This position was predictable, but less well known is her stance on education. Julia is the leader who imposed the Australian version of National Standards on Australian schools against the wishes of the teachers’ unions.

On a school visit, John Key admitted to Julia Gillard that we’re having a few problems with our “trial” of National Standards. If only it was a trial! In fact, it’s been rolled out to all schools, but he was right to admit that it’s not going well – many of our teachers and principals have rejected the standards outright.

The Australian education system is not the model we should follow in the race to educational inequity. Their record on public education is tainted by privatisation and underfunding. The Finnish education system is far more successful and innovative and is based on rewarding teachers and uplifting the status of public education. While there are some key differences between New Zealand and Finland – like the fact that there’s very little immigration in Finland – we could learn a lot from the Finnish system. However, I doubt the National Government is interested in anything that challenges its present orthodoxy.

The National Standards are in trouble because they were not a response to a key need identified by students, parents, teachers or academics. They were part of a new Government wanting to deliver on a particular election commitment. By ACT’s standards they are limited response to the call for vouchers and total privatisation in education. But it’s far easier to slowly weaken the public sector and set up the steps towards league tables and performance pay than announce your passion for the private system.

Of course, the signals have been clear since Budget 2009, which granted an extra $35 million to private schools. The present fondness for Cambridge exams over NCEA, and moves towards public private partnerships in schools are more evidence of this trend.

Last year National Standards were the major debacle in education, and the pitched battle over them created the sense of a Government that would not listen to teachers. Now with the resignation of the Ministry of Education’s senior official working on National Standards the cracks are widening. Will the Government acknowledge the need for a review of the mess, or will they plough on further to in the educational race to nowhere?

Greens’ vigilance on Gillard merits praise – John Armstrong

The Greens have got some unwarranted stick for blocking Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard from addressing Parliament while it is officially in session. They were right to do so.

Their intervention has produced a compromise which most people will struggle to see as much different from what John Key had originally proposed. That saves face for him.

The compromise is significant, however, in the huge symbolic difference between what will happen tomorrow and what Key had hoped for.

The Australian Premier will be speaking to a meeting of MPs which coincidentally is being held in the parliamentary chamber outside sitting hours with the permission of the Speaker. The meeting will not become part of the official record, normal rules will not apply and the meeting will carry no special status.

The Greens’ objection to Key’s plan was made clear to MPs during closed-door meetings some months ago. Had it been ignored, there was a strong possibility they would have refused leave for Gillard to speak – only one MP’s refusal is required to halt proceedings. That would have been humiliating for her and acutely embarrassing for Key.

So what, after all, was wrong with the original plan? The Greens had two reasons for blocking Gillard.

The first follows the British constitutional line that the floor of the House remain sacrosanct and only the people’s elected representatives should tread it. This flows from English history; that MPs should not be threatened or unduly influenced by “strangers” – such as the King’s soldiers.

The second reason is that giving Gillard the full honours would have set a worrying and dangerous precedent. As Green Party co-leader Russel Norman says, no Government could avoid the Chinese President officially addressing Parliament if there was such a precedent.

The Chinese would take refusal as a massive diplomatic snub. But going ahead would provoke a huge uproar if, in Norman’s words, “the No 1 enemy of democracy” was allowed to lecture a chamber filled with democratically elected MPs.

What message would that send? Key may yet have reason to thank the Greens for their vigilance.

Beekeepers are already alarmed at the arrival in NZ of the potentially devastating parasite Nosema cerenae.  There is a risk that this devastating new parasite could have come in on imported pollen as it has only been found in bees in the last six weeks. (How ironic if in importing pollen in to NZ we were to put at risk our bee industry.) Nosema cerenae kills bees through diarrhoea—it’s the reason the bee industry here has been fighting to keep Aussie honey out of NZ. Australia imports honey from China and Sth America and then re-package it as Australian (because they have a Made in Australia rule—50% has to be from Oz), and this parasite is found in these places. The imported pollen in the Bay of Plenty is from Chile so therefore it would be an easy assumption to make that it carried in n. cerenae.

Nobody is saying that this imported pollen is certainly the source of PSA disease in New Zealand, and the Minister’s calls for calm heads and caution are absolutely appropriate. But in this case caution surely dictates a halt to this trade. It seems bizarre for us to be importing pollen at all, but at least a temporary halt should be put in place immediately.

For me this highlights two of the points I made in my speech about PSA disease: 1. our headlong rush into global free trade has resulted in a massive increase in imports, bringing with them a massive increase in biosecurity risks: and 2. a biosecurity approach based on risk profiling, sampling, and detecting only what we can see seems, at best, antiquated (positioned historically some time before the invention of the microscope).

