Opinion by Paul Revere
There are many issues and problems confronting New Zealand in terms of the environment and more particularly fishing -whether freshwater or saltwater – hunting and outdoor recreation generally such as access and its increasing fragility in the future, with the increasing dominance of corporatism, political utterances on selling assets such as public lands and the decreasing democratic rights of the people.
Sadly no-one seems to be proposing what we, individually and collectively, need to do about it.
The only solution I have to offer is POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT AND INFLUENCE.
The only solution I have to offer is POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT AND INFLUENCE.
The people elected to govern the rest of us are selected and promoted to represent the minority who are influential members and founders of the two current main political parties, i.e. National and Labour.
Those of the National party are upper class social, economic and political elites who want more money and ownership and control of the real assets of the nation.
Those of the Labour party are Modern or Neo-Marxists who want more political authority, power and control of our lives.
Dissenters who disagree with these upper class or Marxist Oligarchs have either given up participating in political parties or decided to start many new ones that do not really achieve anything.
Game of Thrones
Those of the National party are upper class social, economic and political elites who want more money and ownership and control of the real assets of the nation.
Those of the Labour party are Modern or Neo-Marxists who want more political authority, power and control of our lives.
Dissenters who disagree with these upper class or Marxist Oligarchs have either given up participating in political parties or decided to start many new ones that do not really achieve anything.
Game of Thrones
Politics was, is and always will be a GAME OF THRONES in which teams of people compete to see who they will put on the throne to rule the rest.
The game is adversarial, corrupt, cruel, dirty to discourage most people from participating in it.
Those who participate can win or lose the recurring matches but those who do not participate are always going to lose.
There are still just 2 main teams.
National with help from ACT and NZ First.
Labour with help from The Greens and Te Pati Maori.
There are around 13 other parties that are a waste of time and will never achieve anything. They are just tiny ponds for little frogs.
The good news is that none of these teams have very many actively involved and influential players.
They could all be successfully and stealthily infiltrated, disrupted and taken over by new players.
National, ACT and NZ1sdt would be more difficult to take over because they have more financial resources from wealthy “donors” that buy influence.
The Marist, “left”, Labour and Green parties do not have that money so would be a better takeover target.
Infiltration and disruption of Labour could restore it to represent the neglected productive working people who have no effective representation in government.
Infiltration and disruption of the Green could restore it to represent the people who understand the meaning of CONSERVATION as prevention of the waste of resources (human and natural).
The Myth of Democracy
Those who participate can win or lose the recurring matches but those who do not participate are always going to lose.
There are still just 2 main teams.
National with help from ACT and NZ First.
Labour with help from The Greens and Te Pati Maori.
There are around 13 other parties that are a waste of time and will never achieve anything. They are just tiny ponds for little frogs.
The good news is that none of these teams have very many actively involved and influential players.
They could all be successfully and stealthily infiltrated, disrupted and taken over by new players.
National, ACT and NZ1sdt would be more difficult to take over because they have more financial resources from wealthy “donors” that buy influence.
The Marist, “left”, Labour and Green parties do not have that money so would be a better takeover target.
Infiltration and disruption of Labour could restore it to represent the neglected productive working people who have no effective representation in government.
Infiltration and disruption of the Green could restore it to represent the people who understand the meaning of CONSERVATION as prevention of the waste of resources (human and natural).
The Myth of Democracy
Democracy is a myth perpetuated by allowing the masses to vote for people they do not know who are selected and promoted to be elected to represent a minority of people who are not known at all.
Elections are competitions between these teams called parties to please their existing fans and recruit new ones.
The fans are ordinary people who are deluded to believe that they win when their team does and do not understand that they are paying for a game they are only spectators of.
Most of these spectator, fans lose regardless of which team wins the elections.
In my opinion, people that care about productive workers and their creation of our nation’s wealth need to infiltrate, disrupt and take over the Labour Party.
People who really care about conservation of resources instead of wasting them need to do the same to the Green party..
People who just want the opportunity to become richer at the expense of the masses and the environment should stick with National and ACT.
The urgent need is about encouraging people to do more to gain some political influence and talk less about the problems caused by the minority that currently have that influence.
Elections are competitions between these teams called parties to please their existing fans and recruit new ones.
The fans are ordinary people who are deluded to believe that they win when their team does and do not understand that they are paying for a game they are only spectators of.
Most of these spectator, fans lose regardless of which team wins the elections.
In my opinion, people that care about productive workers and their creation of our nation’s wealth need to infiltrate, disrupt and take over the Labour Party.
People who really care about conservation of resources instead of wasting them need to do the same to the Green party..
People who just want the opportunity to become richer at the expense of the masses and the environment should stick with National and ACT.
