Hard News by Russell Brown

About 5am yesterday, I got out of bed to fetch a drink of water from the tap and noticed that there was not much water to be had. "Bugger," I thought, watching a thin stream trickle into the glass, then drank it and went back to bed, expecting that by the time we got up for breakfast the water would be right off. It was.

Point Chevalier might be hot in the real estate market, but its infrastructure is, in places, well past best-before date. Electricity goes out for various reasons several times a year. It was a huge relief to be able to farewell the old paper-insulated copper network when fibre came to our street last year. (We lost internet for nearly two weeks once when a Watercare digger broke a pipe, flooded Chorus's duct and got the paper all wet.) A fix for the water network is taking a little longer.

The ageing main that runs up the east side of Moa Road started breaching maybe five years ago, and every time it does, it's basically the same: water bursts through the grass verge and floods, a couple of Watercare trucks eventually arive, the "Oasis" trailer dispenses big bottles of water to anyone who asks – and no one knows what the hell is going on.

Watercare Services has no social media presence, even on weekdays, so there's no one to ask on the internet. The contact page on the Watercare website says "In an emergency, check our updates page," which invariably has no updates. There's a free text service, which my partner tried. It came back with this hilarious message:

Thank you for your text. We will respond to your fault enquiry within an hour between the hours of 8am - 5pm Monday to Friday. Please call us 09 442 2222 if it's outside these hours.

Yes, it really does say they'll respond within an hour – just as soon as everyone's back in the office tomorrow. And while the date stamp on the reply is 8.55am, it did not actally arrive until after 1pm. We're still waiting for an actual reply.

To be fair, there is a phone number there on the page, and an operator did answer – but even she had to go away and ask for an answer to my question as to when we might be enjoying the benefits of running water. She said 1.30pm, but when I poppped around the corner at 1.30, Watercare's latest hole was still a hole.

I engaged one of the chaps on site and he said he thought they weren't too far off. I asked him when Watercare might just cut to the chase and replace the whole, crumbling pipe down the east side of Moa Road, he said he thought we might have a fix before too long: "But you didn't hear that from me."

To be fair, we don't hear that from anyone. When I first started complaining on Twitter about Watercare's inability to communicate a couple of years ago, they actually sent a chap around to see me personally and show me some maps. When I pointed out to him that this wasn't a very efficient way to communicate with the public, he agreed.

He explained that although the Moa Road main was breaching regularly, it had not met Watercare's benchmark formula for replacement. But a short part of the main was in the work schedule for the following year. This short stretch was indeed replaced, and the laws of physics being what they are, the pipe soon started breaching further up the road.

Another local resident, Jonathan Mayo, has a similar story. He was put in touch with a Watercare engineer after complaining to Peter Haynes, the chair of the Albert Eden local board. The engineer told him on October 19 that there would be a new main in the first half of next year – but on the west side.

In the 10 days since the email there have been two breaches on Moa Road and one around the corner in Walmer. Jonathan has filed a LGOIMA request to find out how many times in the past five years repair crews have been dispatched to our neighbourhood.

Now, okay, maybe we just have to wait. But the fact that this fairly important information seems to be shared exclusively in private conversations between Watercare engineers and those of us who complain sufficiently loudly is farcical.

And yet, according to Bernard Orsman in the Herald, Watercare is a champ at communications precisely because it spends so little money communicating:

Salary costs rose by 104.5 per cent at Panuku Development Auckland, which was formed in September 2015 from the merger of Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Property Ltd.

By comparison, salary costs at one of the biggest CCOs, Watercare, rose by a modest 8.5 per cent over four years. Watercare has a small FTE team of 8.5 communications staff.

Simon Wilson addresses the Herald story at The Spinoff this morning, in a column that opens thus:

The water went off in parts of Auckland yesterday. But Watercare didn’t post anything about it on its website and it put out no information on social media because, incredibly, it doesn’t do social media. Watercare made almost no effort to tell its customers what was going on.

Yes, that was us. 

Wilson makes a point that always needs making: "communications" ≠ "spin doctors". It covers community consulation, council websites, mailers and the kind of information you'd expect to have if you and hundreds of others happened to lose running water.

He continues, in a section headed 'Watercare: The secrecy is scary':

Watercare, the council-controlled organisation that runs our water and sewage systems, has a comms budget of only $1.5 million, according to the review. But that’s not a good thing. Watercare has very few comms staff and it does little to engage. Internally at council, it doesn’t even bother to attend the regular meetings of council communications units, whose purpose is to help them all work together.