[Edit - it is Made in Australia rule not product of Australia rule. My bad — Frog]

This is disappointing to say the least, given the strong stance NZ has taken at the International Whaling Commission. Green Co-leader Russel Norman calls it “gutless”. And that individuals are willing to put their lives at risk to challenge whalers while their govt stands by makes it even worse. Surely there is more we can do – here are two ideas.

Green Tasmanian Senator Bob Brown is urging the Australian govt to bring a challenge against Japan in the International Court of Justice. Why not a joint challenge from NZ and Oz? Our two countries working together would surely make a very strong case.

Australian Ministers are talking up some form of legal action. Where are our Ministers – in trade talks with the Japanese, perhaps?

And is it not ironic that the person delivering Japanese spin to New Zealanders is Kiwi Glenn Inwood? I wonder what he’s being paid to organise those spy planes for the Japanese. Surely our government is embarrassed that a New Zealand national is involved in such activities given our strong position against whaling in the international community.

So Greens here and in Australia are also looking at introducing legislation into both our Parliaments to make it illegal for our respective citizens to aid or abet whaling. That would make Inwood’s operation illegal in NZ.

New Zealander’s have been consistant in their calls for strong action to keep whales safe in our own back yard. It’s time for the National led govt to show it will take the same strong stance that NZ is known for.

So what is a Smart Hook?

Fisher-turned-inventor Hans Jussiet explains the shield and dissolvable pin that covers baited-hooks as they are launched in this video from an ABC TVshow. Once the shielded hook sinks below the depth of seabirds and turtles, the pin dissolves and the shield is released. Clever.

The shield falls to the seafloor and its untreated metal rusts within a year. I’d be keen to see a bit more environmental impact analysis of raining metal pieces onto the seafloor, but hopefully it’s OK. Are there any marine scientists reading frog?

Innovation and regulation – like hook and shield

I’m impressed by the dedication to reducing the toll that fishing methods like long-lining take on marine animals like albatross, and clever “prevention” approach (rather than just “mitigation”). Innovation complements regulation. Application of clever ideas like this is good for the environment and the economy – ensuring we have a long-term sustainable fishery and markets for our fish.

What say you, dear readers?

None of the ETS amendments have anything to do with reducing climate change emissions. They are about progressing foreign, trade and industrial growth policies – strengthening CER towards a full common market, and encouraging growth in energy intensive industries.

The measures in the Bill which are copied from the Australian draft legislation include:

• free allocations based on output  so that the more you grow your pollution the more free allocation you get;
• free allocation based on 90% or 60% of the industry average emissions per million dollars of output;
• the industry average is the Australasian average, not the world average;
• adopting the Australian definition of “trade-exposed”  which is what qualifies a firm for free allocation;
• a cap on the price of emissions until 2013 which is effectively $12.50 a tonne (Australia is A$10) when the world price is currently around $26
• a 2 year delay for agriculture to 2015 – the date Australia may bring in agriculture itself;
• phasing out free allocations to industry at Australia’s 1.3% a year rather than 8% in the existing NZ scheme;
• use of Australian data and benchmarking wherever possible.

Funny how this is so easy when aligning with an Australian standard on light bulb efficiency was so hard.

Sydney, lookin red

Well if this isn’t a vision of the future come to life, I don’t know what is. Obviously, the dust is a result of the years (10?) of drought that Australia is experiencing, which may-or-may-not (tongue firmly in cheek) be climate change in action.

People in Sydney awoke today to discover the sky was turned a hellish red in the extremely rare weather event.

Ferries have been cancelled and flights to Sydney airport have been diverted as visibility has been severely reduced.

More pictures

PM says “Of course, [PKE] has some impact”

First, the Prime Minister changed his tune. He initially lept to parrot Fonterra and FedFarmers by saying: “It’s a waste product, in my opinion it’s not leading to deforestation and on that basis I have no intention of intervening.” But in answer to questions from Russel he said, “Of course, it has some impact; the Government does not deny that”.

This shift was because Russel presented the evidence (as he had done weeks earlier) that PKE’s real and proportional values, and the level of NZ demand, “significantly add to the profitability of [the palm] industry and helps fuel its expansion into virgin rainforest across South-east Asia”:

• New Zealand paid $317 million for palm kernel in 2008
• PKE contributes up to 15 percent of the income stream of the palm oil industry [We've asked the PM for the source of his 1.5%, and checking our up-to-15%]
• Daniel Cheow, the managing director of a Malaysian palm kernel exporter called Palmbase, said that palm kernel prices “have shot up as demand is coming in much faster than expected, which in part is a result of the dramatic increase in demand coming from New Zealand”
• Diesel is a “by-product” of the petrol industry, but we don’t downplay its value and contribution to greenhouse gas emissions
• The World Bank withdrew lending to Fonterra’s kernel partner Wilma last week because of its role in rainforest destruction
• Fonterra subsidiary RD1′s own comments that the price of palm kernel is ‘driven by demand’.