The urgent need is about encouraging people to do more to gain some political influence and talk less about the problems caused by the minority that currently have that influence.
Public debate alone rarely shifts power. Influence grows when people move from commentary to membership, voting blocs, policy drafting, and internal party organisation. Complaining about outcomes without contesting the machinery that produces them guarantees repeat losses.
If outdoor recreation, access, hunting, and fishing are to be protected long-term, their supporters must treat politics as something to be participated in, not observed. Those who refuse to engage may retain moral clarity - but they forfeit leverage.
The influence of large environmental NGOs does not come from elections alone. It comes from discipline, continuity, and narrative control. These organisations maintain permanent advocacy structures, professional communications teams, and constant engagement with ministers, officials, and media.
Crucially, they frame issues in moral rather than technical terms - once an issue is moralised, opposing views are easily dismissed. Recreation groups often rely on reactive, volunteer-driven advocacy, which is effective in crises but weak against sustained, professional pressure.
Good points, John.
Political parties are not monoliths - they are small, thinly populated organisations with a surprisingly limited number of active members doing the real work. Candidate selection, policy committees, and internal conferences are usually dominated by those who show up consistently, not by the silent majority.
Recreationists who stay outside parties surrender influence by default. Those who join, organise locally, and persist over time can shape policy long before it ever reaches Parliament. Political influence is rarely dramatic - it is cumulative.
Exactly Charles. If you want to have any hope of influence, you need to get out and join a political party – preferably one with influence and a likelihood of being elected. Your voice will matter far more talking from the inside than shouting from the outside
“Politics is nothing more than cause and effect”. It’s naive – indeed stupid, indeed gutless – to think otherwise and to shun politics. Politics are where the threats to the outdoors come from.
Paul Revere has laid it on the line and I couldn’t agree more with the message and its candour. It’s the brutal reality. Wake up you slumbering guys and gals. Your fishing and hunting is going down the dunny. Get involved.
Calling political parties other than the neoliberal National Party and libertarian, Atlas Network influenced ACT “Marist,” which I assumed means “Marxist” doesn’t further intelligent, specific policy discussion.
Marxism is a complex term with a highly specific political and economic meaning, but using it thus arrests deeper thought and divides us into tribes. It’s a dog whistle here. Is it Marxist to believe in workplace health and safety standards, taxing the rich, or making quality education and healthcare within the reach of more people? Is it Marxist to want to better regulate freshwater policy and nitrate pollution?
As disappointed as many of us are in the Opposition parties, when you compare their policies to the Coalition’s Fast-track bill, Regulatory Standards bill or “reform” of the RMA and Fish and Game, it’s a no brainer. If you care about water and food that aren’t poisoned or a future that isn’t a threat, you can’t vote for this Coalition again. They’re 87 percent of the way to the MAGA movement.
Marist usually refers to catholic dogma such as education and pastoral care – maybe that term is correct for the current left parties. But if it’s a typo and should be Marxist, then if the cap fits etc. Seems quiet appropriate to me. The left have exhibited extreme left wing tendencies especially under Ardern and her group of “Comrades”, bordering on the worst extremes of marxism. They achieved nothing for the environment during their 6 years in office other than to close places like Marsden and send refining overseas actually increasing emissions globally and making us dependent on international markets and supplies, banning oil and gas exploration and again exporting pollution. Its as bad as the Poms converting a major power station to burning wood pellets harvested in the US, chipped and exported by oil burning road, rail and shipping to the UK then transported inland to Drax and burnt – all in the name of lowing emissions – now that’s a joke if ever I heard one. Sadly we now copy it with our energy imports!
That’s simply false. Though far from perfect, Labour set a much stricter standard for nitrate regulation, and it didn’t pull New Zealand out of the Paris Climate Accords. David Parker wrote the Water Conservation Order for the Mataura River. This government has gutted WCOs and Fish and Game. Parker capped synthetic Nitrogen use at 190 kg/ha/year and set 2.5 mg/L as the permissible nitrate level goal. Labour never gave a blank check to Dirty Dairy and Big Tobacco, nor did they let a Federated Farmers’ lobbyist like Andrew Hoggard be defacto Environment Minister.
If anything, the heavy handed way the Coalition picks winners and losers in the economy is much more Soviet: it’s a planned economy and a kleptocracy not that far off Putin’s Russia, in which 3 percent of the population gets to burn our collective natural capital.
Sustainable business isn’t a new concept. It’s 43 years old, at least, going back to the Brundtland Commission, and it’s the driving concept behind most Fortune 500 companies that aren’t selling tobacco or asbestos as their main product or service.
Name one policy of Labour of the Greens that fits the classic definition of Marxism. Have you even read Marx? I don’t think you have; you’re just using the term as a jingoistic cliche. If you offered this to a college economics or political philosophy class, you’d fail for the mental laziness displayed here.
