by Russel Norman
The government has embarked on a collaborative goverance process in regard to freshwater. The form of this collaborative governance process, the Land and Water Forum, is basically a three sided process between irrigators, environmentalists, and iwi. It may be critical to the future of water management in our country.
I have supported a collaborative governance process. It makes sense to try to find a win-win solution if one is available. Labour was hopeless on cleaning up rivers and lakes so I am open to new ideas.
However, there are some worrying signs. While National, on the one hand, say that they support a collaborative governance process, on the other hand they are engaging in the rough stuff against the environment movement:
1. The changes to the RMA were designed to make it harder for environment groups to access the Environment Court (restrictions on access to Environment Court, which they lost in select committee, use of bonds, and big increases in Environment Court fees). It is the environmental NGOs who do a lot of the heavy lifting to protect rivers in our country via Resource Consent hearings and then Environment Court appeals – they are being tied up.
2. The PM is now on record saying that they will be pushing new large water storage sites in the South Island. This without the Land and Water Forum agreeing to such an approach, in fact the Forum has not reported at all.
3. The Minister for Agriculture David Carter has attacked Water Conservation Orders, the national parks for rivers. WCOs are fundamental to protecting rivers and the L&WF will never agree to their abolition.
4. Nats have attacked Fish and Game for trying to protect natural resources, and punished F&G by turning down their application to increase their licence fee. Carter has raised the option of taking away F&G’s statutory existence.
5. The Nats have announced an investigation into Environment Canterbury after irrigators complained that ECAN was getting in the way of dairy developments, and got district mayors to complain about ECAN. The Nats then appointed Wyatt Creech to run the investigation, even though Creech is a director of a convicted water polluter, Open Country Cheese.
No doubt there’s more.
So, on the one hand, they ask the environment movement to play nicely, to be reasonable and engage in a deliberative democratic process – all of which I think is very valuable. Meanwhile Nats use the rough stuff outside of the Land and Water Forum to rough up anyone that dares speak out to protect rivers. That’s not good faith.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Wed, November 25th, 2009
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Why are we forever giving them the benefit of the doubt? They rely on us doing it and constantly rabbit-punch us, as we grin gormlessly.
Tell me that I’m wrong, please!
Like or Dislike:
9 
1 (+8)
Well what can we expect? They are being quite duplicitous and deceitfull.
I can only offer one answer to a number of problems in dealing with this government.
VOTE THEM OUT!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
Perhaps you didn’t get the memo. The New Greens are “above” the left/right divide. National Ltd® can subsidise polluters, bash beneficiaries, spill the blood of our finest and bravest on behalf of US corporates, make a mockery of democracy, make jokes about killing polar bears, and legislate so employers can fire at will – but – only so long as we can turn up in our Lycra to sponge publicity off the opening of dead-end cycle tracks. Get with the programme.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
See more on this at the Wild Rivers website.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Greenfly, on what topic have we given them the benefit of the doubt?
BLiP, Labour did terrible things in the past and will the next time they are in govt. Are you saying the Green Party should only work with the lesser of two evils, or work with neither?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Valis – we are optimists, or at least behave like the forever-hopeful. In that mode, we are sitting ducks for ruthless behaviour from people who are well versed in that manner of business. Always turning the other cheek, always giving a second chance. I don’t propose that we become nasty and eye-for-an-eye them, but some pre-emptive striking of our own would take us from back-foot, where we so often seem to be, to front-foot, where we would be very effective and in the spot-light, where we need to be. All very vague, I know, but whadda ya reckon?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Vallis
By all means, the Greens should work with whomever it pleases. However, signing an MoU which provides an overarching greenwash to wider National Ltd® policies makes the Greens look like a joke. Ironic that Wuthel Da Muthel should be promoting the white ribbon event when his own party is behaving like it has the battered woman syndrome in its relationship with National Ltd®.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Our co-leader is Dutch?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Hehe!!
Nah, mait, eets werse than that, eee’s an Aussieee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Federated Farmers must be rolling in the aisles watching this page. With the ETS deal, they have just got the biggest subsidy from the Nats since SMPs: billions are involved. The Greens previous co-leader is doing puff pieces on their star farms. The present Greens leader (above) has done a great piece of political analysis. So now of course, Feds will just lie down and be nice guys.
They won’t. They have won every round so far under this government, and are not about to give up now. They will have you guys for breakfast and look round for the next course.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Greenfly, from my vantage point, we hit them everyday. We never seem to stop to the point that I’ve heard Greens say we’re too negative. There is in fact more than can be responded too. So I don’t know what you mean by turning the other cheek. I see the opposite.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Valis
Yet the Greens remain in the MoU. What’s the point?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
BLiP, just repeating your views on the MoU doesn’t answer the question. To be clear, any greenwash we’re providing National is dwarfed by what we provided Labour, who had a terrible record on the environment for most of their 9 years. So I’d still like your view on this matter:
BLiP, Labour did terrible things in the past and will the next time they are in govt. Are you saying the Green Party should only work with the lesser of two evils, or work with neither?
