This is standard ‘finger in the air, eyes down, look to Washington for a lead’ foreign policy of this Nation’s Government. The claim to bipartisanship is a throw-back to FPP days (conscious or subliminal?) where Labour and National share most foreign-policy DNA.  But we live in an MMP Parliament now, for 15 years in fact, and the Green global affairs policy is different from the sclerotic thought processes of these two aging parties.

The emerging doctrine of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) is the symbol of the transition from the ‘international relations’ approach to the ‘global affairs’ approach to world events.  The latter requires the UN Charter, and the thinking of nation-states, to get up to speed with the 21^st century, ensuring that the aspirations of the peoples of the world are taken into account in diplomatic statecraft at the UN.

The R2P doctrine emerged in response to the frustrations over the twin crises of the mid-90s – in Rwanda where UN inaction (‘very numerous killings…’) resulted in genocide being committed; and in Kosovo where the West intervened militarily on controversial grounds.

With Kosovo, the West essentially over-interpreted a humanitarian resolution of the UN Security Council, and bombed the hell out of Serbia.  Russia and China claimed this was illegal, but their draft resolution was defeated by a majority in the Council.  An independent commission of inquiry subsequently concluded that the military operation was ‘legitimate if illegal’ – a phrase to set the hares running if ever there was one. Serbia then took NATO states to the World Court, but the Court found that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.  Brilliant!

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan then challenged the international community on how to respond to these nightmares.  An(other) independent commission produced the R2P doctrine.  It says that, while the responsibility to protect civilians lies with a national government in the first instance, if that government is unable or unwilling to meet its responsibility, then it falls to the international community as a secondary responsibility, including the right to intervene, if necessary, with force.

The illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 complicated matters when a majority in the Security Council opposed the military operation yet the US, UK and Australia proceeded.  The fallout prompted (yet another) independent commission which made it clear that ‘responsibility to protect’ was legal and legitimate only if it had an explicit Security Council authorisation. I was involved as a consultant to that commission and followed matters closely in the UN that year.

Reflecting the commission’s work, the UN General Assembly effectively adopted the doctrine in 2005 when it declared that member states were prepared to “take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis.” The UN would co-operate with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are “manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

This is the clearest sign, among many, of movement in sovereignty from the national to the global level for the protection of civilians.  But its effectiveness is stymied by the veto in the Security Council.

So long as the veto remains, effective UN reaction will be thwarted, whether it is Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, or Syria. Anywhere – not least Israel-Palestine.

The problems of the Security Council come from opposite ends:

-        Rwanda (’94) where the Security Council shied away from acknowledging genocide lest it trigger a binding obligation to act under the Genocide Convention – ‘sheer cowardice’;

-        Kosovo (’99) where the West over-interpreted a Security Council resolution (for delivery of humanitarian supplies) and bombed Serbia to the negotiating table – ‘legitimate if illegal’;

-        Iraq (’03) where the Council opposed (by majority, not through a veto) military intervention, but the Anglo-Americans invaded anyway, for regime change purposes, through a selective interpretation of previous (12-year-old) resolutions – ‘illegal and illegitimate’;

-        Libya (‘10) where the Council authorised military intervention to protect civilians, and the West interpreted this to justify regime change – ‘studied hypocrisy’.

So what to do with Syria, which is eerily close to the Libyan situation?

Russia and China vetoed the Syrian resolution (for a second time) because they oppose the Western knee-jerk over-interpretation of Council resolutions, plus covert arms supplies.  It is no use lambasting them alone for pursuing their national interests – every one of the permanent five does just that, despite their special obligations.  At least Russia is striving to facilitate a solution behind the scenes – offering Moscow as a venue for dialogue.  But that is dead in the water, so long as it does it alone without US engagement.

The top UN officials have, uncharacteristically, taken sides.  The Secretary-General expressed ‘great disappointment’ over the veto on behalf of all supporters of democracy: “It undermines the role of the UN and the international community in this period when the Syrian authorities must hear a unified voice calling for an immediate end to its violence against the Syrian people”.  The Human Rights Commissioner said that “the failure of the Security Council to agree on firm collective action appears to have fuelled the Syrian Government’s readiness to massacre its own people in an effort to crush dissent”.  The ICC may well be waiting, she added.  Remarkably strong language against what remains the government of a member state.