It’s not just problems like the water stoppage in Pt Chev this weekend. Remember the water crisis in March this year, when heavy rain silted up the Ardmore dam and the whole city was in danger of having to boil water? Watercare ignored offers of help from the council’s other comms units and engaged external PR consultants to help out. That led to lack of public information, inconsistencies in what we were told and other problems, all of which Todd Niall at RNZ covered here.

Yes, even during a citywide water quality crisis, Watercare, a council-controlled organisation, went out of its way to  avoid conventional public communications. It did install an electronic sign up at the Meola Road roundabout to tell us all to save water.  Wilson thinks this odd culture might be a legacy of Watercare's former CEO Mark Ford, who "famously kept as low a profile as he could manage, for himself and for the places he worked."

I'm often quite puzzled by what does and doesn't constitute a local story. Perhaps because it wasn't a public transport initiative, the multi-million-dollar bungle with the "dead" lane on the St Lukes interchange never seems to have registered as a headline. Treating the communications spending of the council and its various entities solely as something to be limited as far as possible doesn't make a lot of sense either.

I'm aware that budgets are limited and that there is a formula for prioritisting works, and, again, that maybe we do just have to wait. But it seems frankly absurd that both short and long-term information on something so basic as the security of our water supply should be so difficult to come by.

I guess that this post might earn me a personal communication from the Maintenance Planning and Development Engineer, as it did Joanthan. But I don't want that. I want all the relevant information compiled and published on a website where all the affected residents can read it. And when the east-side main breaches again, as it surely will, I'd like to be able to go to a Watercare social media account, or the Watercare website, and find relevant and timely information on the fault and when it's likely to be remedied. How hard could that be?

One of the interesting – and challenging – things about urban music festivals is the way they interpret their environments. Promoters have to consider not only where people goes, but where sound goes. And then they have to get the whole lot signed off by council.

It doesn't always work out: witness the infamous back-to-back stage at the first Auckland Laneway in Britomart Square. And when promoters do work out a site and get all the necessary consents, they tend to like to stay there as long as possible. Laneway, for example, will be hoping to make Albert Park home for years to come.

Sometimes, festival sites get tired or out of step with what the audience wants – as Mt Smart Stadium did for the Big Day Out. When promoter Campbell Smith took the BDO to Western Springs park for its last hurrah in 2014, the new environent changed the whole feel of the festival. The evolution continued with its successor, Auckland City Limits in 2016, where the extra space available meant the event could cater for a group of punters long left out – kids.

As it does at Splore, the presence of children onsite created a welcome moderating influence on adult behaviour – and the compromise on alcohol licensing which allowed everyone to roam the site with a mid-strength beer worked pretty well.

ACL didn't happen this year because Smith couldn't get a lineup he was happy with – and as this Herald interview indicates, Smith was counting his blessings as he watched torrential rain on what would have been his show day. But it's back next year, on March 3. 

I had a chat with ACL's event manager Etienne "ET" Marais and he confirmed that the mid-strength approach will be a feature again at 2018's event. And that they'll be working hard to improve the capacity of bar and toilet facilities. (Liquid in and out is another challenge for festival managers.)

The site will operate much as it did in 2016, but Etienne says there will be a few surprise features.

One thing that makes life easier for promoters these days is modern PA systems, which are much better at directing sound where it's wanted. The fact that ACL's outer stages can be right on the site boundary but stay within noise limits (which will actually be slightly higher for 2018) is remarkable. "Bleed is barely an issue any more," agreed Etienne.

They're looking for ACL to be an annual fixture at the Springs for years to come. Given this week's Auckland transport announcements, one day you'll be able to arrive right at the gate of the stadium by light rail. This is a very cool thought.

But for now – that 2018 lineup! As had been widely rumoured, Grace Jones will headline alongside Beck and the bill also includes Justice, The Libertines and Thundercat. (In an extra bonus, ACL no longer clashes with Womad.) I am very up for this one.

And because we're here to help at Friday Music, I have a double pass to Auckland City Limits to give away today. Just click the email icon at the bottom of this post, put "ACL" in the subject line and I'll draw a winner on Sunday.

–––

Meanwhile, the summer festival action keeps coming.

As previously noted, if you're in Auckland on New Years Eve, you have access to an excellent local lineup at Wondergarden down at Silo Park and you can still get home for a quite dram and a sleep in your own bed afterwards.

