It has been a somewhat Kafkaesque exercise because the government wouldn’t directly admit the existence of the agreement, or whether New Zealand had signed up.

I always received evasive answers to my written Parliamentary questions. So in March 2006 I thought I would ask two extra questions: “is the United States a signatory to the ‘UKUSA’ partnership?” and “is the United Kingdom a signatory to the ‘UKUSA’ partnership?” Prime Minister Helen Clark wouldn’t tell me.

Last week the British National Archive spilled the beans, releasing texts of the UKUSA agreement between 1946 and 1956 with a clause reading: “it will be contrary to this Agreement to reveal its existence”.

This is a blatant violation of the principle of accountable government. This year New Zealand taxpayers hand over $70 million to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), mainly to provide intelligence to UK and the USA under an agreement we are not even allowed to know exists.

The extreme secrecy has little to do with security. It is mainly to avoid our government’s embarrassment at helping the United States, through electronic intelligence, advance its political agenda rather than ours. At the Waihopai Three trial the British whistleblower Katharine Gunn explained how Waihopai had been used to spy on nations critical of the invasion of Iraq.

One thing the Archive documents show is that UKUSA has been primarily an Anglo-American agreement, with Australia, Canada and New Zealand acting as bit players. A 1956 document refers to a Defence Signals Branch in Melbourne, which was “to be a joint UK-Australian-New Zealand organization, manned by an integrated staff”, with its tasks determined by the UK Government Communications Headquarters and the US National Security Agency.

Our government’s response to the National Archives’ release of the UKUSA documents has been yet another ‘no comment’. As I told the media this week it’s about time the government came clean and admitted what UKUSA is all about and what it commits us to.

Agricultural intensification over the past 10 years has led to the highest rate of native vegetation loss since European colonisation.

Lake Taupo farm and forest

So says the 2009 annual report of Landcare Research, a Crown Research Institute, in an article about ‘Post-capitalism conservation’.

Landcare argues that the market is disconnected from natural capital, a problem that has contributed to the current economic crisis. Land biodiversity in New Zealand is a good example: where natural vegetation has been cleared away for intensive farming. This results in:

increased risk to the ongoing supply of essential goods and services (such as clean water) provided by biodiversity, as well as its intrinsic aesthetic and intellectual value.

They say that the fragmentation of native forests and streamside vegetation also make us more vulnerable to invasive species and impacts of climate change, and reduce resilience on the remainder of native biodiversity such that it further fragments.

I was staggered at the fact that the last decade has seen the fastest decline in native vegetation since colonisation. I knew we were still losing more native cover than we were gaining, but the ‘worst decade’ status is quite extraordinary. It’s certainly more evidence that the Labour government’s environmental rhetoric was just that, rhetoric.

The key instrument to arrest this decline would be a National Policy Statement on Biodiversity to give some guidance for the Resource Management Act. There’s no doubt it’s a difficult policy to write, because to work it would have to restrict landowners’ clearance of native vegetation, and incentivise regeneration and replanting. Given this decade’s performance has been so bad, current voluntary schemes like covenants, guidelines and accords are not sufficient. It is New Zealand Inc. that will pay the cost, including private landowners, with degraded waterways and more pest and weed problems. The Greens finally convinced Labour to commit to the NPS on biodiversity as part of ETS negotiations (pine forests in the wrong place can be another threat to biodiversity), after Labour’s earlier false start in 2000. National committed to one before the election:  “National is committed to developing a NPS under the RMA on biodiversity. It is likely the 2011 deadline will be met”. This then slipped to unlikely, but now seem interested again. Whether the two old parties have more than a Clayton’s interest will be seen in time.

Meanwhile, Landcare’s work is aimed at assessing and valuing the public values of biodiversity, including the idea of biodiversity offsetting. The Greens can see some benefit in biodiversity offsetting, but plenty of dangers too.

Mokihinui Gorge from the air

Take Meridian’s proposed land-swap to allow them to dam the Mokihinui River. Their proposal is to swap the 330ha of forest and river they want to inundated in the Mokihinui Gorge with 794ha of coastal forest land they have bought. This would then mean the gorge was effectively private land, and no longer conservation land, so no concession would be required from DOC to dam it. That’s a net gain of 450ha of native forest, right?

Wrong. The first problem is that currently there are 1030ha of native forest at the two sites. Doing the swap and damming the gorge will result in 800ha left – a net loss of 330ha. While the protection status of the coast forest would be higher, it is forest now and will still be forest after so little is gained. Fundamentally, neither area of forest should be cut down .

