Nick Smith announced his decision under the old Crown Minerals Act and his interpretation of his conservation responsibilities. He made sure he didn’t have to run a public consultation process which the new Crown Minerals Act requires for significant applications like this one.

The West Coast people who are welcoming the decision are understandably desperate given the collapse of Solid Energy. They hope the jobs will save their economy, but as every coal mining based community in the world should know, the jobs cannot be relied upon. Meanwhile the Denniston Plateau is at huge risk.

I visited there last month and was deeply affected by the beauty, biodiversity, history, ecology and opportunity which will be lost if the open cast mine goes ahead. This plateau could be a mecca for historical and ecological tourism.

Nick Smith claims the small underground mines around the edge of the plateau have left some mess, and he is correct. But those small shafts and small heaps of rusty machinery are nothing compared to the effects of the proposed open cast Escarpment Mine and the proposals for further mines which will inevitably follow.

The huge elephant in this room is the fact that climate change is not being considered in the decisions around Denniston. Coal mining is a sunset industry and fossil fuels are on the way out. We can develop alternatives to coking coal in the steel production process but not overnight and not without a genuine investment. Meanwhile instead of grasping this challenge and the necessity for change, the Government is facilitating the destruction of one of the most extraordinary places in our country.

Find your closest below and join us in this exciting global event to claim back control of our food system.

Details of New Zealand Marches Against Monsanto:

Auckland – 3:00pm, Aotea Square http://www.facebook.com/events/168932459932934/

Christchurch – 3:00pm, Hagley Park https://www.facebook.com/events/257378607742003/

Wellington – 3:00pm, Waitangi Park https://www.facebook.com/events/589013124456893/

New Plymouth – 3:00pm, Corner of Elliot and Devon St West https://www.facebook.com/events/364155907021803/?ref=3

Nelson – 1:00pm, Corner of Halifax and Trafalgar Streets https://www.facebook.com/events/128929110628000/?ref=22

Rotorua – 12:00pm, Rotorua Lake Front https://www.facebook.com/events/264719693671906/

Tauranga - 12:00pm, Red Square, Devonport Rd https://www.facebook.com/events/514056908629667/

Whangarei - 2:00pm, Cameron St Mall and Bank St https://www.facebook.com/pages/March-Against-Monsanto-Whangarei/619245478103161?ref=ts&fref=ts

Hastings – 11:00am, Clock Tower, City Centre, 021 054 3492

Info on the global events:

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/

Additionally many of our freshwater fish migrate to the ocean meaning dams and other obstructions to river flow can isolate populations and prevent access to parts of catchments. The draining of around 95% of our wetlands means that many species which call wetlands home are left with nowhere to live with nowhere to live.

We can make a difference to the survival of our freshwater fish, and by doing so make our rivers safe for swimming. We need strong national environmental standards for water quality so that councils will include effective rules in their plans. Rules which limit the amount of pollutants in our rivers, streams, and lakes and which focus on maintaining and enhancing water quality. We don’t want limits on nitrate and phosphorus which allow water quality to decline further as intensive agriculture expands.

Effective national standards for water quality would ensure that we work to have nitrogen levels in rivers and streams below the levels which encourage phytoplankton growth and algal blooms. These blooms make rivers unsightly, can reduce oxygen levels so that fish die and can be toxic to larger animals such as dogs and humans. The Government is working on national objectives for water quality. Given National’s agenda of promoting and subsidising irrigation development these objectives are unlikely to ensure that children can swim safely in our rivers. We need limits on pollution that protect our environment, the cornerstone of our economy. We need them now.

Green MPs Catherine Delahunty and Steffan Browning joined Hands Across the Sand events in Coromandel and Christchurch. Kaikoura might have put on the most impressive demonstration of all – just check out this video!

In Coromandel, Catherine Delahunty took part in a flotilla demonstrating against mining in schedule 4 (seabed) area, after the Government gave out 6 permits to mining companies for prospecting, or “just looking”, in our most precious conservation estate.

On Sunday at Auckland’s famous Piha beach, the Green Party launched our campaign against deep sea drilling with the unveiling of the Kiwi Bid – our bid to protect our waters for all of us, rather than allow corporations to conduct risky deep-sea drilling. Our special guest speakers, NZ surfing champion Mischa Davis and rowing legend Rob Hamill did a fabulous job, alongside Green MPs Metiria Turei and Gareth Hughes.

Thanks to Piha for hosting us and coming along in great numbers – we can think of no better place to have kicked off this campaign!