One the same night, Rhythm 'n' Vines has Schoolboy Q, 2ManyDJs and Felix Da Housecat alongside a couple of acts (Baauer, eeww) I'd pay money to avoid. But I get that it's not for me.

Womad's full lineup is out and includes Adrian Sherwood, Kamasi Washington and Thievery Corporation. No word on any sideshows for Mr Sherwood, but Kamasi is playing what will surely be a sellout at the Powerstation on March 16 (tickets went on sale for that this morning).

And if sitting comortably is your thing, the New Zealand Festival in Wellington in March has what looks like its strongest-ever contemporary music lineup, with Grizzly Bear, Perfume Genius, Thundercat and an array of local offerings including Nathan Haines and a Lawrence Araba-Luke Buda-Samuel Flynn Scott special.

–––

If you ever loved Garageland, listen to this:

Galveston is the new project from Garageland's Jeremy Eade and that's Jeremy's first single release in 16 years. (Yes, the name does come from the song Jimmy Webb wrote for Glenn Campbell.)

And if you live thereabouts, be aware that Galveston are playing a free gig tomorrow night at the Grey Lynn RSC, 3 Francis St. Support is Ocean Beach and the doors open at 8pm.

–––

There are two notable DJ shows coming up in Auckland. One is tonight, when Aussie nu disco king Dr Packer plays Impala.

And the other, on December 2 at Galatos, is massive. Andrew Weatherall is playing. Everything I have read and heard about Weatherall's recent shows says this will be an amazing evening. And it's not a big venue, so you'd best be getting a ticket.

–––

If you're interested in how the music business is working, this week's World Independent Network Wintel 2017 World Independent Market Report is a good read. It confirms that overall recording revenue is growing again – and also indicates that independent companies' share of that revenue increased slightly in 2016:

It is entirely down to streaming that the global recorded music market enjoyed its second consecutive year of growth (5.9%) in 2016. Prior to 2015 it had endured 15 years of decline.

Measured in isolation, streaming grew 60.4% in 2016. It now accounts for 59% of all digital revenues, whilst digital as a whole now accounts
for 50% of the total market.

Independent label streaming revenues grew by 80.4% in 2016, reaching $2.1 billion, up from $1.2 billion in 2015. This growth was slightly greater than the 78% by which the entire market grew, so independent label market share of streaming revenues increased by 0.6%, up from 39.4% to 40% over the same period.

Given that it looked for a while that the three majors, who have not been shy about using their leverage in negotiating digital revenue deals, would shut everyone else out, this is significant. It's also important to note that all these figures are based on rights ownership, not who distributes the recordings.

Also worth a look: Digital Music News has a look at who pays what in the streaming world. We already knew that YouTube offers the highest number of streams and the lowest rate per stream – but it's something of a surprise (or an irony) that the best deal for rights owners comes from the revamped Napster.

The chart – there's a big version at the link above –  also includes available information on which services are losing the most money (none of them are actually making money). Indeed, for Google and Apple at least, losing money is part of the business plan. It's a fucking brutal business to be in for that reason.

–––

Julia Deans has a nice new Greg Page-directed video for 'Walking in the Sun' – which also happens to work as a brilliant showcase for Julia's Tanya Carlson wardrobe.

–––

95bFM's Out on the Freak series aims to get the station's brand – and music – out into parts of Auckland where the kids are listening but don't usually have the chance to grab a hold of anything. Here's SWIDT doing 'Stoneyhunga' at a free, all-ages gig outside the Onehunga Community Centre. If I was 15 years old and got to see this I think I'd remember it for the rest of my life:

–––

This forthcoming documentary on the birth of Detroit techo looks like it's going to ruffle some feathers ...

–––

Tunes!

I haven't delivered much in the way of freely downloadable dancing gear of late, but I'm fixing that right now. This Petko edit of the Dennis Edwards classic just dreamy:

Mark Rae keeps on delivering. This "acid hip hop" tune is a banger:

I have no idea what Shanty Town this might be the theme from, but it's some proper disco delight:

And a very nice house tune ...

Again, all these are free downloads, requiring various degrees of mucking about with Hypeddit. Worth it, I reckon.

Given the sheer number of issues canvassed in the twin media conferences that accompanied the signing of the new government's coalition and support agreements, it's understandable that the cannabis referendum and drug law reform in general haven't had a lot of air since. But we did learn a couple of things yesterday.

