left has non-existent representation in this current Parliament.
    Not only is Neoliberalism a spectacular failure, but more broadly, evidence is mounting that Capitalism is crashing and burning. The inevitable gap between rich and poor has become a growing yawning chasm, and environmental destruction has us in the 6th great extinction event in this planets known history.
    But no political party in the current Parliament represents any alternative. They all espouse playing by the current set of rules. Even the Greens it seems 🙁

  8. I think the Greens are struggling a bit in the MMP environment. Based on all the noise from many NZders many of us still don’t realise compromise is inevitable when three parties rule. The Maori parties demise was due to them having very little power with Act and United able to prop the right up all the time. But 2 of these parties are gone and until the smaller parties can get more votes they will always suffer and have to make compromises and this includes upholding the laws. Saying one thing and doing another is fine because we need to remember what you say during the election cannot always be delivered unless you have the numbers. As long as those elected try to do there very best for their constituents really you cannot ask for anymore.

    • Michelle! If doing your “very best” isn’t good enough, don’t let them off the hook. If they are so hopeless that they couldn’t have figured a way to stall, and eventually put the kibosh on, then they might as well sail off into the horizon and disappear. They are supposed to be politicians!

      What they need now is more of the brutal flame-torch to the belly that Martyn has been applying; not wishy-washy excuses for pathetic behaviour.

  9. I am disappointed in the Greens.

    At the very least, they should have been able to postpone this decision.

  10. The list of N.Z. political butt kissers currying favour with the despots of the “brave new world” is growing.

  11. Who is advising Eugenie Sage?
    Public officials? Her own team? Her caucus colleagues? Her coalition partners?
    Or, is she doing it on her own?

    If the latter, she needs a talking to.
    If the former, oh dear.

  12. NO TIME LEFT FOR WEEK WILLED COMPROMISE. We’ll need to be smart, tough & resilient to survive the shit storm that’s coming our way. Only a radical green/red war footing like NATIONAL SALVATION GOVERNMENT will bring about the transitional change that’s urgently needed. If we don’t STAND TALL ~ DREAM BIG & TAKE UNILATERAL ACTION we’re DOOMED. Away with wishy washy liberal democracy, ban political parties & purge our nation of the neo-liberal 5th column traitors & the influential foreigners who’ve got our nation by the short & curlies.

  13. There is no longer any party worth voting for in NZ if the Greens carry on like this. Where is their integrity? Unbelievable.

  14. Problem is most of these plants are fully automated and require very few human beings.

    Look what happened when Coca Cola Amatil in Mt Wellington automated it’s plant in Mt Wellington, they made most of their people redundant.

    It would be interesting to see their labour projection’s for the next 20 years ?

    The artesian water in these aquifiers are 100 years old filtered through the soil, why do New Zealand companies not do this ?

    Excuse my ignorance but I am confused on this issue ?

  15. It strikes me that the Greens are starting to resemble more and more the Progressive Greens.
    Remember them?
    The short-lived hyped up so-called “Greens alternative” that popped up in the 1990s and was mockingly described by the media as “ACT with a green face”.
    Talking of ACT.
    David Seymour has all but admitted that ACT’s policies have been crap and a new direction will soon be announced including a possible name change.
    Maybe the Progressive Greens???
    I may be wrong but I think more than one of the top brass of the Progressive Greens have subsequently become climate change denialists.
    In that case the PGs label might well suit the new-look ACT party.
    I was prepared initially to give the Greens minister the benefit of the doubt regarding the about turn on free water giveaways, but satisfactory explanations have not been forthcoming.
    Now I am pissed off!
    I game them my party vote for the first time last year.
    It might well be the last time too.

  16. No excuses for Sage and the greens. It’s our country their gross incompetence is giving away.

    Labour better start work on a hard left coalition partner for next election or they will resemble the Nats more than they already do.
    Perhaps I’ll just vote National, at least they don’t lie about being globalist neoliberal sellouts.

Comments are closed.