As highlighted in my previous blog post, palm oil has major environmental and social impacts. This heart wrenching photo of an orang-utan clinging to the last tree in a rainforest being cleared for a palm oil plantation highlights just how dire their plight is.

It is the widespread use  of palm oil in many of the everyday products we consume that drives this destruction of rainforests.

At the moment palm oil hides behind as many as  200 different names, including the generic label “vegetable oil” making it very difficult for consumers to know what they are purchasing.

At that workshop I countered some of the arguments that have been raised against mandatory palm oil labelling

The current status quo where companies can voluntarily declare palm oil in ingredients means that it is only honest companies that face consumer backlash, which is neither fair on these companies nor does it help protect rainforests as consumers often unknowingly just switch to another product containing palm oil.

Only a mandatory system will create a level playing field and allow consumers to choose products without palm oil.

Cost arguments are a red herring. Some people have argued that if companies switch to another ingredient the price of food will go up, therefore we should not expect companies to declare that their product contains palm oil.

This ignores the fact that if cost is the main factor driving consumers’ decision making then they will still purchase the cheapest products even if it contains palm oil.

The issue here is choice. Currently a consumer that wishes to priotise ethical concerns in their decision making and avoid products that doesn’t contain palm oil is not able to do so.

Companies update labels all the time. As long as you have a fair phase in time, a change in labelling standards need not impose excessive extra costs .

The other argument against palm oil labelling is “it will be unfair to people who use palm oil from sustainable sources”. The simple answer is that there is nothing to stop a company from declaring that information on the label, albeit with the proviso that under the new consumer law reform bill that any claims around sustainability must be substantiated.

And Aotearoa is responding. Opposition to this risky extreme form of oil extraction has been building steadily, and this weekend folks are coming out all over Aotearoa to draw a line in the sand and say no to deep sea oil, and yes to a more sustainable future.

Hands Across the Sand is a global day of action and there are events popping up all over the place. Check out the list below, and there may be more to come!

The movement against deep sea oil is growing stronger every day, and I’ll be getting along to the Wellington event this weekend to join with other kiwis drawing a line in the sand against deep sea oil.

Auckland North Shore: https://www.facebook.com/events/158426560993768/

Ohope: https://www.facebook.com/events/474087352660025/

Wellington: https://www.facebook.com/events/360254350743502/

Golden Bay : https://www.facebook.com/events/362837330494867

Motueka – https://www.facebook.com/events/564546143568206/

Nelson: https://www.facebook.com/events/453304271417629/

Kaikoura: https://www.facebook.com/events/459355244142855/

Christchurch: https://www.facebook.com/events/371511899631561/

and Dunedin: https://www.facebook.com/events/520755497982218/

I will also be holding a stall on Cuba street to let other Wellingtonians know about the threat to our very own coast and give out some information, I’d love for you to join me! I’ll be at the bucket fountains at 11am, or check out the Facebook event here:

https://www.facebook.com/events/600491843296018/?ref=25

Protection orders were created by the Domestic Violence Act and are one of the key tools in responding to Domestic Violence. They are issued by the Family Court.

The police have also recently been given the power to issue Public Safety Orders, which are loosely 5 day protection orders. These should not be issued if there is evidence of physical violence. Unfortunately a police review of Public Safety Orders showed evidence that they are more than occasionally being used when there is evidence of physical violence.

More than 10,000 people were charged with 21,049 incidents of breaching protection orders between 2006 and 2010.

Of the offenders, 6361 were convicted and 1725 given a custodial sentence. The rest, 4469, were found not guilty or had the charges withdrawn.

In the words of the police “Police do not routinely produce statistics on persons involved in police safety orders, details of the breaches, penalties imposed, number of repeat offenders, the number of complaints from protected people, the nature of the complaints and how they were dealt with … the information is not held by police,”

People in the sector have told me they are concerned about the high number of women reporting breaches only to find they are not considered a breach. For example a text may be made if the content of the text is not considered to be threatening. The nature of psychological abuse in cases of reported breaches does not seem to be understood or seen as an indicator of escalating level of risk to the victim.

They have also told me of protection orders being issued to protect women who have also effectively been given, by the same court, responsibility for ensuring their ex-partner’s access to their children. In this situation it is very hard for a woman to report a breach and very difficult to keep the lines

There are several areas of policy concern here; police use of and enforcement of protection orders and Public Safety Orders, the lack of monitoring and analysis of their use and effectiveness, the apparent lack of a victim’s perspective in the policy feedback process.

If we are serious about ending or even responding appropriately to Domestic Violence we need to ensure our systems are appropriate and working for the victims.