The second problem is that the nature of the two sites is very different. Damming the Mokihinui would result in one fewer wild river, obstruct a very health habitat of the already-declining long-finned eel and whio (blue duck), and destroy a unique landscape with its own intrinsic values.

DOC and the Minister of Conservation are currently considering Meridian’s proposed land-swap, so please write to Tim Groser to urge him to turn it down.

Frog will look deeper at biodiversity offsetting in future, but finally, Landcare’s article also notes the importance to pest control to ensure we don’t just have forests, but have healthy forests. The Green MPs write about the same in the latest issue of GreenTimes, which you can read here [PDF 800kb].

I asked our Green MPs for their thoughts on the passing of the Cullen Clark dynasty. Here’s the result: The Passing of the Cullen Clark Era (MP3 and OGG)

This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.

Mr Panah may indeed have been back in Tehran facing persecution if current Labour Party Finance spokesperson David Cunliffe and former Prime Minister Helen Clark had been able to overcome an impasse with Iran whereby Iranian citizens were shoved back into the hands of the Iranian religious police.

Luckily for Mr Panah – Mr Cunliffe and Ms Clark’s desire to be rid of him was foiled by the efforts of Christian leaders such as Anglican Archbishop David Moxon and Green Party MP Keith Locke.

I want to be fair to Ms Clark and Mr Cunliffe and hope that now the influence of NZ First is hopefully no more, they will return to advocating on behalf of those whose human rights are being trampled rather than merely mouthing whatever the NZ Immigration Service’s officials believe is the correct line.

Photo Credit: Lyndon Hood of Scoop

Mr Cunliffe prior to being Immigration Minister had actually written letters of support for another Iranian, Thomas Yadegary, in which Mr Cunliffe pointed out that Mr Yadegary would be persecuted should he be sent back to Iran. Mr Yadegary spent many years locked up in NZ jails before finally being let out on bail late in 2008.

During the time Mr Yadegary was incarcerated Mr Cunliffe had surprisingly decided Iran was actually completely safe for Christian converts.  I think anyone that is willing to spend years locked up in Auckland Central Remand to stay in New Zealand would probably make a good hard working citizen anyway.  And the ability of the Clark-Labour administration to indifferently sanction people being locked up indefinitely is a stain on its record that will take some effort in Opposition to forget.  NoRightTurn pulled some figures out on this subject that I consider absolutely shocking.

I hope that the new government will look to the story of current Prime Minister John Key, a man whose Jewish mother fled Nazi persecution and realise that refugees can make extremely valuable contributions to New Zealand life – though it helps if they are out working rather than being kept locked up at Auckland Central Remand.

Miss Clark noted several times that NZ First may not be back in Parliament – and yesterday acknowledged it was facing “a tough fight”.

“I think everyone’s reluctant to draw firm conclusions but obviously it’s looking tough.”She also moved yesterday to anoint the Greens as her preferred partner – a prospect that would make any deal with NZ First, even if it does return, difficult.

“The Greens have waited a long time to be in Government. Their time is here,” Miss Clark said.

It’s not like we were deliberately standing around making sure everyone else had a turn.  Clark’s last minute attempt to conveniently change dancing partners reflects what many of her local candidates have been saying around the country – that they would personally prefer to work with the Greens than NZ First.  I’m left with the impression that, ethically, individual Labour members would prefer to deal with the Greens, but institutionally Labour finds NZ First easier and less demanding to cut a deal with. In the end it will be uncommitted Labour voters, rather than Clark, who will make the decision by showing Clark which of the two parties they would rather see her work with.

When she was asked at a meeting with Foodstuffs workers if they should vote strategically to ensure a Labour coalition, she said the best way was to vote for Labour.

But the choice many Labour voters face is not just National vs Labour, but Labour-NZ First vs Labour-Green.  Which means that strategically, the best thing they can do is vote for the support partner they want for Labour, not for Labour itself. The relative strength of those two parties is likely to decide which one has the most bargaining power to shape the type of government that Labour might be able to put together. Labour has said it is an election about trust, and many former Labour voters don’t trust Winston Peters and New Zealand First. They will see the logic on voting Green.

Or, as Audrey Young noted yesterday:

I have lost count of the former Labour voters I know who are voting Green this election. They trust Labour, but only as far as they can kick them.

Meanwhile, covered by just the one newspaper, the Gulf News (circulation 2,806), is Russel and the Greens’ Auckland Central Candidate Denise Roche’s trip to the markets at Ostend last week.

“Labour taught us the value of independence and we’ve learnt our lesson. [Helen Clark] gave us a good lesson in the political views of the major parties and their political approach,” he said.