The first is that the referendum will not be binding. The second is that the question or questions put to the public are yet to be determined.

The relevant passage comes here in the Ardern-Shaw press conference in answer to a question about whether Labour will support the decriminlaisation or legalisation of cannabis if that is the result of the referendum. Ardern fairly leaps on it.

What we've said is that we absolutely believe and agree with the Green Party that it's time to take this to the public. They advocated strongly for that in our negotiation. It wasn't something we campaigned on, it is something the Green Party brought to the table. We agreed that what we're doing now simply isn't working. So we've said yes to having that referendum.

We expect that we'll have a process in the lead-up to formulating the question that allows the public to engage in debate. And we expect also to use that public debate to input into the development of the question itself and potentially into any proposals we'll take to the public for them to vote on. That will be a very public-facing process.

Again, we've left ... ah, these issues generally have always been a conscience vote for our members, but I'm sure they'll be heavily guided by what the view of New Zealanders comes back as.

On a question about making medicinal cannabis available to New Zealanders.

Yes, absolutely. We share a commitment on that that issue.

Ironically, the unequivocal second answer tells us less than the mildly hedged first one.

The confirmation that the referendum will not be binding will undoubtedly come as a disappointment to many advocates, but it's not all bad. What it does do is shift a key element of the policy debate.

The actual wording of the support agreement commits both parties to:

Increase funding for alcohol and drug addiction services and ensure drug use is treated as a health issue, and have a referendum on legalising the personal use of cannabis at, or by, the 2020 general election.

The first half of that sentence is very welcome – and the second is a fairly vague proposition. Does "legalising personal use" mean producing and supplying cannabis would remain illegal, but it would not be an offence to possess it? Or does it mean legalising and regulating the production and supply of cannabis?

I think it's safe to say the words in the coalition agreement will not be those on the referendum. It's not unlikely that the public could be presented with more than one option, perhaps in a two-step process.

What that means is that there is everything to argue for before the question or questions are even drawn up.

That argument has already begun. University of Waikato law professor Alexander Gillespie writes in a Dominion Post column that a refendum is the right way to enact change and harks back to a "New Zealand tradition" of direct democracy around the regulation of alcohol.

He argues that there are three options: the status quo, decriminalisation ("by which the user is kept innocent, but the product, illegal") and legalisation and regulation. In truth, there are many options within those options. Home growing, cannabis clubs like those in Europe (which are an idea worth considering), a state monopoly, some facsimile of alcohol regulation, which shifts part of the burden to local authorities, or a regulatory framework that endeavours to avoid the mistakes made with alcohol.

Gillespie argues that "the exemplar of this approach is the United States, where the citizens of 16 individual states have voted to legalise cannabis for medical and/or recreational uses."

The US is not really a useful exemplar. There are 29 states that that, on the face of it, allow for medical marijuana, but some of those allow only CBD products, while at the other end of the scale, California's medpot regime has been so loose as to virtually amount to legalisation for any use.

Even the eight states that have legalised recreational use represent a variety of approaches. Colorado and Oregon have similar systems, allowing for commercial prodction and sale, but leaving it up to individual counties to decide whether or not to allow dispensaries to operate. Washington State's system is more restrictive and makes it an offence to hold more than an ounce of weed at home or grow your own without a medical licence. Washington DC is generous about home-growing but forbids commerce. Alaska allows dispensaries but imposes a $10,000 fine on anyone carrying more than an ounce – and a $50,000 fine (or five years in jail!) on anyone who strays within 150 metres of a school or recreational centre with even a crumb of pot on their person. Maine, Nevada and California are still working out what their rules will be.

Moreover, these are all state initiatives and we're talking about national law reform. As I've noted before, where we could and should look is Canada, a liberal democracy that has embarked on a cautious, informed legalisation process. Even there, regulations will differ from state to state when legalisation happens in July next year. Central government law sets a minimum age limit of 18, but Ontario is going for 19 – and, in an unpopular move, a state government monopoly on sales. All states are still working through impairment testing for drivers.

The key thing is, there's a process. In July, I met Anne McLellan, the former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister who led the task force that began that process. I think it's a very safe bet she'll be invited back her to share what they've learned. Among the US states, the authorities in Colorado seem the most responsive and thoughtful and I expect we'll hear from them too. This week's comments to Canadian media from the state's Chief Medical Officer are useful.