Last Monday the US Supreme Court found in favour of Monsanto over yet another small farmer. Indiana soybean farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman bought some seeds from a grain company, where other farmers drop off their seed. He only wanted to sow cheap seed so bought what he called ‘junk grain’. It was a mixture of whatever grain had been dropped off at the store but some was Monsanto Roundup Ready Soybean.

Bowman’s lawyer argued that Bowman acquired the Monsanto seeds innocently enough and that his small operation never would threaten the company’s monopoly. But Monsanto won, winning a settlement of $84,456 for infringing Monsanto’s patent rights.

This is yet another demonstration of Monsanto’s determination to squash any small farmer that doesn’t sign up to their way of doing things.

What got him into hot water was that he saved seed from this ‘junk grain’ to plant again next season. Monstanto want to hold rights to generations of seeds forever, and we think that’s wrong.

We can avoid this happening to New Zealand farmers

By not allowing the growing of GE crops here we can ensure that New Zealand farmers aren’t exposed to risk of legal action from Monsanto on these types of issues.

But we can do more. I am gathering support for my amendment to the Patents Bill currently moving through Parliament. This amendment clarifies that patents must not be held over life.

We can all take action against Monsanto

On the 25^th of May there is a global action to march against Monsanto.

There are already events organised around the New Zealand, join them or organise a march in your city.
Auckland 

Christchurch

Wellington

New Plymouth

Nelson

Rotorua

Power Struggles
John Small, 9 May 2013

 Is the Labour/Green electricity reform proposal economic lunacy or a chance to finally get vengeance on a gang of bandits? Will the lights stay on? Will foreign investors desert us or punish us financially?

 These pressing questions are generating more heat than light. Maybe that’s because they’re difficult: the policy is after all silent on some crucial details, without which predictions are challenging. But we already know far more than you’d think from the angry reactions.

 Unlike what some are claiming, the concept is not inherently flawed. You don’t need to be an expert to see why.

 The main change is that there won’t be a single wholesale market price any more. Each power station will get paid what it actually needs to cover costs, instead of what the least efficient (most costly) station needs. That change alone will allow power bills to be slashed because about 60% of our power is from hydro stations and those generators get paid way more than they need. So there definitely are savings available: its not a mirage.

 If power stations are currently gaming the market (i.e. finding ways to jack up the price), that will also cease. This proposition has been argued and contested, but having money for price cuts doesn’t much rely on the outcome of that debate. Eliminating gaming is either an extra benefit or a sideshow, depending on whether you believe it happens or not.

 Retailers will still compete, but they’ll be buying their power from NZ Power. Depending on how NZPower operates (we’re going to need some details!), that could open the door to many new retailers which would intensify retail competition. Currently, electricity retailing is dominated by generators because that helps them avoid exposure to the spot market which is incredibly risky for a retailer. But retail competition is muted for the same reason: no retailer wants a market share out of whack with the market share of its affiliated generator.

 Those are the first round effects: lower prices and more retail competition. Both are good for consumers, but we also need to think a bit further ahead.

 The price cuts are targeted mostly at residential consumers, with commercial and industrial users in line for smaller cuts. Each of these groups will use more power when the price falls, so we’ll need to generate more, using extra resources. The amount of extra cost will depend on the details of retail pricing. For example, you could give everyone a block of cheap power with the rest priced normally: that would limit the extra generation cost and preserve incentives to invest in insulation etc. It’s a sensible idea from the Greens.

 Then there is the impact on the government’s accounts. Dividends from the SOE power companies will fall and if the budget is to be unaffected that means either more taxes or less spending elsewhere. This is a murky issue because asset sales are eroding the dividend stream anyway and also because we don’t know how the government will react. If taxes go up somewhere to compensate for lost revenue, that will affect people’s behaviour. On the other hand, the funds could be recouped from tax evaders. Or by cutting <insert your pet waste of public funds here>.

 What about the investors? The short story is that investors (including the government) will pay for the price cuts because they own the power stations whose revenues will be cut. In the longer run, there is a question over whether private investors will punish us by with-holding funds for new investment, either completely (cue horror stories) or by demanding higher rates of return. An investment strike is inconceivable: electricity is regulated everywhere and people are clearly willing to invest in extremely unstable countries. So capital will be available; the only question is the price and that depends on how risky the project is. For power station investors, the risk might well fall. A long-term contract with NZPower sounds a lot less risky than investing under the current industry configuration.

 Put all this together and we see that there are funds available for price cuts, retail competition could intensify and new generation will still be fundable. What could go possibly wrong?

