When it comes to New Zealand values, i feel like the only true NZ value that unites every Kiwi through race class and interests is our environment.
I mean really, it is how we sell alot of our products and certainly how we sell people on coming to our country.
Without our enivronment we could not have become middle earth.
Without our environment we would just be another agricultural nation rather than "clean green NZ"
Without our environment our children would not have the rivers to play in, seas to swim in and forests to hike in.
Yet, despite the desperate importance there is in protecting our environment. Despite our need to preserve our image as an environmental state, the NatLab coalition sees it merely as a resource or brand to be exploited.

The NatLabs rape of our environment  is a case of inter-generational theft.
What is inter-generational theft? I describe it as this:
The removal, destruction or privatisation of what was previously a public good to the point where it can never be revived or returned. This destruction would primarily or exclusively benefit the generation would had the power to enact it without any consideration or attempt to reimburse further generations for what was lost.

Though the NatLabs have over the course of their tenure have done much that would constitute inter-generational theft in this post we will deal only with the broad strokes of environmental politics in NZ. I wont be going into the particulars of percentages of rivers that are unsafe to swim in, let alone drink. I wont go into the ongoing efforts to drill off of our coast. I wont go into the over-nutrification of our soils. there are a thousand issue i could go into and in future i will have to. But right now, i'm going  to talk about culture.

In the eighties, early 90's NZ values started to be co-opted by American ones. Specifically the Neoliberal agenda of which we are currently fighting to remove. The Neoliberal agenda pushed a few broad ideological goals:
- That private industry would always out perform public industry.
This was for a number reasons. The primary being that if private companies had to compete with public industries, the public industries would always win as the government could legislate in their favour and pump them with taxpayer dollars.
This then meant that public industries did not have the same incentive to be as cost effective as a private industry would. Effectively, the government was enforcing a monopoly in whatever industry they created a company in. In a similar vein, because they were in place to serve the peoples needs rather than pressured by stakeholders to turn a profit, they would never be as profitable as a private industry and would sometimes run at a loss.
That, all being true, meant to Neoliberals the most obvious course of action to make industry in a country more profitable and cost effective was to privatise all public companies.

-To deregulate society.
The Neoliberal agenda posited that regulations were impeding the ability of companies to make profits with needless red-tape.