As regards the medical question: Labour's medical cannabis policy isn't as good as the party thinks it is. It requires that doctors and official not deny medical prescription to anyone who needs it, but it doesn't deal with the prohibitive cost of prescribing imported products, have anything to say about domestic production or countenance home growing. It's even conceivable that Labour could tank Julie Anne Genter's private member's bill at select committee. There are plenty of questions there.

One thing the new goverment could usefully do is give some clearer direction to police about "green fairy" prosecutions. Rose Renton was in court last week facing charges over growing and producing high-CBD cannabis products (a balm and brownies) which are only minimally psychoactive and pose little or no risk to health. That's crazy and cruel. And, when it takes away resources from addressing predatory dealing in much more harmful drugs, actually nonsensical.

It's going to be an interesting three years. Norml president Chris Fowlie wrote a good post for the Daily Blog on the road ahead for cannabis reform advocates and how to frame questions and get results. He won't be alone in thinking about this stuff. The New Zealand Drug Foundation is already taking its model drug law on the road to start the conversation.

It's a conversation we've needed to have for a while. The one demanded by statements about drug use being a health not a criminal issue and by the Prime Minister's words yesterday about how "what we're doing now simply isn't working". Let's be having it.

Normally on a Tuesday morning, I wouldn't be here at my screen. I'd be at the table at Top Shelf Productions for the weekly editorial meeting where we work out what we'll do for the next week's Media Take. But I'm not, because last night we recorded the final episode of the show. There won't be any more Media Take.

Media Take is the third iteration of a programme that began as Media7 on TVNZ 7, where it ran for the five years the channel existed. But while its successor, Media3, was basically Media7 on a commercial channel with a less experienced commissioner, Media Take was always something different.

It was a bicultural show. It takes a second to say the word, but it took us a while after we launched in 2014 to work out what the word meant for us. And I had a co-host: Toi Kai Rākau Iti.

The show had arrived at Māori Television amid politics that were not of our   own making, but in which we were inescapably bound up. We'd been signed off by the former CEO, Jim Mather, who was a friend of our previous productions, but we arrived under new management. The backlash that followed Native Affairs' reporting on the Kohanga Reo National Trust was playing out and some prominent journalists were heading for the exits. And here was us, arriving into it all.

It was tense at times, and it would be fair to say that Toi and I were a little wary of each other. But when we first sat down together in front of the cameras, something became evident: whatever else was going on, Toi and I had chemistry.

And eventually, that chemistry was harnessed into an unusual arrangement:  Toi and I would be together on camera the whole time, and we would jointly conduct all the interviews and panel discussions. There's a reason this format is unusual: it's bloody hard to pull off. I'd only seen it once before, when Guy Espiner and Duncan Garner would team up for an interview at the end of 3rd Degree, and it was terrible.

But the first time Toi and I did it, I don't think we stepped on each other once. We immediately seemed to have a sense of who should speak next, who should lead on a particular take, who should sit back for a bit. It strengthened our relationship, because we relied on each other constantly.

As Phil Wallington, my producer since 2008, suffered health problems and eventually stepped back to advise from the Horowhenua, I became the only journalist on the show. That was frustrating sometimes, and that and the demands of our bicultural mandate meant that often we weren't really a media show at all, but something ... different. At its best – like our show on Māori and the prison system earlier this year, where Tricia Walsh told her story – that something was unique and valuable.

I'm pleased that the last 10 weeks of Media Take, covering a remarkable election campaign and its aftermath, were our strongest period. It's nice to finish feeling you're doing your best work, and I found it very rewarding being part of a Māori political korero every week. Being accepted into that conversation was gratifying and fun.

And really, working in a Māori environment is the privilege I'll take away with me. I depart with a deeper understanding of a distinct Māori worldview. I use more of the reo than I used to, because these now seem the right and natural words for me to use. Ironically, I'm also more cautious with the language, because I know better how much I don't know.

But mostly, I've never worked on a project where I've learned so much from the people around me, simply through them being themselves.

Brioni Gray, who came to us as a shy researcher and grew into a producer. Eugene Carnachan, our researcher and a documentarian in his own right, whose contacts and understanding of various human networks would be the envy of any journalist, but who came from a whole other place. Tipare Iti, whose desire to get ordinary people's voices into the show reached fruition with this year's Alternative Flax feature.