 Two things: time and nerve. Assume that Labour/Greens form the next government and get cracking on their plan. First up will be enabling legislation to create NZ Power and define its mandate. Hopefully, they’d constitute NZ Power so that it was independent of politicians. But if they want this to be effective (i.e. to actually transfer significant cash to consumers) they will also need to say so very clearly in the legislation. In particular, that means spelling out how NZPower is to determine valuations of generation assets.

 The policy refers to paying generators on the basis of “historic cost” but what exactly does that mean? Intuitively we know that the public funds used to build most of our hydro stations have long ago been recouped through depreciation. In that case, the historic cost is zero. But modern accounting rules require them to be valued on the basis of their earning power, so achieving the stated policy goal means writing these book values down. To zero.

 Inevitably, there will be some messy cases, such as where old records have been lost or where someone bought the power station fairly recently for a large sum. If the policy architects have enough nerve they will tackle these problems upfront and make the legislation nice and clear. History suggests they’ll wimp out and punt the difficult issues to NZ Power along with a few vague principles. That approach would create lots of work for lawyers, add costs, and runs the risk of neutering the whole plan.

 Some other crucial details will also need to be spelled out, like how to run a competitive pool to get efficient dispatch while also regulating generators to cost. These are geek fodder.

 What if Tiwai Point closed? That works in the same direction as NZ Power: there would be less spare cash to redistribute, but the prevailing prices should also be a fair bit lower.

 The bottom line is that this policy is certainly bold, but its not crazy. It has the potential to stimulate competition and be a force for good, but it will be difficult to do and even harder to do well. 

 John Small is an economist and director of the consultancy firm Covec.

This week is also Budget week, which has historically brought some pretty bad news for students.

Last year’s Budget gifts from the Government included: removing access to student allowances for postgraduate students, increasing the student loan repayment rate from 10% to 12%, restricting all allowances to 200 weeks and freezing the parental income threshold for student allowances until 2016.

These changes have had a big impact on a lot of people.

Some of those graduating in Auckland on Friday are planning a visual protest against the burden of student debt. Students will be placing a sticker on their graduation gown showing how much student debt they have, which they describe as “a visual reminder of the number that the Government reduces them to”.

While it’d be nice to think that this years’ Budget could have some better news for students and graduates, it’s not looking good. The Government have already indicated that they’ll be putting even more pressure on overseas borrowers, and I’m sure there’s more to come.

Al Gore had this to say about the milestone: “.… every single day we pour an additional 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the sky as if it were an open sewer. As the distinguished climate scientist Jim Hansen has calculated, the accumulated manmade global warming pollution in the atmosphere now traps enough extra heat energy each day to equal the energy that would be released by 400,000 Hiroshima-scale atomic bombs exploding every single day.”

Inaction is not feasible when you consider how many populations will have to move from their homelands, the devastation that will increasing be wrought by floods and the loss inflicted by more frequent, more intense droughts. Food, water and land are all at risk. It doesn’t get a lot more fundamental than this.

Global awareness is growing. Most countries are attempting to rein in their emissions and head towards more sustainable energy sources.

Meanwhile, downunder, the National Government has taken almost every retrograde step that could be done.

Labour implemented an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which aimed at slowly including polluting industries so they paid for the damage they did and there would be an incentive to change. Under National the brakes went on. Subsidies to polluters have continued while sectors such as agriculture are still able to operate with no cost for the damage they cause.

Internationally New Zealand has recently become a climate change pariah. From being a ‘global leader’, we are now the country handed Fossil Fuel awards at UN meetings. National has decided New Zealand will take a different, easier, path from other developed countries by not signing up to future binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. New Zealand is the only developed country not to enter a formal pledge to reduce emissions by 2020. And our emissions are going up. New Zealand is not doing its fair share on climate change, it’s freeloading and hoping the rest of the world will do the heavy-lifting.

This laggard attitude actually means we are missing opportunities. Opportunities to take the lead on green tech, and do our ‘fair share’ to protect the vulnerable from climate change, especially in the Pacific.

This black milestone could have a silver lining for a Government willing to face up to the challenges.

Ralf Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has continued the Keeling Curve his father pioneered, monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from Mauna Loa. He says 400 ppm was a done deal but there’s still hope: “What happens from here on still matters to climate, and it’s still under our control. It mainly comes down to how much we continue to rely on fossil fuels for energy.”

And Al Gore, much maligned yet still committed, says everyone needs to work to stop climate change: “Make no mistake, this crisis will demand no less than our very best. I am optimistic because we have risen to meet the greatest challenges of our past.”