So the options, over the next month or so, are military, economic or diplomatic:

1. Military intervention in Syria (Libyan-style) with a Council resolution. Legal (today, unlike only 20 years ago) but politically inadvisable since many civilian deaths will result.
2. Military intervention in Syria by the West (Libyan-style) without a Council resolution. Illegal and politically inadvisable.
3. Bilateral military intervention by Turkey for ‘regional stability’ akin to the Tanzanian intervention of Uganda in 1979, justified on an updated version of R2P. Unacceptably dangerous for everybody since it invites escalation.
4. UN-authorised economic sanctions on Syria, akin to those applied to South Africa over apartheid. Blunt and effective only over the long-term, if at all.
5. Continued diplomatic negotiations with Syria for internal dialogue and political settlement, bilaterally (Russia, Iran, Turkey) or regionally (Arab League) or multilaterally (UN Secretary-General plus envoy).  Soft, but often the most effective (as in Yemen, where the UNSG and the sub-regional organization (GCC) brokered a transfer of power endorsed by the UN Security Council).

Until the UN can decide and act on the basis of a constitutional majority, with no veto or a circumstantial veto, the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine will remain controversial and undeveloped.

Until that time, it is better to remain confined to the route of peacemaking through UN diplomacy.  Diplomacy through the good offices of the UNSG, supported by the regional organization, will always be more effective and enduring than that advanced by any major power.

Just yesterday, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon “told journalists that the UN and the League of Arab States are considering sending a joint observer mission to Syria.”

New Zealand should call upon the UN Secretary-General to appoint an envoy, to work with the Arab League, host a venue (Aqaba? Doha?), form a high-level ‘friends of Syria’ advisory panel, and be prepared to personally engage – in Hammarskjöld-style.

It’s a laudable goal to reduce our expensive dependence on foreign oil but it would be a lot smarter to invest in alternatives like better public transport, renewable electricity and sustainable alternative fuels.

Even if New Zealand is the ‘Texas of the South’, it is unlikely to benefit New Zealand. New Zealand sells itself cheaply with the forth lowest royalty rates in the world and gives subsidies and tax breaks to foreign oil companies. So there will be hardly any royalties, hardly any taxes and hardly any jobs for Kiwis, and the profits will flow offshore. We won’t pay any less for petrol at the pump if we produced more than we consumed because we are still unlikely to process it here or pay less than the international market price.

We know Kiwis face 100% of the environmental risks for only 5% of the value of the oil. The only way to massively ramp up oil production is to drill in hostile, risky environments in deep-water like the Great South Basin or the Raukumara Basin, more than 1000m down. This brings its own risks as we saw only too graphically in the Gulf of Mexico. Our clean, green brand is too valuable to put at risk from a catastrophic oil spill.

The Rena demonstrated we do not have the capacity to adequately deal with even a moderate spill let alone a deep-sea well blow-out. The tax-payer has already forked-out $25 million in costs associated with the Rena and our oil drilling insurance rules don’t even demand oil drilling companies have insurance to cover the full costs of a spill.

At a time when globally, renewable energy is surpassing fossil fuels and other governments, businesses and militaries are planning to reduce their dependence on oil, our Government isn’t even planning to start planning. But they are planning to increase it by borrowing billions to pour on uneconomic motorways.

If oil is the problem, more of the same isn’t the answer. As the International Energy Agency’s Chief Economist Fatih Birol says, ‘we should leave oil before oil leaves us’.

The story was prompted by the release of two studies by the Families Commission on the risks to subsequent children in such families. The Commission makes a number of suggestions: improved information sharing between agencies, improved reporting processes, consideration of mandatory reporting, complementary interventions rather than single focus programmes, culturally appropriate services, and long-term more intensive follow-up.

The release of these studies comes while Social Development Minister Paula Bennett is in the middle of an intensive road trip consulting on her Green Paper for Vulnerable Children. She was in my town, Lower Hutt, last night, and in Whangarei earlier this week while I was there. From local reports, it sounds like the consultation process has been somewhat fraught, with locals in Whangarei frustrated that the Minister wasn’t open to hearing from people directly, insisting instead that they “put it in a submission“. Nevertheless I applaud the proactive way that the Government has approached the task of consulting on the Green Paper – they’ve really gone all out with meetings, websites, social media, and NGO engagement. Submissions close on 28 February and I do encourage you to make one.

