Among the list of organisations that have been invited to apply are organisations associated with projects that would destroy a pristine mountaintop and rip up the seafloor.
It includes organisations that have lost cases in the Environment, High and Supreme Courts, with proposals roundly rejected through prolonged court action.
One of the things I really dislike about NZ politics is the amount of hyperbole and over the top language used, from both sides of the aisle, and I very quickly lose interest in what someone has to say if they talk like that.
If what you’re saying is true, the truth of the matter is bad enough without them needing to exaggerate.
I’d call it an attempt to use persuasive/emoyive language, not an exaggeration.
I get what you’re saying though, and I think I understand it. Not just in politics either. I don’t like it when people seem to be telling me what to think - and in my career I always found it more effective to give people the facts and let them make up their own minds.
But, at the end of the day there is a factual reality and I think it would be a mistake to ignore it just because of how someone’s opinion on it is delivered.
Forest and Bird is a conservation group, it’s understandable they’re upset - with this bill we’re facing the very likely chance of extinction for some of our unique species e.g the rare frogs (which are super cool, have attributes that make them unique and unlike frogs in the rest of the world).
This isn’t just coming from them either, bizarrely Shane Jones keeps saying stuff about how he doesn’t care about frogs and they “must go” in his speeches in Parliament, so to me it’s pretty obvious that Oceana or Bathurst is going to be allowed to mine Conservation land that is the rare frog habitat.