And what about you, Greenfly?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Valis
Yes, to its shame, the Labour Party treated the Greens abysmally. No, I am saying neither of those things. Are you saying the MoU is essential to working with National Ltd®?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Yes, to its shame, the Labour Party treated the Greens abysmally.
How Labour treated us is not the issue. They are in it for themselves, just like National.
No, I am saying neither of those things.
That doesn’t make sense. There are only four choices. Be willing to work with only one, only the other, neither or both. As you don’t like us working with the Nats, that removes two options, so I asked which of the other two you preferred. You can’t logically reject all four.
Are you saying the MoU is essential to working with National Ltd®?
In practical terms, yes, as making a difference to the outcome of policy development requires that you be able to work with officials and not just the Minister. You need to be “in the room” all the time, otherwise things go off the rails very quickly – the Minister in many cases doesn’t understand your goals, let alone have great desire to ensure they are met. This was true for Labour as well. Officials are not allowed to meet with other parties, so there needs to be a framework that gives them permission to do so and keep you in the paper loop, etc.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Valis – You said:
You might have missed it. I said above that, by all means, the Greens should work with whomever they please. My point is that the MoU is not an essential component to working with National Ltd®. It is, in effect, an impediment because it silences the Greens when negotiations are in progress, greenwashes wider National Ltd® policies, blunts any criticism, and makes the Greens look naive. Yet, your position is:
If that were true, then please explain: in what way did the MoU keep the Greens “in the room” with Brownlee?
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
You might have missed it. I said above that, by all means, the Greens should work with whomever they please.
Not only did I not miss it, I commented on it above. I assure you the Greens will work with whom they please. I’d like to know who you think we should work with. Not sure why that’s a difficult question.
My point is that the MoU is not an essential component to working with National Ltd®. It is, in effect, an impediment because it silences the Greens when negotiations are in progress,
Yes, negotiating the detail of things in public just doesn’t work. But remember, its NO DIFFERENT with Labour.
Aside from that, what would we actually need to say if things are going well? Jeanette negotiated with Brownlee on the insulation scheme and came up with something that aligned with our policy position. She didn’t need to speak out about it before it was ready to be announced.
greenwashes wider National Ltd® policies, blunts any criticism, and makes the Greens look naive.
These are not reasons that support your claim that an MoU is not needed to work with National. They are political considerations that, if true, would need to be balanced against the political reasons for working with them.
If that were true, then please explain: in what way did the MoU keep the Greens “in the room” with Brownlee?
Of course it didn’t with one item out of the four, as the MoU is only an agreement. Both sides have to act in good faith and Brownlee failed to do so with Energy Efficiency. That’s why it is no longer part of the MoU.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Valis
Okay. We are at an impasse. You believe the MoU is essential, I am of the opposite opinion. I don’t recall that there was an MoU with the Labour Party, was there? Has National Ltd® treated the Greens any better than Labour because of the MoU?
My reasons are real. The balance is wrong. All National Ltd® needs to do to silence the Greens on a topic covered by the MoU is go through the pretence of negotiations and then, as Brownlee did with the efficiency standards, carry on regardless. It wasn’t until “game over” that anything was said.
In relation to the home insulation – did the MoU keep the Green Party “in the room” during last week’s negotiations with the Maori Party, or are the Greens not allowed to say?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
I don’t recall that there was an MoU with the Labour Party, was there?
Goodness BLiP, we supported them on confidence and supply in the first term, abstained in the third and even had an agreement in the second when we voted against. All of these agreements went WAY farther than the MoU in all respects.
Yes, there’s a risk with any agreement that good faith engagement won’t follow the signing (though surely you can see that as a strategy for National, it wouldn’t be very effective for long and makes them look bad). I’ve been trying to say that its the same with Labour and ask if you’re happy with that, or if you’d prefer no engagement at all. I still don’t understand why you’re afraid to answer that question.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Valis
Implying that I am stupid and scared is just a little childish, don’t you think? I have answered your question three times but, here we go again:: the Greens may work with whomever the please; the method of engagement, however, should not weaken the Greens and make them look like a collection of numpties.
Can you please point out where I might find a copy of the MoU the Greens had with Labour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
OK, so it’s “either” then. My implication wasn’t that you’re stupid, but ignorant of how things work in Parliament, not that that’s a crime. You don’t like the MoU approach, which is at the very minimum level of formality possible to make the effort to reach policy agreements feasible. As past agreements with Labour went beyond this, the implication is that you wouldn’t support those as well. This then implies a practical barrier to working with either large party in any detailed way, and certainly would create an issue when Labour is next in a position to form a govt, but so be it.