The problem is I think they might be asking the wrong questions. The Green Paper makes similar recommendations to those of the Families Commission today, with a focus on mandatory reporting and prioritising social services for young children and families over older children and individuals.

There is no doubt that there is much that can be done to improve Child Youth and Families processes, better integrate services between Government agencies, improve information-sharing, and “wrap around support” (a current buzzword) for families at risk, to reduce the horrific rate of child abuse in New Zealand. To the extent that the Green Paper can achieve this, I applaud it.

However, I remain concerned both with the more controversial recommendations like mandatory reporting. As Metiria pointed out when the Green Paper was released in July last year, there is a very real risk that mandatory reporting of child abuse will be counter-productive, because it can frighten vulnerable families from access the support that is available to them. There is a huge stigma attached to having CYFS involved with your family which would only be intensified by mandatory reporting. In acute cases there are already very good best practice reporting guidelines for health professionals and social workers.

More fundamentally, I’m concerned that the Green Paper’s jurisdiction doesn’t extend to the underlying causes of abuse and neglect, namely poverty and inequality. The Northern Advocate called Paula Bennett’s consultation tour a “poverty roadshow“, but sadly, it is anything but. The submission template asks for opinions about prioritising services, monitoring families, sharing personal information, connecting families to services, and encouraging communities to take responsibility for child abuse, but nothing about poverty and how the  Government should address it. I’ve heard from those who were at the Lower Hutt meeting last night that the cost of living and inequality were are major theme of responses from the audience, but that the Minister’s focus was very much on reporting and information-sharing.

We know that financial stresses are a major contributor to child abuse and neglect. Beyond physical abuse itself, family financial hardship often exposes children to adult stresses that are detrimental to their wellbeing. This is a phenomenon I discussed with the team at 155 Whare in Whangarei on Monday, and one which is very real for children. When Metiria interviewed children at a Decile 1 school in Dunedin to produce our podcast of kids talking about poverty last year, they talked about loan sharks, credit cards, interest rates, and their parents “doing silly stuff” when financial stresses got too much. These are adult concepts and stresses that children simply shouldn’t be exposed to.

They also talked about going without shoes, parents going without meals to make sure their kids had enough to eat, living in cold damp homes that made them sick, and the unfairness of tax cuts that only worked out for the wealthy (yes really, with no prompting!).

Until we address child poverty and inequality, we can’t hope to make serious inroads on the child abuse issue.

If you’re a landlord.

If you’re a potential tenant, it’s crap news. It probably means endless rejected applications, missing out on the rare gems that are suitable and reasonably priced in a matter of minutes, and ending up signing a lease for an overpriced or unsuitable home just because you’re scared you won’t find something else. It means landlords can charge what they like because they know they’ll find someone willing to pay more than you. If you have children, pets, or other special circumstances, you probably won’t even get a look in because it’s just easier for the landlord (or property manager) to let to someone less complicated.

So yes, good news is definitely in the eye of the beholder. TradeMe’s stats also add weight to evidence of an emerging housing shortage, which is also bad news for all of us. As Metiria pointed out to interest.co.nz last year, a lack of supply drives rents up, and the Government foots part of the bill via the Accommodation Supplement (AS).

The AS is a government payment to people deemed unable to fully meet their housing costs (board, rent, or mortgage) and it cost the Government $1.2 billion in the year to June 2011. The Government’s official projections don’t predict a major increase in spending on the AS in the next five years, but the Housing Shareholders Association and the Salvation Army say a combination of lack of supply, increasing rents, and an increase in the number of people claiming the AS as the recession bites mean the real cost could be much higher, perhaps as much as $2.2 billion per annum by 2016.

So not only will more people struggle to make ends meet paying higher rents (one quarter of all New Zealand households now spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs), with the resulting poor consequences for children and families, but the cost to the Government is significant. And instead of improving outcomes for those to whom the AS is targeted, the main beneficiaries are landlords and property investors, to whom it is effectively a subsidy. There’s something very wrong with this picture.

Without messing with the AS (which hundreds of thousands of people now rely on), wouldn’t it be wise for the Government to invest in the easing the supply side of the housing market, by increasing the provision of affordable state and social housing?