“I think she made her choice, she made her bed with Winston Peters and Peter Dunne and she’s now lying in it.”

Dr Norman said the Greens would work through their process to decide which party they could work with.

Jeanette said on Sunday that the Greens would this week announce the criteria that we would use to evaluate Labour and National before the election.  That will require Clark, Key and their teams to measure up on their policy and past actions rather than ability to dole out baubles.  So the current serenades, while sweetly sung, aren’t going to affect the outcome.

The Greens, unlike other parties, have committed to saying who we will work with before the election.  That’s different to the game playing approach that Labour, New Zealand First and United Future have become known for, but it does mean that voters can make an informed choice.

The concept that other political parties could be reaching out into a third dimension seems foreign –that tino rangatiratanga, sustainable green economics, or peace and democracy might sit outside her two dimensional left- right spectrum appears uncomprehended.

And thus perhaps it has not occurred to her that some of the smaller parties represent more than just off-shoots of either the left or the right, or that the public might be looking for something more than her two dimensional left-right analysis of politics. 

The televised debates are a good example of this.  Clark seems genuinely imperious to the concern that her dictum of no MMP parties means that not all views will be fairly represented in a political debate.  But it’s not just the televised debates.  I remain stunned that she seems to think the current Labour-New Zealand First-United Future coalition should be worthy of people’s support simply because it is not National, and in a two dimensional world there can be no other alternatives.

In fact there are also large numbers of voters who are deciding between a National-led government that leans to the right because of pressure from either Act or United Future, a National-led government unreliant on any other parties, or a National-led government moderated by one of the other parties – most prominent at the moment being the Maori Party. There will be the same types of decisions being made about how a Labour-led government might look.  I suspect all those people would equal or outnumber the people who are choosing only between Labour and National.   And then there will also be a significant segment of the electorate who thinks either ‘a curse on both their houses’ or ‘keep the bastards honest’.  The reality is that we are meant to be electing a representative parliament not just a Prime Minister.  The best, most informative moments in televised debates in recent years, the ‘ahh’ moments that that affected people’s voting, have virtually all involved MMP party leaders either asking questions of their opponents or answering questions better than the major party leaders. Clark and Key have nothing to gain from such debates, but the public have everything to lose.

The judge, Justice Young, quoted political science professor Stephen Levine to articulate one of those rights:

The debates held thus far, in each of the three MMP elections, have given views opportunities otherwise unavailable to them to assess the leadership capacities of the respective party leaders, to compare and contrast them, and also to obtain further information about the likely policy directions to be pursued by the various parties offering themselves for election. In a broad sense, therefore, television is a ‘public good’ (irrespective of ownership or regulatory considerations) and the televised leaders’ debates in particular perform an important, useful and, at least or some voters, critical function that gives them a greater degree of confidence as they approach the electoral act – the most important single act of public participation that most New Zealanders will make during the three-year period from one election to the next.

This time around there isn’t any freedom of the media issue. Both TVNZ and TV3 have said they want all eight parliamentary parties represented in their debates. It simply seems that the most powerful politicians are colluding to exclude other voices from the televised debate.  This is probably because part of their campaign strategy seems to present this election as a one or the other first past the post election ‘either-or’ election.  Given Labour and National’s respective performances in recent months it’s not surprising they don’t want televison viewers being offered too many other choices.

In the court case last election Justice Young ruled in Anderton and Dunne’s favour, at least in part on the basis that debates are pivotal to the electorate and the election because they allow a comparison between leaders and policies:

I have already recounted s4 Broadcasting Act. It places public responsibility on broadcasters to act in certain ways. In particular, s4 requires broadcasters when matters of public importance are discussed to ensure balanced points of view are presented at the time or within the period of interest involved.

He notes that seperate television programmes for excluded party leaders do not meet the test of public responsibility given the importance of television debates to the election.

And here this Court is anxious to protect what I see as a fundamental right of citizens in a democracy to be as well informed as possible before exercising their right to vote and to ensure the electoral outcome is as far as possible not subject to the arbitrary provision of information.

Prime Minister Helen Clark and National Party leader John Key have refused to share the stage with other party leaders in an election campaign TV debate.

And the TV stations are going to roll over and let this happen.  Well that will make for an interesting debate:

Pepsi – My party believes in tax cuts to key undecided voters, oops, sorry I mean middle New Zealanders.

Coke – So does mine. But my party believes in saying the word sustainability a lot and pretending to cut carbon emissions while still putting more cars on the road, mining more coal and promoting more industrial dairy.

Pepsi – So does mine.  But my party believes in cracking down on young people in hoodies and people who dress strange.