Incidentally, the PM also took an unusual step of inciting protest: “I look forward to the Greens and Greenpeace picketing supermarkets [about palm oil], if they really want to stop deforestation.” Nice.

International press spot-light

Second, the Greenpeace action in Tauranga, and the pressure on Fonterra’s use of PKE since the Sunday Star Times expose a month ago, has rippled through the international media. Reuters, BBC, AFP, AP, ABC/Radio Australia, Reuters India, Chile TV, ChinaThe Canadian Press, even the Scotsman and the Belfast Telegraph. And the USA Today.

If the facts are unpalatable for Fonterra and the Government, the international media spotlight will have got their attention.

“I feel a change coming on” said Dylan

It may be that the “Greenpeace protest won’t shift Fonterra or PM” (as Stuff put it), but the protest, plus international media spotlight, plus the evidence, already has.

The solution is simple: use our own supplementary grain and maize feeds, supporting our farmers, reducing biosecurity risks, reducing current account deficit by $313m, saving the rainforests and showing the world we can live up to ‘clean and green’.

Credit: Photo sent in by Glenn Murdoch

Gerry was so inspired he decided to tell a mining conference that he wanted to open up our best conservation land for mining.

Reasonable access to the mineral estate in Crown-owned land, particularly conservation land, is a key issue. … Some of the areas within Schedule 4 [which includes National Parks] are known to host significant [mining] potential…

Very inspirational indeed Gerry – it’s up there with sexy coal!

NZ is ably represented by former Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer and, according to news reports, he is “respectfully urging” Japan to lift its threat to hunt humpback whales in the Antarctic. The ODT reports he told the IWC:

new evidence about the endangered status of humpbacks in the South Pacific had strengthened the case for a permanent ban… While some humpback stocks were thriving, Sir Geoffrey said it was impossible to know whether Japanese harpoons would strike these whales, or the highly depleted Oceania stock.

Also at the meeting, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw) released a report compiled by ‘Economists at Large‘ showing that whale watching generates far more money than whale hunting. It calculated that, worldwide, the whale-watching industry now generates about $2.1bn per year, whale-watching has doubled in the past decade, and in 2008, 13 million people went to sea to watch cetaceans in 119 countries.

“Whale watching is clearly more environmentally sustainable and economically beneficial than hunting, and whales are worth far more alive than dead,” [Ifaw] told BBC News.

Iceland’s delegate, predictably responded that the two industries (whale-watching and whale-killing) were compatible and could grow together. Perhaps they believe that the classical economics theory can be universally applied – i.e. that the price commanded by whale-watchers will rise as whales get rarer. And an extinct whale is very very valuable. Oh dear. In actually fact they conflict directly, as illustrated in the 2006 incidence where tourists got the honour of watching a Norwegian boat harpooning a minke whale.

An earlier report commissioned by WWF, argued that that the Japanese and Norwegian hunts were a net cost to their governments, i.e. were an economic liability as well as an environmental liability.

So, it seems time to redefine the verb ‘whaling’ from “the act of hunting and killing a whale, that is subsidised by governments” to “the act of locating and watching whales, that makes money for sustainable tourism and is nicer to whales”. With that definition in mind, sit back, relax and enjoy a Kiwi classic:

Didn’t think you’d ever hear me say that, did you?

Senator Fielding is the one vote Rudd didn’t have yesterday to pass their “Carbon Reduction Plan” – or Emissions Trading Scheme in our language. And that is a good thing, because the proposal was so appallingly weak that it would not actually reduce carbon emissions, but would have given huge subsidies to the coal and other heavy industries.

The five Green senators aren’t having a bar of it – although they support reducing carbon emissions and emissions trading if it is set up right. Senator Fielding (Independent) opposed it in yesterday’s vote for the opposite reason – he thinks climate change is not caused by human activity, but probably the result of solar flares. Whatever. The important thing is the outcome.