The Green Party has proposed building 2,000 new state and community houses before the rebuild of Christchurch gets underway, to create employment, help to ease housing demand, and keep skilled builders in New Zealand where they’re desperately needed.

What do you think?

You’ll notice Frogblog has a black colour theme today too. I’ve blogged about why Kiwis should be concerned about the proposed laws over at The Standard.

On January 18 the likes of Google, Wikipedia, and The Creative Freedom Foundation will be either blacking out their sites or posting protest messages to their websites as part of an international campaign. The campaign has already had some success with Congress just yesterday deciding to postpone a vote on SOPA which some interpret as ‘indefinite shelving’ but it still remains and PIPA is still live in the Senate.

It’s a big deal. Imagine a small Kiwi online business blocked from Google searches, running online advertising or even processing VISA transactions or even losing their domain name because of a US copyright allegation that they can’t afford to challenge in a US court.

Like Skynet, this law will be easily circumvented by those in the ‘know’ and won’t even solve the problem. As research from Germany shows, increasing availability of digital content demonstrates one can combat internet piracy without huge costs, stifling innovation and infringing upon basic rights.

In the last Parliament Sue Kedgley met with the Minister of Food Safety Kate Wilkinson and sought to exempt small growers, people who sell food directly to consumers, and those who barter or swap food, from some of the more onerous food regulations contained in the new Food Bill.

This bill, which is currently before Parliament, will replace the 1981 Food Act.

Will the Food Bill tie up small growers with red tape?

Sue called publicly for these groups to be exempted.  Unfortunately so far as we know the Minister has failed to move on our concerns. One small win however was an assurance from Ms Wilkinson that she would be revisiting the issues surrounding seed exchanges with officials.

However given the Food Bill is not yet law, there is still plenty of time for amendments to be made. It is due to be debated again in the next Parliament and is yet to go through its second reading, committee stages and third reading stages.

This is why I am looking to get feedback from those who grow and sell food regarding their thoughts on the Food Bill.  I will collate your concerns and in the new parliament will look to join with those that work in seed exchanges, community gardens and grow good food to push the Government into amending the Food Bill.

My Green Party colleague Steffan Browning who has the agriculture portfolio is also keen to get feedback and over summer will be visiting small growers, organic producers and those running farmers markets talking about pitfalls in the new law.

If the freedom to grow and share food is threatened by the Food Bill, the Green Party will be opposing it.

More posts on the Food Bill

Food Bill update from Sue Kedgley – Sue Kedgley, 13 September 2011

The Food Bill, not as sweet as first appeared – Steffan Browning, 18 January 2012

There are some great quotes from the column. I think this was the best.

The Greens are dangerous. They are more than a polite group of tree-huggers, slug-savers and water samplers but you rarely, if ever, hear of the more sinister planks of their policy, which are frightening to say the least to those of us who care about what really matters.

The comments — which have now been turned off — are also quite good, with Mark S from Auckland noting

These policies are exactly the reason that I voted for the Greens, and am thrilled that they have the presence that they have in parliament.

Sadly, this is not the first time that Mr George has been caught copying others work.

A hashtag has sprouted up on Twitter #DangerousGreens and people are changing their display pictures on Facebook and Twitter to warn people about the inherent danger of associating with them.

I think Garth George is secretly a Dangerous Green. After all, he is just recycling when he copies other peoples work.

This is a new development that builds upon, and refines, the previous foreign affairs portfolio.  It focuses on the same reality, but from a different, updated, worldview.

From the mid-17^th to mid-20^th centuries, the nation-state emerged, waxed, and waned as the principal political unit in what theorists call the Westphalian age.

With the United Nations, however, the sovereign state has been joined by the individual as an entity under international law – initially through the universalisation of human rights, more recently through international criminal law. From Göring and Hess to Milosevic and Karadzic.

Also since the mid-20^th century, we have been confronting problems that are truly global in character and impact – weapons of mass destruction, ozone depletion and climate change.

And since the late 20^th century, we have acquired a global consciousness, through deep-space exploration and moon-shots of Earth, along with a planetary interconnectedness through the ITC revolution.