On almost every show we recorded, Piripi Menary was the floor manager, Annie Jorgensen was the studio director and Ted Koopu was holding down Camera One. You don't always get that kind of continuity in a studio show and it was a pleasure getting to know them and their stories. I think a word is due also for Greg Mayor, who was with us only briefly in a rather-too-long line of network commissioners, but who played a vital role in sorting out our roles and identities. ("Russell needs to stop trying to be a white Māori and just be himself," he said, and that was quite liberating. I had been trying too hard.)

There were some pretty good Pakeha on the team too, of course. Including Phil, obviously, and our editor Paul Oremland, who retained his sweet disposition no matter how much work we threw at him. Top Shelf's Vincent Burke, who was always part of the process in a way most EPs aren't. And, because we rely on these people, our unflappable autocue operator Suzie Oliver.

You're probably wondering why we're finishing up. It's complicated, but it's no secret that after nine years of a funding freeze, the demands on NZ On Air's budget are only growing – and they do have to do new things. I understand that audience reach is a deliverable for them and that while we've done quite well this year, Māori Television does not reach many viewers. Basically, I'm grateful NZ On Air allowed the project to survive the defunding of TVNZ 7 in 2013.

Is there a next venture? It's possible, but for now I'd rather focus on closing  this chapter. I greatly appreciate that unlike our fellow TVNZ 7 lifeboaters at Back Benches (who made their last show the night before they got the bad news from NZ On Air), we've had the chance to say goodbye properly on tonight's show. The theme is "The Future".

Toi, meanwhile, will be focusing fully on his new role with Tuhoe, which he's been splitting with Media Take for the past two or three months. It's an inspiring kaupapa, one which aims to develop ways to harness Tuhoe's settlement money to build both business and social structures to look after its people, to make its marae meaningful, active places. I don't think he'd mind me saying that it's maybe not something the Toi of three years ago could have taken on. We all grow and learn.

I have too. More than most, this odd little show has been the product of the people who have made it. I really don't think it will be replicated. And I'm very glad I was there.

Ngā mihi nui. He waka eke noa.

–––

The final Media Take screens at 10.15pm tonight on Māori Television and features Julia Whaipooti, Leonie Hayden, Rachel Stewart and Dan Taipua. An additional "open floor" discussion will be available on demand here when the programme concludes and in an extended version of the show at 11.30am on Sunday.

Yesterday was not only the day a new government was announced. It was also the day that a new stocktake compiled by the Ministry for the Environment and Statistics New Zealand laid out the challenges posed to New Zealand by climate change and warned that our gross greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 24% since 1990.

While the report was notable for its detail and in places the urgency of its language, these are not new facts. Governments have seen this develop and, by and largely, done little to respond.

Yet in 2017, the public is very largely on board with climate change as a problem. Last week, the tenth annual Climate Change and Business Conference saw corporate leaders address the practical implications of global warming with a renewed frankness. Two months ago, a Victoria University study found that New Zealand media treatment of of the issue has improved and is largely in line with the scientific consensus as expressed in the IPCC report.

The problem, more than ever, is in our politics. So the "policy gains" that the leaders of the Green Party announced last night to their delegates are extremely significant. They are, according to the email that went out:

Significant climate action, with a shift towards a net zero carbon emissions economy by 2050. The specific focuses will be on: transport, energy, primary industries. The establishment of an Independent Climate Commission. Support for a shift in farming to more sustainable land use.

The shortfall in government also came up in this week's Media Take programme. It's a good show, on which we were joined by Peter Griffin of the Science Media Centre, Newsroom's evenironmengt editor Eloise Gibson, AUT's David Hall, Mike Smith, Huhana Smith and – talking about the Pacific Island experience, Alistar Kata and Kendall Hutt. The Pacific segment was the last one we added to the show, but it turned out to be the most profound. Pacific peoples who culturally define themselves through their land, are already beginning to lose that land.

There was one other sector that frustrated out commentators: agriculture. The farming lobby – and its intransigent press, which remains stubbornly outside the mainstream – continues to resist reform or, in many cases, even acknowledge a roblem. That lobby will not be happy with the prospect of meaningful action and it will resist that action strongly. It would be nice to think that a National Opposition will have the sense not to spend three years on a Fart Tax campaign, but that might be too hopeful.

Nonetheless, yesterday was a very auspicious day for this new government to be named. We can do this. It might not be easy. But it does feel as if suddenly we've started. You might say that yesterday, the climate changed.

The Media Take climate change special can be viewed here on demand and the 15-minute extended korero is here. Both parts will be packaged up into an extended show that will screen on Māori Television at 11.30am on Sunday.