Can’t find 1999, but the other two Labour agreements are here:
http://www.greens.org.nz/misc-documents/co-operation-agreement-between -labourprogressive-government-and-green-parliamentary-c
http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/labour-led-government-co-opera tion-agreement-greens
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Valis
Yes, alright, fair cop: I confess to significant ignorance when it comes to the minute machinations of parliamentary negotiations and related administrative tasks going forward. It had never crossed my tiny mind that there might be various levels in the forms of agreement for cross party bridge-building understandings. Sounds a bit like Scientology.
And, yes, fair cop: those written agreements with Labour make the current MoU with National Ltd® look like the tu’penny bog roll that it is. The policy initiatives in the 17 October 2003 are a remarkable account of the Greens ability to contribute to all of New Zealand. The mimimum wage, support for the retention of Maori seats, working for families, interest free student loans, Kiwisaver – icons, all. Six years later, the ETS is turned into a casino, the slow death of the pubic service by creeping privatisation beckons, the surveillance society is upon us, primary schools are reduced to number factories, and our government is about to commence the transfer of funds from New Zealand to international corporates so that they can put our prisoners in containers.
Maybe I’m exaggerating a fraction; a symptom of the visceral agony suffered watching the Greens give the presumption of good faith to such a Government. Its like watching a loved one pick the wrong partner.
If I was the boss, I would tell the Greens that the MoU with National Ltd® is now having a negative impact on the brand and its time for an achievements/costs audit. In fact, it would seem something of the sort is underway. Hasn’t it been heartening to see the MP’s so eloquent, good natured, having a good time excoriating National Ltd® in the House recently. Jeanette blew the whistle on that buffoon Browncaolie soon enough, yet she did it in such a way as to not “make scene”, or create victims. What a clever woman she is. Metiria has come alive in her new role. Finally, and in relation to the topic of the post, its heartening to see Norman deliver the National Ltd®’s bully-boy bullshit approach to our water resources the jolly good fisking that it deserves. Things are looking up.
And, yes alright – I choose the “lesser of the two evils”. Especially over the long haul.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
It’s probably worse
And, yes, fair cop: those written agreements with Labour make the current MoU with National Ltd® look like the tu’penny bog roll that it is.
I’m very pleased you see this now. It is difficult to talk constructively about what to do until people are on the same page.
The policy initiatives in the 17 October 2003 are a remarkable account of the Greens ability to contribute to all of New Zealand. The mimimum wage, support for the retention of Maori seats, working for families, interest free student loans, Kiwisaver – icons, all.
Yes, but notice nothing on the environment. We must admit to the greenwash we provided Labour for a long time, which I don’t think would happen again. At least they did do a reasonable amount of good stuff in other areas, as lot of which wouldn’t have passed without us.
Maybe I’m exaggerating a fraction; a symptom of the visceral agony suffered watching the Greens give the presumption of good faith to such a Government. Its like watching a loved one pick the wrong partner.
Its always a fair question and don’t think it isn’t debated a lot, but we do kick them a hundred times for every time we pat them on the head. And the insulation scheme, for instance, is every bit Jeanette’s idea, negotiated with two governments within a year. No way I think we should abandon that. And the fact that National got it largely right (with Jeanette’s input) is just a fact and one they deserve credit for, even though saying it sticks in my throat.
As for good faith, there is simply no choice but to give whoever you’re negotiating with a chance. That doesn’t mean you don’t watch your back for daggers. Remember, the Greens have been taught by Labour, who are absolutely no better in this regard.
If I was the boss, I would tell the Greens that the MoU with National Ltd® is now having a negative impact on the brand and its time for an achievements/costs audit. In fact, it would seem something of the sort is underway. Hasn’t it been heartening to see the MP’s so eloquent, good natured, having a good time excoriating National Ltd® in the House recently.
Any recent eloquence has nothing to do with the MoU. The MPs have always been completely free to say what they want and always have.
Jeanette blew the whistle on that buffoon Browncaolie soon enough, yet she did it in such a way as to not “make scene”, or create victims. What a clever woman she is. Metiria has come alive in her new role. Finally, and in relation to the topic of the post, its heartening to see Norman deliver the National Ltd®’s bully-boy bullshit approach to our water resources the jolly good fisking that it deserves. Things are looking up.
And, yes alright – I choose the “lesser of the two evils”. Especially over the long haul.
Thanks for coming clean with that! Nothing to be ashamed of. I feel the same way – within certain limits!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Hi to Everyone my name is Steve Levine and I live in York in the England. I have an active interest in the Environment and I love to build Solar Power For Cheap units which I do as a Part time job. I really look forward to talking to many of you in here soon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)