We are today in the post-Westphalian age – a fast and dynamic transformation towards a global society of some form.  Ours is a transitional age, in which the international community of states is now joined by a global community of peoples. The global civil society ranges alongside the global corporate sector, acting as the not-so-still voice of conscience in our changing world.

In this unfolding scenario, nations have become integrated in myriad ways into the global scene.  A country’s attitude towards the world and its actions are now less a matter of foreign policy – ‘us’ v. ‘them’; more a matter of ‘us’ as part of the broader ‘us’.

We are now an integral part of the global community.  What we do and say – our policies towards, not ‘the world’, but ‘the rest of the world of which we are a part’, is the subject of global affairs.

Within this new paradigm we do not seek to maximise a competitive national advantage to excess, indifferent to the consequences elsewhere.  We collaborate in identifying the global challenges before humanity. We agree on the global solutions, and then we agree on our legitimate national interests, and then we carry them out.

It is a matter of global responsibility. This is not moral handwringing – it is an imperative of collective survival. Our global responsibilities and our national interests become one and the same.

Thus, a country’s portfolio for dealing with the rest of the world is most appropriately described now, not as foreign policy, but as ‘global affairs’.

The Green Party will henceforth pursue this approach in the Parliament, in the country, and around the world.

Ms Kelly was part of an Australian and New Zealand delegation looking into allegations that senior Fijian union officials have been arrested and physically assaulted. Over the last few months the Fijian Government has enacted a series of decrees that make it illegal for more than 5 people to meet and union officials have been arrested for undertaking basic organising activities like meeting workers at their jobs. Recent decrees also reduced the freedom of the media, abolished the minimum wage and banned collective bargaining.

These measures are causing grave concern for the International Labour Organisation which has an office in Suva where former Alliance Cabinet Minister Laila Harre is the officer in charge. The ILO is attempting to negotiate with the military government and has called for the government to accept a ‘direct contacts mission’ which would press the government to comply with basic international law.

It’s not just unions that are worried about the breach of human rights in Fiji. On Monday, Business New Zealand backed up the NZCTU’s call for the Fijian government to accept a mission from the ILO to look into the island nation’s labour standards. But the National government has been suspiciously quiet on the matter. It is time for the Government to join with Business NZ and the CTU and stand up for human rights and workers’ rights in Fiji.

I think the most interesting part that Paul Matthews hits on is that by signing the TPPA, New Zealand law could be overridden.

New Zealand recently completed a review of the outdated Patents Act and, among other things, the new bill, supported by both sides of the House, contains the following exclusions in Clause 15:

(2) An invention of a method of treatment of human beings by surgery or therapy is not a patentable invention.

(3) An invention of a method of diagnosis practised on human beings is not a patentable invention.

(3A) A computer program is not a patentable invention.

All three of these exclusions would be specifically disallowed in this draft of the TPPA, regardless of the fact that New Zealand’s commerce committee, made up of all parties in Parliament, unanimously supported them.

You read that right: the proposed Article 15 of the TPPA would specifically prevent New Zealand enacting law that was unanimously agreed to by all parties in Parliament.

This position — that is to say the position of the United States — is driven by commercial interests and corporate lobbyists. It’s not good policy development; it could hardly be called negotiation.

As we’ve seen earlier in the year with the release of Wikileaks cables, the US is all too keen to let our Government give away our rights, a little bit of our soverignity, and an awesome opportunity to shift our economy in the right direction.

If National were dedicated to building a clean, green, smart economy that works for everyone, they would be trying to create an environment where NZ IT companies can thrive. Not one where they can be held ransom by big multinational corporations. As Matthews points out:

“Companies in software, information technology (IT) services and high-tech manufacturing are now generating as much export revenue as meat (also around $5 billion) and not as far as you think behind the dairy industry traditionally thought of as our mainstay (around $11 billion).”

The number employed in the tech sector and high tech manufacturing has grown from 24,000 in 2010 to 30,000 this year.

The Government needs to be open and transparent about the TPPA and it needs to think about where they want to take our economy. Do they want one that continues to be based on primary production or do we want to make the switch to a smart green economy with IT at its core.

We received 10.62% of the vote, which means that we can bring at least 13 Green MPs into Parliament.

So a big welcome to Eugenie Sage, Jan Logie, Steffan Browning, Denise Roche, Holly Walker, and Julie Anne Genter.