He urges us all to mark this milestone with a commitment to change: “Rededicate yourself to the task of saving our future. Talk to your neighbours, call your legislator, let your voice be heard. We must take immediate action to solve this crisis. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Now.”

The Green Party will continue to pressure the National Government to act on climate change. New Zealanders want to do their fair share. It’s time we started doing it.

As I have mentioned before, National has big plans to spend billions (perhaps as much as $5 billion, if we include the $2.4 billion interest on the private loan for Transmission Gully) on a grade separated four-lane highway from the airport to Otaki. It’s ridiculous to blame the Wellington City Council for holding this project up as the process is already moving as fast as it possibly could, thanks to the EPA rubber stamping process set up by National.

Steven Joyce, supposedly the economic development minister, has a particular obsession with the idea that duplicating or replacing an existing road link will have transformational economic benefits for Wellington.

This truly is, to use a term Joyce is fond of, voodoo economics.

Let’s consider why: how might building motorways create jobs?

There’s the direct impact of the people brought in to move earth, design and construct the roads. But by all accounts, building new highways is one of the worst job creators, at somewhere between $500,000 – $1,000,000 per job created. The reason for this is simple – building roads is capital intensive. Most of the money spent goes on land acquisition, big machines, and materials – not labour.

It would make a lot more sense to create jobs through home insulation, public transport services (which are much more labour intensive), even road maintenance creates more jobs per dollar spent.

But of course, the government couldn’t possibly be building the roads just to directly create jobs.  Oh no, Joyce has previously mocked the very idea of building anything just to create construction jobs… the government is building a “modern 21^st century road” because it will enable productivity benefits.

My question is – what productivity gains can we get from building a duplicate highway? The research shows that expanding an existing highway system has diminishing marginal returns, because there is already access.

The current philosophy of economic evaluation of transport infrastructure assumes that by reducing travel time, we increase access for businesses and freight, and we save precious minutes on journeys.

It is questionable whether adding up minutes of tens of thousands of commuter journeys would actually translate into economic benefit. There was never any empirical evidence to support the theory. In fact, despite people travelling at higher speeds in private vehicles, the past few decades hasn’t seen an overall reduction in travel times – people are simply travelling further than before.

The changes in land use that result from people travelling further are generally not productivity gains, they are a transfer. It’s a zero sum. Land towards the centre becomes less intensively used, while people take the benefit of cheaper land at the outskirts. Overall infrastructure costs associate with this sprawl are more expensive, as are overall transport costs to the economy (households and business need to spend more money importing vehicles and fuel.) Induced development is not a productivity gain and it costs us more for a given amount of economic activity.

If we wanted to save people time so they could be more productive, buying them labour saving devices, like dishwashers, may be more effective than building new motorways. (NB, I am not advocating this policy!)

If anything, Joyce’s treatment will be worse than the disease. Projects like the Kapiti Expressway and the Basin Reserve flyover will actually make Wellington’s situation worse, in several ways. Firstly, it will destroy some of the urban and coastal amenity that makes Wellington an attractive place to live. Secondly, it will undermine the investment in commuter rail, walking and cycling, by making it relatively cheaper and easier to drive. Of course, the total result will be higher car dependence, which means more money being spent on imported vehicles and fuel, and less on goods and services provided by Wellington businesses.

The smartest way to support Wellington’s economy is to make investments that substantially reduce the overall costs of transport to the economy – this means making walking, cycling, and public transport the priority. This would probably result in greater time savings for road trips than a new highway funneling more cars into choke-points. Investing in rail freight and coastal shipping will also reduce fuel costs and vulnerability.

Real economic development requires taking steps to support our manufacturers, investing in training and education, and thinking outside the box. I’m happy to report a lot of truly creative and productive activity is already happening in Wellington, at places like Enspiral and the Sustainability Trust. It may not be on the government’s radar, but it gives me great hope that Wellington has a smart, green future.

Let’s just hope National’s motorway madness can be stopped before it does irreparable damage to the coolest little capital.

This week the Auckland and Northland Council representatives of the PTA Joint Agency gave a multi-party briefing, following meeting Biosecurity (MPI) Minister Nathan Guy. It seems that National and MPI are effectively giving up on yet another biosecurity disaster. The bee mite varroa is well established, didymo is in too many rivers, psyllid is moving through potatoes and tomato crops, PSA in kiwifruit, Mediterranean fan worm is moving beyond Auckland and Lyttleton harbours, and now the Government appears to be throwing in the towel on kauri dieback.

More must be done to prevent entry of new pests and disease, better contain those already here, and find long term solutions for their impacts.

