by frog
Yesterday Winston, unsurprisingly, made an ethnic and not so oblique reference to Australians, in response to Russel’s first question in the house. Today it became clear that what parliament has acquired is not just an Australian, but a Little Aussie Battler who is going to stand up for ordinary kiwis. Check out this exchange between Russel and the Minister of Agriculture over the Ministry’s attempted opposition to ensuring clean swimming water in the Manawatū-Wanganui region.
8. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: Why did the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry make a submission to Horizons Regional Council opposing a draft standard requiring all rivers and streams in the Manawatū-Wanganui region to be safe for swimming?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture): The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did no such thing. Its submission to the proposed plan of Horizons Regional Council was very supportive of the restoration of waterways. The section the member is concerned about starts by stating: “MAF supports the sustainable water programme of action outcome to improve the quality and efficiency of fresh water by building and enhancing partnerships.? Further on, the submission did state opposition to one clause in schedule D of the proposal, because of a concern that the ambition was unrealistic. These were technical measures that the ministry was commenting on. The submission was withdrawn some months ago, when this issue first came up. It was withdrawn because it was clear that this one clause was being misinterpreted as opposition to a general ambition—an ambition supported by the ministry—to make all waterways clean
Dr Russel Norman: Can the Minister confirm that the ministry’s submission was withdrawn only after pressure from the Green Party; and can he also confirm that its submission was identical in purpose to the Federated Farmers submission, both of them aiming to knock out exactly the same clause of the draft plan—that is, the clause that aimed to make rivers and streams safe for swimming?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: No, I cannot confirm that – in fact, I can confirm otherwise. The ministry’s submission was withdrawn after senior officials of the ministry determined that that particular clause was not being interpreted properly. I have here the full submission by the ministry. If there is any relationship between this submission and the Federated Farmers submission, I would be very surprised.
Dr Russel Norman: Has he received any advice that not only were the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Federated Farmers both singing from the same song sheet but also Landcorp, the Government’s own company, made a submission also trying to knock out this exact clause – the clause that is aimed at making our rivers safe for children to swim in?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have received no such advice, and if the member is going to be here for a little longer, he will discover that it would be surprising to any member of this House, and equally to the ministry and Federated Farmers, to know that we are both singing from the same song sheet.
Dr Russel Norman: Has he received any advice that the Landcorp submission stated “The values, management objectives, and methods used to determine water quality standards do not appear to have been formulated on the basis of robust analysis.?, which seems remarkably similar to the submission from the former Federated Farmers president, Charlie Pederson, which states: “The values, management objectives, and methods used to determine water quality standards do not appear to have been formulated on the basis of robust analysis.?; and has the Minister sought any advice as to why Federated Farmers and a State-owned enterprise are using exactly the same words in their submissions against clean rivers?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: It may come as a surprise to the member, but I have no ministerial responsibility for Landcorp, nor do I have any ministerial responsibility for Federated Farmers.
Dr Russel Norman: In light of this evidence of cooperation between Federated Farmers, Landcorp, and possibly even the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, does the Minister stand by his statement of 31 January: “Claims by the Green Party that the Government has been ‘hijacked’ by Federated Farmers over water policy are simply ridiculous?; and does he agree that if something looks like a hijack, smells like a hijack, and reads like a hijack, then maybe it really is a hijack?
Hon JIM ANDERTON: It would come as a complete surprise to Federated Farmers that the ministry has been hijacked by them, or they have been hijacked by us. I suggest to the member that he takes a little bit of quiet time after getting into Parliament, and breathes through his nose for a while and stops making cheap political points.
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Parliament | Video by frog on Wed, July 2nd, 2008
Tags: farmers, Federated Farmers, Frog, frogblog, green, green party, Jim Anderton, Manawatu, Minsitry of Agriculture, new zealand, Parliament, rivers, Russel Norman, streams, swimming, Wangnui, water
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Russel’s point is a bunclear. Landcorp and MAF are quite different: Landcorp is a big corporate farmer, and so it is not surprising that a large farming entity and Fed.Farmers may have joined heads to develop submissions. It certainly doesn’t smack of governmental corruption, although I do think that the government should take a more direct role in certain aspects of SOE’s corporate direction: as it turns out, I passionately deplore the diminishing water standards due to lax farming regulation. However Russel’s point was unsubstantive as it tried to pin this back to MAF. He should have got the message that he was barking up the wrong tree after a couple of times repeating the same question, but instead he had to be told to pull his head in by one of the most effective and impressive senior left-wing MPs. Not a good look.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Also, his constant mentioning of children was lame and smacked of Peter Dunne/ Bill English ‘02. There are lots of rivers in the country that have always been unsafe and always will be unsafe for children to swim in for various reasons. The wording of the clause sounds, as Anderton says, unrealistic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
11:02 should read * is a bit unclear *
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dag..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I completely agree with Ahuahu. Of course a farming company (Landcorp) would cooperate with THEIR OWN representative lobby group (Federated Farmers). If Fed Farmers was in cahoots with MAF that might be news, but Mr Norman produced no evidence to substantiate this claim, which was shot down very effectively by Mr Anderton.
All in all a rather embarrassing exchange for the Greens and your newest MP, and I have no idea what you hope to gain by drawing more attention to it, unless you personally dislike Mr Norman and are trying to discredit him. Give him a chance to get his feet, rather than reporting all his early blunders.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The only people who should be embarrassed are those who are working to keep our waterways polluted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SOEs, regardless of whether it earns them more money, have even less excuse to engage in unethical business behaviour.
I would’ve said the point is essentially that here we have a lobby group, SOE, and a state ministry all arguing against a provision in a bill that has wide popular support.
I’d also note that just because we can’t currently see a practical way to make every area safe for swimming does NOT mean we should avoid setting goals and incentives up to do so.
I think there was certainly a point here, and a good one, but like many senior Government ministers, Anderton is good at obfuscating points by deliberately confusing the issue. For instance, even if he doesn’t have direct ministerial responsibility, Landcorp and its business partices are clearly related to Agriculture policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The first point here is that the use of the same wording in the Landcorp submission and the Federated Farmers submission smacks of collusion.
Probably more importantly, it highlights the absence of any requirement in hte State Owned Enterprises Act for SOEs to act with environmental responsibility.
Strangely, they do have a statutory obligation under their Act to act with social responsibility, but no environmental responsibility. “You have to look after your workersm but you can stuff the environment as much as you want” is the rather unwholesome message that gives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve just updated this post by adding the video footage. Hope that adds to the theatre of the occasion!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog:
Thanks for the video footage. I saw it on parliament TV in the evening and frankly it came across like he made a fool of himself, I felt quite sorry for the guy, and it is obvious from the Ahuahu’s posts here that I am not the only one to feel this way. This is why I cannot understand you making such a big deal of it, and feel that doing so may damage his long-term prospects more than it helps. Stop highlighting the poor guy’s mistakes, let the issue die, and instead make a big deal over the next time he actually says something worthwhile.
toad:
There is nothing wrong with “collusion” (cooperation) between a farming company and their farming lobby group, just as there is nothing wrong with cooperation between workers and their union.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)