There is also a possibility, depending on the special vote, that we could have one more Green MP join us—Mojo Mathers—we’ll let you know as soon as the overseas votes have been counted.

Importantly, we couldn’t have done it without you!

This election result means more voices in our Parliament calling for stronger environmental protections, a fairer society, and a clean green economy that works for everyone.

10.62% is the highest proportion of the vote we’ve received since Green MPs first entered Parliament in 1996. We’re proud of this result and you should be too.

Our success is due to the tireless effort of thousands of supporters like yourself. Thank you for every event you attended, petition you signed, or email you forwarded from us to a friend.

And, finally, thanks more than anything for Party Voting Green.

Over the next three years we will continue working as hard as we can to be a strong voice in Parliament for our environment, our children, and our future.

But for now it is time for us all to have a lovely Christmas break and enjoy a well-deserved holiday – we’ve all earned it!

A vote for the Greens is a vote for a richer New Zealand in the things that really matter. A richer New Zealand will have clean rivers, healthy kids, and jobs that are good for our environment and our economy.

We are ready and rearing to get back into Parliament with more MPs and more energy than ever before to start working on our priority areas of jobs, rivers, and kids.

We’ve got costed plans to bring 100,000 children out of poverty by 2014, clean up our rivers, and to create thousands of new green jobs.

The Green Party will make Working for Families work, provide better study support for sole parents and beneficiaries, raise the minimum wage to $15, and make sure rental properties are warm and healthy. By doing this we will reduce inequality and make sure our kids get the best start in life possible.

We will create thousands of new green jobs because it is vital for New Zealand’s families, environment, and economy. A reminder: a vote for the Greens is the best way to keep state assets in Kiwi hands.

We will create green jobs by ensuring our state-owned energy companies capture the massive export opportunities in renewable energy. We’ll also shift the drivers in the private sector towards sustainability and increased productivity.

The Greens will also clean up New Zealand’s rivers and lakes to make sure we can swim in them again. Over half of our monitored rivers are unsafe for swimming, one third of our lakes are unhealthy, and two-thirds of our native freshwater fish are at risk or threatened with extinction.

We will set standards for clean water, introduce a fair charge for irrigation water, and support water clean-up initiatives.

So there you have it. Jobs, rivers, and kids: It’s a pretty compelling vision for a richer New Zealand and with your support we can make it happen.

Let’s make history tomorrow,

Russel and Metiria

The report, entitled A Profitable & Resource Efficient Future: Catalysing Retrofit Finance & Investing in Commercial Real Estate, recommends practical steps government leaders can take to stimulate investment in energy efficiency upgrades to commercial buildings enabling job creation and green growth. The retrofit market has an estimated value of US$400 billion in the United States alone, creating 600,000–900,000 new green jobs while reducing energy usage by 29% by 2020.

The report recognises that, like the home insulation sector, there is a general market failure to price and incentivise the retrofitting of commercial buildings. Government leadership is all that is required to unlock the business potential of the commercial retrofit industry.

One of the key recommendations of the report is for government-mandated and standardised energy consumption reporting – an efficiency rating system for buildings. When combined with additional policies such as tax incentives, loan guarantees or credit enhancements, the information generated by such a reporting and rating system can help potential investors make better decisions to invest in energy efficiency projects.

Australia was found to have the most mature retrofit market as a result of a long-standing reporting and rating system, coupled with government-led action, including tax deductions and a third party institution to host demonstration projects.

The Green Party has taken the lead in the residential sector with our Heat Smart home insulation programme. We’ve announced new policy to energy rate rental properties, make this information publicly available, and then implement minimum energy efficiency standards to help drive investment. The World Economic Forum’s report rates this approach as best practice.

The potential for green job creation retrofitting our commercial building stock here in New Zealand is huge, but if we don’t move quickly, it will be Australian companies that secure a lion’s share of the market here and abroad.

Russel

World Economic Forum graphic

Post the Rena, it is clear that we don’t have the capacity to respond, and yet they still aren’t worried. The Prime Minister thinks a deep sea oil well 2,000 metres below the sea is a completely unrelated issue.

The Government prefers to rely on blind optimism,  a strong faith in as yet unproven technology, and the private sector’s alleged willingness and ability to police itself. The companies that will drill for oil in New Zealand are the best in the world, they will have the best technology (well, almost), and we can rest assured no accidents will happen – says the Government. (And we’ll be rich, so why worry?)