Why should we care? Well, because the NZ Government is desperately keen to amend our law, passed last year, to “align” with the Australian scheme. That would see us:

• delaying the introduction of agriculture, possibly indefinitely;
• allocating the free credits for trade exposed industry on an intensity basis – ie the more you grow your emissions in the future, the bigger the subsidy you get.  No incentive for growing low carbon industry there;
• capping the value of carbon units, initially at $10 a tonne – no incentive to do anything much there;
• prohibiting the sale of Australian units outside the country, so limiting the market to what Australian buyers are willing to pay.
• offsetting the effect on transport fuels by reducing other taxes, with the effect that there will be no effect on transport fuel prices, and so no change in behaviour. And their petrol is already cheaper than ours.

So the Greens here are pleased that for several months at least, there will be no Australian scheme to align with. We have a scheme in law now – it is not perfect, but it is much better than this.

It is possible that in October, when the Bill could be put up again, the Liberals will change their opposition and vote for it, in an even weaker state.

But by then it will be too late to get  legislation through the NZ Parliament before the energy and industrial sector takes on liabilities under our existing law, on 1 January 2010.

The Government is in a real bind. No allocation plans have been developed for the energy sector, sorting out who will get free credits, and how many, allocated because their competitors overseas face no price on carbon. It is 10 months since the law was passed but officials appear to have stopped working on the complex allocation plans when the new government was elected, because John Key said he would put the ETS on hold while he developed amendments. Such a law is a long way off, supposing the Government can even get the numbers to pass it.

Allocation plans are not quick to get approved as they have to come to Parliament for scrutiny. In the meantime, time marches on and industries like cement, steel, aluminium, wood processing, Fonterra and others are looking at 100% liability for their emissions on 1 January because there are no allocation plans.

That cannot be allowed to happen, but it is not clear how the Government plans to stop it.

The costs relate to a landmark Federal Court case that Bob took in 2006 against the state owned enterprise. He alleged that Forestry Tasmania were breaching Federal threatened species legislation in logging the biodiversity rich Wielangta forest in south east Tasmania. He won that case, but in true Tasmanian style, the decision was later overturned on a technicality by the Court after the Tasmanian Government joined forces with the then Howard Government to change the law.

Having paid for the original case himself by auctioning almost all of his possessions, he has been left without the means to pay Forestry Tasmania’s court costs. Now Forestry Tasmania is threatening to bankrupt Bob if he does not pay the money by June 29. Bankruptcy would disqualify him from the Senate.

Bob is a longtime conservation crusader, and has been a tireless advocate for the Tasmanian Wilderness since playing a crucial leadership role in the battle to save the magnificent Franklin river from being drowned under a hydro dam in the early 1980s. It is hard to see this as anything other than politically-motivated attempt to intimidate and silence him. The Greens won 13.5% of the senate vote in Tasmania in 2007.

Since news of Bob’s plight broke in Australia yesterday, he had been overwhelmed by offers of financial support, including from entrepreneur Dick Smith.

We’re angered to see our friend and colleague bullied in this way. If frog readers wish to give something to someone who has done so much for conservation and Green politics, you can donate here.

E tu kahikatea.

The Greens’ historic win in the ALP stronghold of Fremantle hinged on Liberal voters out to punish Labor, WA Opposition Leader Eric Ripper says.

Greens candidate Adele Carles made history with her victory in Saturday’s Fremantle by-election, becoming the party’s first MP elected to the lower house of the WA parliament.

This is the first time the seat has fallen out of Labor hands since 1924.

Pretty spooky similarities! A seat that has always been held by Labour falls to the Greens as disgruntled Tories back the Green candidate. Hmmm.

It might just happen here, ya know!

This is the ETS that John Key claims he wants to ‘harmonise’ with:

We don’t even have a target for 2020!! How lame can this government get on climate change?

There were protests all over Australia and in NZ condemning Howards intention to legislate for government management of the aboriginal land, much of it having potential for uranium mining, while refusing to invest in education, housing or long term medical care for the aboriginal communities. The Greens in Aussie and NZ played a part in raising the human rights abuse concerns of aboriginal communities as did Hone Harawira, who famously went ‘walkabout’ to talk to the aboriginal communities over there.

The Report from Human Rights Committee: Australia agrees that the intervention was discriminatory:

The State party should redesign NTER measures in direct consultation with the indigenous peoples concerned, in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Racial Discrimination Act 1995 and the Covenant.

The original Howard response included legislation for five year government leases over aboriginal owned townships, introduction of police from interstate, alcohol bans, quarantining of social security payments and market based rents for community housing. At the time the most rational response came from the
Combined Aboriginal Organistions with facts about the real circumstances of these communities. For example that an

additional $60 million a year was needed over 10 years to provide teachers; 99% of all Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory have no substance abuse service and 99% have no dental service. Only 54% have state funded primary care services and 47% have an Aboriginal primary health care service more than 50km distance away.