The Minister has been reported saying, “the best scientific evidence we have is that eradication is not possible because of its widespread nature, and there is no known cure. Our focus now is on slowing its spread and protecting our remaining disease-free forests while research continues.”

From my horticultural experience, I understand the problems with phytopthora contagions and have some sympathy for the Minister’s view. However, the small amount of research continuing is unlikely to make the breakthrough required to preserve even some of our kauri forests for later generations.

For this cultural taonga and icon of Northland tourism, the mainstay of forests where it is the dominant species, we must push much harder for a scientific breakthrough.

The research needs to be lifted by significant funding for the logical specialist provider, the government’s own forest research institute (Scion). Scion has expertise that should be focused on this issue, and the PTA Joint Agency of four regional councils, Department of Conservation, MPI and northern iwi need to be able to access that expertise and associated technology.

Kauri dieback is an example of continued biosecurity failures in New Zealand, but also a failure of how science is funded and directed. The commercial model for science and Crown Research Institutes (CRI) means that the Minister will not be directing Scion to get stuck into this problem of national significance. This leaves the PTA Joint Agency having to come to Wellington to beg for continued funding to pay Scion, so Scion can meet the Government’s expectation of a financial dividend from CRIs. The Minister will be hoping that the councils and iwi stump up the cash to feed it dividends, and seems prepared to let an icon die along the way.

It seems a contradiction, that today the Minister announced 30 new positions to help with biosecurity border protection, yet seems willing to throw his hands in the air as Tāne Mahuta and our iconic kauri forests die.

With affected trees as close as 60 metres from the famous Tāne Mahuta in the Waipoua Forest, and thousands of trees dying elsewhere, it is time for the Minister to have a change of heart and make a positive change to this year’s budget by funding the $5 million over 5 years needed to continue finding the breakthrough that we all want.

Tui has been at the top of a list of contaminated sites for many years, partially due to the real risk of the collapse of the waste dump onto the community below. Finally after many years of campaigning and lobbying, the clean-up process for this ‘orphan’ toxic site was initiated.

Over the last three years, the Green Party has worked with the Government to ensure funding to stabilise the site and at least partially neutralise the underground toxic leachate with lime.

Last week I attended an event marking the end of the clean-up. On the mountain I joined tangata whenua Ngāti Tumutumu and Ngāti Hako, people from the Hauraki iwi, local and regional authorities, the contractors, and local residents for this celebration of progress. The site has been hugely improved through the stabilisation and processing of the tailings waste into a solid mix and the work on the mine water quality. This cost central and local government $21 million.

On-going monitoring and re-application of lime to the contaminated water will continue to be important and the Greens will stay actively involved with the regional council as they carry out this work. The iwi are developing a cultural monitoring plan to continue the healing of the mountain, including work to restore the mauri (life force) of the affected waterways.

Overall, it was a very positive achievement and good to work with two Ministers for the Environment to get this progress. The lessons we can learn from Tui are simple.

• Don’t let foreign miners run away from their pollution.
• Don’t mine our mountains for metals that could otherwise be mined from scrap metal yards and used cell phones.
• Respect tangata whenua when they tell us not to damage their sacred places.
•  Above all else love and protect our maunga and our water!

Why should the taxpayer have to pay for this? The Government could, under current legislation, implement a permanent solution for e-waste, which would not require a taxpayer handout.

In fact, just today councils in Wellington are calling on the Government to implement a scheme whereby the producers of electronic goods pre-pay for the recycling of their products. I believe this mandatory pre-pay e-waste scheme is the way to go.

Our current system where people voluntarily pay for recycling at the time of disposal isn’t working: only about 20% of our e-waste is recycled. But a mandatory pre-pay scheme would dramatically increase this rate.

If we had more recycling of products worldwide, then we have to build fewer mines, and the world would be a cleaner, greener place. E-waste products contain gold, silver and rare earth metals.  Let’s mine our used electronic waste rather than our treasured places.

It’s time for the Government to set up and implement a permanent solution for TV waste and other e-waste. Pre-pay is the way forward.

The report, which investigates the major climate & weather events of the past year, found 2012 to be the 27^th consecutive year with above average global temperatures.

Global average temperature in 2012 was 0.45⁰C warmer than the 1961-90 long-term average. The years between 2001 and ’12 were among the top 13 warmest on record.

The WMO is aware of the short-term rate of warming, much touted by climate sceptics: “Although the rate of warming varies from year to year due to natural variability caused by El Niño cycle, volcanic eruptions and other phenomena, the sustained warming of the lower atmosphere is a worrisome sign”.