While the US has certainly bowed to pressure from oil companies, even before the Gulf has fully recovered, Europe recognises the risk and has just announced a proposal for tough new safety laws.

The European Commission has proposed the introduction of a tough, new set of safety rules to reduce the risk of pollution from oil and gas rigs.

According to environment chiefs, the likelihood of a major offshore accident in European waters remains “unacceptably high”.

However, the European Greens, like us, realise that legislation really isn’t going to do anything to plug a leak. So, until the industry has proven technology, we don’t think it’s worth the risk.

Rebecca Harms, president of the Greens group in the European Parliament, said the new draft law was “certainly an improvement”, but the Commission should be going further.

“Drilling in environmentally sensitive areas like the Arctic should be banned,” she said in a statement.

The EU is realising how vulnerable these rigs are to accident, and the dire environmental and economic consequences of a spill, so they are trying to ‘retrofit’ tougher regulations.  We still have the luxury of choice, and should choose to  prohibit the development of any deep water drilling, given the very high risk and relatively low return.

Why risk our precious environment, when we have much better opportunities to create a richer New Zealand?

I was lucky enough to go on a helicopter flight this morning and see the Rena up close.

Earlier in the week Metiria was on Motiti Island and got these pictures.

They took me on a trip around the coastline, with the safety officer and team leaders to check for oil and debris. There were lots of stranded containers and timber piled up on unreachable rocks. But, for the time being at least, on the surface it was pretty clean.

Under the surface is a very different story.

Under the surface kina are blackened and dead. Crayfish are found smothered in oil and dead. Under the surface, the fish and shellfish are polluted and cannot be eaten.

Under the surface of this disaster are the families who eat everyday from the ocean but cannot anymore.

John Key talks of compensation for business, tourism and the fishing industry, and rightly so. Peoples’ livelihoods are in peril and financial support is needed. That is the right thing to do.

But what about those hundreds of families on low incomes who supplement their meagre incomes with the bounty of the sea? There are hundreds of families on minimum wages or benefits or superannuation who cannot afford seafood, so they get it straight out of the ocean—as is their birthright.

That is how the ocean is used by coastal communities every day in this country: as a daily source of fresh healthy food.

So, who will compensate their food budgets?

Does John Key understand that his failure to take the warnings seriously means that families have lost a food source on which they and their kids depend?

No, he clearly does not. His glib comment that this will be all ‘over by Christmas’ underlines his shallowness.

The shellfish could take many months to recover back to a healthy, safe state. They are filter feeders and there will have to be rigorous on-going testing of shellfish beds all along the coast and on every island and reef. The cost to the fish stocks is unknown, as is the impact on the phytoplankton at the beginning of the food chain. It could be months before the shellfish can be declared safe to eat. That means months without this food for those who rely on it.

On Motiti, throughout the day, the clean-up crews were well feed and cared for. That is the way of manakitanga and for coastal peoples, kuia and kaumatua, seafood is a source of pride and richness.

John Key has an irresponsibly shallow understanding of the consequences of his failure.

I am a member of Nigel’s team, cleaning sand with Tanja from Papamoa and Marcella who was born in Czech Republic. We three are all good talkers but we get through a fair pile of sand as well. The beach crew on quad bikes are always checking on us and dropping food, drink, more gloves and more bags. Pretty soon we find out where Tanja met Brent and how Marcella might be off to Darfur soon. If we get too random a staunch wahine from our group suggesta we work in a line. Even though it’s a sad and bizarre activity we are pretty happy to be working for a common cause. There is a definite positive vibration because everyone loves this beach and there are at least 1500 people showing what that love means.

“Can they please just get some more oil off that ship?” someone speaks our mind and we keep digging, raking and scraping up oil.

After a few hours I head off to the media briefing which tells us that progress has been made but still no oil is pumping.

A long drive home but a good day. There is something about great about people acting to heal the environment in a deeply practical way. I felt proud to be a member of Nigel’s team.

The call for training and working under supervision is understandable, but after talking with people I can see they will not wait to be asked to come and help, they will just do it. It might be good if Maritime NZ trained them on the spot because they will just keep on coming down to clean their beaches.