You can’t keep voting for the bad guys who rape the rivers and aquifers and expect to be able to go to your local river for a swim, to walk your dog without it dying from toxic algae, or catch a salmon or trout. And yet you’re irritated when people point out the consequences of your choices or demand specific instances of policy you think National and ACT have gotten right.
You like the Fast-track bill, the Regulator Standards bill or the RMA “reform” bill? You like the firing of 300 employees from the Ministry of the Environment and Chris Bishop making himself more powerful than the prime minister? Constitutionally speaking, there is only one period in New Zealand history that compares with this Coalition’s fascism, and that’s the 1951 National Party’s suspension of habeas corpus when their thugs bludgeoned dock workers in the streets of Auckland. But this government’s suspension of democracy–as in the Select Committee process and input from scientists and other experts–will have enormous environmental consequences, and it’s simply a lie to say otherwise. Shame on you.
You think you know more than environmental and climate scientists and folks like Drs Mike Joy, Russell Death or researchers at the Public Health Communications Centre? Of course you don’t.
What do you hope to achieve with this misinformative line of rhetoric? It’s meaningless and strewn with false equivalency that discourages intellectual rigor or civic participation.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Here’s a chart comparing the difference between Labour and the Coalition on water pollution.
I’d give Labour a C but the Coalition an F. How would you grade their performances?
Freshwater Policy Chart
Casey, Thanks - you’ve highlighted something important. Political influence isn’t just about one issue or one election cycle: it’s about how we engage, where we focus our energy, and how consistently we show up. Saving the outdoors isn’t a single-issue campaign - it’s connected to cost of living, fiscal responsibility, immigration, rural economies, water quality, infrastructure, and government accountability.
Voters don’t experience policy in silos, and neither should our advocacy. We need to think beyond reactive commentary on individual decisions and build a broader, sustained strategy that recognises how all these issues interact in people’s lives. A deeper article exploring a cross-section of policies and how outdoor communities can influence them is overdue - and sounds as though CORANZ should be working on that next.
So Casey
Do you allude to Marx’s “metabolic rift” (the idea that capitalism alienates humans from natural systems) to argue that Marxism would support environmental care?
If so, the converse is oh so true in practice –
Where Marxism has been implemented as a system of government, environmental outcomes have consistently been poor to catastrophic.
Soviet Union: Massive industrial pollution, Rivers diverted and destroyed (e.g. Aral Sea, one of the worst environmental disasters in history), No public accountability, no independent science, no local consent, Nature treated as a resource to be conquered in service of production targets
Maoist China: Deforestation, soil collapse, famine, Environmental devastation driven by ideological campaigns (e.g. the “Four Pests” campaign), Science subordinated to political orthodoxy.
Warsaw Pact states: Severe air and water pollution, Industrial waste dumped with no regulation, Environmental data routinely suppressed
Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam: Chronic environmental degradation, Conservation subordinated to survival, production, or regime legitimacy, No meaningful public participation or challenge
In all cases, centralised power + ideological certainty + lack of dissent proved toxic to the environment.
In practice, Marxist systems perform poorly environmentally.
Closure of Marsden is a classic Marxist action that creates nothing but mayhem and environmental degredation
Once again, your statement is intellectually dishonest. I haven’t defended Marxism. You’ve created a jingoistic straw man to avoid the issue of how authoritarian and criminal the current Coalition is.
I just pointed out you don’t even know what Marxism means and have made no attempt to qualify it in context of a specific Labour or Greens policy. I’m a capitalist and a Democrat. I detest Russian and Chinese authoritarianism. Like the Dirty Dairy political machine here, they’ve seized the means of production and game the system for their cronies. Neither society is based on Marxist text.
You’ve also failed to answer my specific instances of bad Coalition policy that originates in rightwing American think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Atlas Network. There are tentacles in the current Coalition going back to Trump and Putin, and you’re an apologist for it, Comrade.
Access to clean source water is a fundamental human right arguably more basic than the right to healthcare, education, or civil rights. It’s also tied to intergenerational fairness, and if you don’t believe in that, you’re an utter nihilist with no moral principles. But at a more practical level, you can’t pollute your way into a First World economy. It undermines your brand and your social license. This Coalition is operating on nineteenth century Robber Baron principles.
There’s an important distinction being lost here that’s worth correcting.
Most of the policies being argued about - freshwater limits, planning rules, workplace safety, conservation law - are not Marxism in any meaningful political or economic sense. Marxism refers to a specific theory about ownership of the means of production and class struggle. None of the mainstream New Zealand parties are proposing that.