Reflecting the conclusions of the consensus science around the world, the report concludes that the decline of Arctic sea ice in 2012 is a ‘clear and alarming sign of climate change’.  Let’s repeat that – ‘clear and alarming’.

The report highlights the consequences of rising temperatures for the Greenland ice sheet: in July 2012, 97% of the ice-sheet’s surface had melted – the most in the 34-year satellite record.

It notes the slight increase in Antarctic sea-ice, but shows that, along with Greenland, there is a loss in ice-mass overall.

The report addresses the causality issue – the issue of cause v correlation between climate change and extreme weather events: “Natural climate variability has always resulted in such extremes, but the physical characteristics of extreme weather and climate events are being increasingly shaped by climate change”.

Estimates of casualties and loss from 2012 events are:

-          Sandy: some 230 killed, 62 million affected, and US$70 b. damage;

-          Bopha: over 1,000 deaths, 6 m. affected, $49 m. damage;

-          Cold over Europe/Nth Africa: over 650 deaths, $660 m. damage;

-          Floods in Africa: 340 deaths, 3 m. affected, $6 m. damage;

-          Drought in USA: many $b. damage.

WMO Secretary-General, Michel Jarraud, highlights the sense of urgency in helping the most vulnerable countries to cope.

Meanwhile, down-under:

On 18 April, I asked a question of Prime Minister, John Key: “Will he commit his Government to accept citizens of Pacific Island countries displaced by sea-level rise as a result of climate change?”

The answer: “If rising sea levels caused by climate change were to threaten their long-term survival, which, it is important to understand, would likely be some way in the future, it would be my expectation that future New Zealand Governments would look very sympathetically on their position.”

Check the full exchange, here.  Now compare it with a similar question I asked John Key back on 22 July 2009, and his answer – virtually word-for-word the same response.  Four years on.

During those four years, the onset of climate change has become more obvious, more intense and more alarming.  Yet nothing has changed on Planet Key.  Other than the following:

-          The gutting of the Emissions Trading Scheme to render it totally ineffective;

-          The refusal to enter the 2^nd Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol (2013-20), and thus any binding reductions for the critical ‘transition decade’;

-          The procrastination in deciding on a formal reductions target for 2020 (the only state still not to have done so).

I spoke along these lines in the Pacific Debate a few hours later.

It is staggeringly difficult to comprehend why this Government is being so truculently dismissive of the increasing global alarm over climate change.  This is not the place to explore the psychological reasons, though I am tempted.

Suffice to say that we in the Green Party are working extremely hard on this issue.

See our plans for a one-day climate change conference, in the NZ Parliament, on Friday, 7 June.

To which you are invited.

While the jargon loaded Challenge documents are a struggle to read, the message by pro-GE scientists in the primary production section is clear.

For the primary production challenge, first on the list under adaptation is “new biotechnologies”, a euphemism for genetic engineering among other things. The notes say:

“Societal (and Government) acceptance of genetic modification and other biotechnology is still not at a level that allows rapid uptake of new technologies and further societal discussion is needed as the global experience of this technology and the nature of this technology evolves.”

Using public money to sway public opinion towards unwanted and failed GE technology is not something to celebrate. Genetic engineering on a global scale has resulted in increased pesticide use, increased insect chemical resistance and chemical resistant weeds, community dislocation, and biodiversity loss.

The New Zealand community and its best value markets do not want GE products.

The primary production challenge is a missed opportunity to focus on a new vision of sustainability, using the best of organic and biological farming systems that give farmers profitability, while engaging in genuinely sustainable systems. We don’t need more of the same old agricultural science strategy of patent based silver bullets such as DCD and GE for their unsustainable dairy based mess.

The answers exist for agriculture, but those with the hands on the reins of science funding and agriculture seem fixated on old strategies with unsustainable and unwanted technologies.

We need to get the health of bees on the agenda of our Government so that we can protect these vital little insects.

I wrote to the Chair of the Primary Production Select Committee yesterday to get this on the agenda.

Here is my letter, I will keep you updated on our progress.