And that there is an estimated

shortfall of at least 4,000 homes, which the Northern Territory Government conservatively estimates would cost $1.4 billion to provide.” The construction of which would “provide jobs for many community members, resolve shortages of skilled construction workers in rural and remote areas.

And of course, with the 5 year leases over the territories, the government is now able to lease the land to miners, looking to profit from the uranium in the area.

Its great the UN has identified the gross discrimination of the intervention and that groups like Amnesty International continue to campaign on this. We have yet to see what Rudd will do about it though.

The Prime Minister did a good imitation of saying nothing definite and implying that the Declaration was more or less just an aspirational text. He said they would watch to see what caveats’ the Aussies put on supporting the Declaration before they made a decision.

It may be that the Declaration is highly symbolic rather than an internal programme of action for Aotearoa/New Zealand, but the greatest symbolism is in who refuses to sign it.

It does raise the issue of why is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People is being called aspirational!? Are the rights of women, people with disabilities, children etc merely aspirational or does this only apply to the Declaration on indigenous rights? If so why ??

As of this week only USA, Canada and Aotearoa/New Zealand are refusing to support the Declaration. 144 countries have signed on to it and 11 have abstained while Australia has decided to show some support. The Green Party wants to know what the new Government here intends to do on this issue. After today’s display of prevarication I am not holding my breath. The key issue is that the UN Declaration acknowledges the collective self determination of indigenous peoples, which seems to have scared the hell out of both Labour and National.

Normally we would never advocate following Australia on issues of cultural justice, their record speaks for itself in all its genocidal brutality, but at least the Rudd Government has made a positive move. The UN Declaration has flaws and weaknesses but it does take a stand for indigenous collectivive self determination across the earth. 

We will just keep on asking our Prime Minister to join the ethical majority at the United Nations on this issue. After all his Government is in a Confidence and Supply agreement with a tangata whenua political party, doesn’t he owe them the recognition of their human rights?

I have blogged about this issue frequently, but not yet addressed the key argument of National – that private prisons are cheaper.

So I used my speech last night to refer to both Australian and US research that showed that privately run prisons are not demonstrably cheaper for the public than publicly run prisons. Below are some extracts and links to the documents.

What is of most concern of course, is that if the cost to the public is essentially the same, where are the massive profits coming from? That can only be from a significant reduction in the provision of rehab services, health services, retraining, significant staff reductions and other core services that help to reduce the reoffending rate of prisoners. Hence the argument that as the key to a successful business is repeat customers, providing a perverse incentive for private prison management to minimise programs that reduce reoffending.

The US Department of Justice report, Emerging Issues on Privatised Prisons clearly showed that the privatisation model simply mimicked the public sector in practically every critical way. The promises from private companies in the US of 20% savings simply did not eventuate. Any modest savings made were by reductions in staffing and other labour related costs. The report concluded that the amount of savings in corrections costs “will not revolutionise modern correctional practices.” In other words has no practical impact on the cost of running prisons or on the practice of running prisons.

An Australian report, “Privatisation and New South Wales Prisons: Value for Money and Neo-liberal Regulation” published just last year also showed that the privatisation of prison did not result in value for money or a significant reduction in costs. In fact, the paper shows that the rhetoric of cost effectiveness undermined alternative criteria for assessment, such as safety, educational outcomes, or reduced reoffending. This is where the National government is duping the public. By misleading the public on the efficiency of private prison management they are diverting attention from the most important issue of all – the effective use of taxpayers money to keep the community safe.

The Cancer Society is calling on our government to follow Australia’s lead by making the new standard legally binding here. I’m inclined to agree. The real question is this; Will a government who ran a big part of their election campaign against the so called “nanny state” have the courage to do what is right and protect the public not only from the physical harm from misuse of the beds but from the soaring health costs that comes with it?

What do you think?

Brown proposes a simple question; Should Australia become a republic, yes or no? This is more open ended than the last referendum, which asked; Should Australia become a republic, with a president appointed by parliament? Brown claims that most Australians at the time wanted to directly elect a president rather than leave it to parliament.

It is a very interesting question, which is easier to discuss when it is someone else’s government we are talking about. Click here to listen to the RadioNZ Interview with Green Senator Bob Brown.

A sense of pride in country. Having an Australian as head of state, this does manifestly change the way we feel about ourselves.

Indeed it would. As Brown says, putting a republic in place takes a long, long time, so putting off the day you start is just wasting time. What do you think about Australia becoming a Republic? And New Zealand? When we answer the first question, it becomes much easier to discuss the second.