I have no intention of getting dirty but once you are there surrounded by the oil stained beach there is a compulsion to act. The official and the unofficial volunteers all work together and co-operate. People are making friends and grieving for their coast. People are angry and cynical about the four days of fine weather and now the predictable storm damage impacting on the Rena. “Let’s sue the Greek Government,” someone says, we all laugh.

The gloves and gumboots are essential, the work is endless and this is just the beginning. I talk to a woman and her twelve-year-old son who have driven down from Auckland to lend a hand. I talk to surfies, artists, and a Scottish film crew who are making seven documentaries on oil spills. They have seen this everywhere which is a frightening thought.

Some hours later and the sea fog thickens, the news has come that a Mayday call led to an evacuation of Rena. No one is surprised, people just keep scraping in the soft rain.

My oily gloved hand is shaken by people who are pleased to see me.

“An MP down here with us in our community, Good on the Greens for asking questions, it is really good to see you here”

Later on at the press conference the mood is very sober. Gareth arrives to carry on the Green work, Russel is coming tomorrow. I will be back.. The local Greens are a steady presence supporting us.

It is a community ready to work and I am glad to have been there on day six. But it’s also sad and terrible. What will tomorrow bring to this beach?

However, this press release from the Ministry of Health is worrying.

The key message for World Suicide Prevention Day is that help is available to people who need it.

The release points us to thelowdown.co.nz, The Journal (with no URL) and the Depression Helpline.

That’s all you get.

They miss out and play down other wonderful services available to people with mental health problems, such as

• Depression.org.nz
• Mental Health foundation (and their mental health awareness week page!)
• Supporting Families with Mental Illness
• Youthline Call 0800 376633 or Free TXT 234
• Balance NZ
• Headspace.org.nz

They are also silent on how to access mental health services through your GP and DHB.

Mental health officials are urging people to seek help on Suicide Prevention Day. They say help is available for them and their loved ones but are they doing enough to help when all they promote is nothing except for a website?

There are also worrying signs that some of the progress previously hard won on mental health is being undone. I spoke in the House recently against the Government’s plan to roll the Mental Health Commission into the Health and Disability Commissioner’s office. There is clear evidence that DHBs are using money intended for mental health in other areas. Primary care referral to a Clinical Psychologist for free sessions is now only available for Maori, Pasifika and people with a Community Services Card. These services used to be for everyone, until the National Government cut them.

This Government needs to make a commitment to funding mental health services and promoting them adequately so that everyone can get the help they need and live happier lives.

On Close Up last night, Joyce vehemently denied that any opposition party had approached his office asking for a briefing. Here is the transcript (and the video. Joyce starts speaking from 3:30)

MS: Have you done everything you can? You have emergency powers that you can bring into play, have you used those? Have you done everything you can? Because the opposition are saying ‘Here’s the Government happy to step in when it’s the World Cup, what’re they doing about an environmental disaster?’
SJ: Well actually I have no time for the opposition in this regard. I have not had a single request of my office or of the ministry for any briefing from any opposition politician whatsoever. They’ve just gone out there and taken positions without knowing anything about any of the facts. So I would respect them…
MS: Putting aside the fact…
SJ: No, No. I would have respect for them if they came to me and said ‘look, here’s the thing minister, we’re very keen to get the information and then we’ll be in a position to offer an opinion’. And I think that’s very important.
MS: Putting aside the opposition, you have these powers. They’re saying you, you haven’t used those, you’re willing to in other circumstances. Is that a fair cop?
SJ: No. It’s not a fair cop at all. They’re entirely different situations.

Problem is that my office did contact his office yesterday morning.

Emails here [PDF] show that my office first emailed at 10:10 AM yesterday and Joyce’s office replied at 12:41PM.

My office then called our contact in Joyce’s office at 3PM to confirm that Russel Norman would be in Tauranga and wanted to meet with the Minister as well.

Joyce’s Close Up interview was pre-recorded at 4:45PM.

Interestingly Joyce’s office contacted my office again just before 5PM to formalise a point of contact who would be in Tauranga from today.

If Joyce is willing to be liberal with the truth about something like whether the Green Party had contacted his office it makes me wonder about what else he is lying about and whether we can trust anything he says about the clean-up.