To Mr Shane Adern
Member for Taranaki-King Country and
Chair of Primary Industry Select Committee
Parliament House

Dear Shane,
Further to my raising bee industry issues in conversation at select committee, I am now more formally raising this with you, particularly following some recent decisions.
I am sure you are aware of the European Commission’s recent decision to put restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids across Europe due to concerns about their impact on pollinators, especially bees.
As the select committee that looks at agriculture, I feel it is our responsibility to assess this issue from a New Zealand perspective. Bees are an undervalued but absolutely crucial part of agriculture and producing food; we cannot take risks with their survival. New Zealand’s National Beekeepers Association estimates that bees contribute $5.1 billion to New Zealand’s economy.
New Zealand has 30 products containing these neonicotinoids approved for agricultural use and the Environmental Protection Agency is currently considering the application for another. It would be very useful to know what restrictions are currently in place on the use of these chemicals. The Ministers for Environment and Primary Industries have both confirmed to me that New Zealand does not do any monitoring of the use of neonicotinoids.
I am copying in the Clerk of the Committee, Ciaria Lee with the intent that you, as Chair add a notice of business to the Primary Production Select Committee agenda to discuss receiving a briefing on the health of bees.
A briefing was, in 2011, received by the Local Government and Environment Select Committee but was not resolved and so did not result in a report or any recommendations. The issue of pollinator security is more closely suited to the Primary Production committee because of the importance of pollinators to our agricultural sector, and equally the impact of our agricultural activities on bee health.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your support on this issue.

The criteria in fact are high falutin requirements that the minister making the appointment needs to consider.

They include that the person:

a)    Has an understanding of current race relations in New Zealand, and of the origins and development of those relations:

b)    Has an appreciation of issues or trends in race relations arising in other countries or internationally, and of the relevance of those issues or trends for New Zealand.

The criteria Justice Minister Judith Collins was working from appear to be quite different.

They include that the person:

a)     Is a famous sports person.

b)     See (a).

Basically to be in the running it would be an advantage to be a runner, or a rugby player or a netball player or a squash player.

One News reported last night that rugby great Michael Jones and netballer Irene van Dyk were shortlisted for the position before it was given to Dame Susan Devoy.

Apparently van Dyk made it to the interview stage, while Jones was offered the job but decided against it.

Those people sound like they might be quite talented and able and perhaps they should flick a CV off to Sport New Zealand.

Sure being well-known is an advantage and excelling at sports does show grit and determination. In fact the Human Rights Act does highlight leadership as a good characteristic to have. But it did also mention a couple of pesky little attributes about a depth of knowledge and understanding of race relations that these candidates have not demonstrated.

Were previous ministers wrong to think it would be good if candidates could bring their prior experience and knowledge to the job; could undertake inquiries, respond to complaints and report on race relations in New Zealand from a position of understanding?

Is it better to present a famous smiling face on race relations in New Zealand to create a cheery picture of race relations that doesn’t reflect the pain and suffering of those who face discrimination?

I hope Dame Susan seizes this challenge and learns what she needs to do the job. I hope too though that the Minister can reflect on this appointment and look hard at her motivation for scouring the country for sportspeople to take the lead role on race relations in Aotearoa.

I attended a presentation by newly established Transparent Hawke’s Bay at the start of the council meeting.  In the 10 minutes they were allowed, Pauline Elliott, Tom Belford and John Cheyne called on regional council to hit the ‘pause’ button on the Ruataniwha project for at least six months. This is to allow due diligence on behalf of the community, and an independent assessment of the environmental and financial assumptions HBRC is using to push the dam.

Transparent Hawke’s Bay’s call is sensible given the huge risks the Ruataniwha scheme represents to rivers, water quality and ratepayers. Cost estimates have ballooned well past $250 million, with the regional council proposing to borrow heavily to fund its $80 million for the scheme.

Ngati Kahungunu, Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game, and Friends of the Tukituki have made similar calls for a pause to HBRC’s headlong rush to lodge resource consent applications for the scheme.

With Council having spent more than $8 million on the scheme to date (with $3 million of this coming from the Ministry of Primary Industries) engineering and consultants doing project reports have been the scheme’s major beneficiaries.

Directors of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company (HBRIC), the council-controlled organisation tasked with advancing the dam, also have their hands out. At last week’s council meeting they asked for a big increase in their director fees.

As  Bay Buzz’s Tom Belford reports HBRIC chair Dr Andy Pearce asked for a $44,125 increase in his fees to $65,625 per annum and raises of $22,500 each (to $37,500 each per annum) for fellow directors Jim Scotland and Sam Robinson, as well as fees for three expert ‘committee members’.  The fact that Council’s chief financial officer, whose electronic signature was on the council agenda paper requesting the increase, had neither read nor signed the paper, prompted questions from councillors and meant no decision was made.

Transparent Hawke’s Bay has recently asked the Auditor- General to review  the lack of information provided to ratepayers before HBRC signed off its long term plan last year, with its major funding commitments for the Ruataniwha scheme.

The Kaipara community is grappling council debts of around $50 million after decisions by its council breached the requirements of the Local Government Act.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council may be on a similar path. A thorough investigation by the Office of the Auditor-General would be timely.