What is legitimate to debate is something different: centralisation of power, bureaucratic overreach, moral framing of policy that suppresses trade-offs, and weak accountability for outcomes. Those tendencies can appear under governments of any stripe, left or right, and they deserve scrutiny on their merits.
Invoking Marx, fascism, MAGA, Putin or Stalin may feel rhetorically satisfying, but it doesn’t help answer the practical questions this post raised:
How do people who care about fishing, hunting, access and the outdoors actually influence policy formation?
How do they engage early, consistently, and effectively inside political parties?
If we want influence rather than just noise, we’re better off arguing about process, evidence, incentives and results, not trading ideological labels that shut conversation down.
Let’s bring it back to how influence is gained - which was the point of the original article.
You can get people involved but most of them want instant results which never happens and they drop out fairly quickly. Apathy is a big contributor to many not taking part political organisations.
7 years of advocacy work ruined by an organization that has the ear pf Government pushing its own failed agenda.
Gaslight lobbying to strengthen for the better the legislated defense to public defecation, yet complain constantly about same…..
Lead a gullible newly elected Tourism Minister to draft and introduce a Bill that does nothing to support responsible camping nor to make campers responsible, and not even 4 months after the previous Tourism Minister (after 3 years consultation with a working group set up for the purpose) ruled out any changes to the permissive intent of the FCA, or given the voluntary self containment standard any legal ability (after decade of it being represented as having legal ability).
Good points, John.
My thoughts are not with what has happened in the past, as there has never been a stable situation, as we have not followed God’s law. What Trump is doing is bringing in God’s law, and very soon, we will be under this umbrella. What he is bringing back is common law, which in essence is to ‘Do no harm.”Don’t think for one minute that there will be elections that will suit everyone, and I doubt very much that there will be another election when we expect it. When Trump takes over, and he is going to take over, there has to be a new constitution written, as our democracy under the Westminster system has always turned to tyranny, as we have all witnessed with the last Labour Party. No Government in my lifetime has ever taken notice of our consituation which was written in the 1600’s. When we become a republic, it will do away with the changes each Government has brought in. Don’t think for one minute that Trump does not own us, as our Government is a corporation registered with Dunn and Bradstreet in the USA. No corporation needs the people’s votes, as voting just gives them consent. There has to be an election within 120 days from when the last one is retired. Who will govern in the interim? The military will, as the military looks after the people, as the police only look after the government
Gosh, the comments has got diverted. It has got bogged down in rambling political philosophy. Voters do not care about rhetoric. So let’s get back to the original article by Paul Revere. There is much to commend in Paul’s idea of getting to the roots of policy formation by joining a political party.
Other self interested organisations have done it so well.
The constant complaining, blaming and criticism about “the government” and people with political status and authority seems to be a complete waste of time to me.
Ok, I get the problem.
Do you have a solution that we can cooperate to implement?
Having more “outdoors people” actively involved and influential in one or more of the 5 “REAL” political parties is sensible and achievable but only if we do not expect SOMEONE ELSE to do it for us.
Active and influential party members decide party policies and which electorate and list candidates will be selected and supported.
Active members are necessary for successful election campaigns.
Less involved party members also have some influence because they can vote for local and nation al party officials and also help with campaigns.
Joining a political party does not get one invited to participate actively in local or other committees or groups. You have to offer to help and ask to be invited to these “secret” meetings.
Once “in” you have to behave agreeably and start learning how the organization operates and how its decisions are influenced.
Gaining political influence requires patience, discipline and diligence just like success in any other endeavor.
People say “I don’t have time to be actively involved in politics”.
They certainly seem to have plenty of time to waste ranting on social media.
Which party(s) to target?
Labour and the Greens seem like the most likely.
Both have gone all “Modern Marxist social justice warrior” and are losing support because of it.
New members could encourage a these parties to get back to caring for and representing the productive working people and conserving our national resources.
Is who comments here going to DO IT, or just keep talking about what someone else should do?
I have been following the comments and dismayed at the wandering political rhetoric.
Charlie Baycroft has pulled the debate back to a practical course from the ethereal out-in-space.
Thank you Charlie for commonsense. Lets get the debate back to Paul Revere’s original opinion piece please.
Charlie’s ideas of getting into political parties where policies are born is an area, the fishing and hunting public, and associated organisations, have ignored. It is not too late to start now, this year, before election year. But heed Charlie Baycroft’s advice.
I quote;-“Joining a political party does not get one invited to participate actively in local or other committees or groups. You have to offer to help and ask to be invited to these “secret” meetings.”
“Once “in” you have to behave agreeably and start learning how the organization operates and how its decisions are influenced.”
“Gaining political influence requires patience, discipline and diligence just like success in any other endeavour.”
Thank you James. It’s better late than never.