Coke – So does mine. But my party believes we are purer than the driven snow unlike that other corrupt untrustworthy party.

Pepsi – So does mine…

What a choice.

The whole thing stinks of rotten scampi, but nevertheless, the burden of proof lies with the accuser in such cases.  As I write the committee is still in committee, so I am not making any insider’s announcement here. I just think that Peters’ tale is about to become the classic tale of the big one that got away.

What remains to be seen is whether or not the electorate sides with the black and white condemnation of Mr Key or the innocent until proven guilty style of Helen Clark come November 8th. It will also be interesting to see how harshly Peters is judged at the polls.

Whatever happens, I have no doubt that the size of the fish that got away will grow with every telling of the story, from now until November!

It wasn’t my job to hold a press conference and say I’ve had two private conversations… This is a matter between Mr Peters and Mr Glenn.

Now, I don’t know whose side of the story I believe or what the Privileges Committee will or should find.  But surely the reason the issue is before the Privileges Committee at all is because it is more than just a private matter between Mr Peters and Mr Glenn.  It is a matter of public interest. I’m not at all convinced the Prime Minister can credibly run the ‘it was private and it was none of my business’ defense.

Secondly she repeatedly said throughout the interview that this election would be about trust.  That worries me, because I inferred from that that she intends this campaign to be a dirty one where Labour will go out to prove that National is not trustworthy (and the PM says as much in the interview).  The last thing New Zealand needs after the 2005 election is an attacking, dirty campaign. Labour could still still, if it wanted, run on its record without turning this campaign into a nasty, personalised and muddy one.  I hope it will (and likewise other parties).

And, talking about running on your record, the Prime Minister says something like (apologies I didn’t manage to write down the full quote as she was talking):

It frankly isn’t credible for the National Party to spend years attacking Kiwisaver, Working for Families, 20 hours free early childhood education, cheaper doctors’ fees, and then turn around and say ‘we like all that now’.  That’s serious.  People who do that cannot be trusted.

Except that this is exactly the approach that Labour is taking on important environmental policies. It has spent three terms overseeing increased carbon emissions, deforestation, intensifying industrial dairy and worsening water quality.  And is now saying it is the ‘sustainability’ party. It may want to be careful about the emotive terms it uses to frame this election.

We calculate that 100 months from 1 August 2008, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will begin to exceed a point whereby it is no longer likely we will be able to avert potentially irreversible climate change. ‘Likely’ in this context refers to the definition of risk used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to mean that, at that particular level of greenhouse gas concentration, there is only a 66 – 90 per cent chance of global average surface temperatures stabilising at 2º Celsius above pre-industrial levels.1 Once this concentration is exceeded, it becomes more and more likely that we will overshoot a 2º C level of warming. This is the maximum acceptable level of temperature rise agreed by the European Union and others as necessary to retain reasonable confidence of preventing uncontrollable and ultimately catastrophic warming. We also believe this calculation to be conservative.

So what has ‘Sustainable’ Labour done since then?

It announced its 40 year plan for greener safer transport.  I don’t have so many toes and fingers but I think 40 years works out to 480 months (give or take a bit of Swedish decimal rounding). 380 too many.  During these 40 years Labour pledges to increase public transport funding fivefold,  which will mean in 2048 when we have irreversible climate change Labour will still spend significantly less on public transport than the amount it is spending currently on promoting fossil fuel based private transport.

The New Economics Foundation gives some technical explanation for its 100 months figure here [pdf].

Our analysis shows that, assuming that other anthropogenic driven radiative forcings remain constant and the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions (due to economic growth and increasing carbon intensity of the economy) remains stable – by the end of December 2016 we will exceed an atmospheric CO2e concentration of 400ppmv.

Our estimate is cautious. We have used the lowest estimate of carbon-cycle feedbacks. Furthermore, historically, an increase in the Earth’s global average surface temperatures of just below 2oC has been considered a ‘safe’ level of warming. But, with the advancement of global climate models to three-dimensional coupled entities, with ever increasing spatial resolutions, it is now known that the impacts of climate change will manifest in more extreme local changes in temperature. For example, collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet is more than likely to be triggered by a local warming of 2.7 degrees, which could correspond to a global mean temperature increase of 2 degrees or less. The disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet could correspond to a sea level rise of up to 7 metres.

Meanwhile Labour’s sustainability page currently has 4 items on it – 2 items talking about National and John Key, one on Te Wiki or Te Reo Maori 2 weeks ago and a Helen Clark speech where she announces the government is spending $1.9 billion on roading and $18 million on walking and cycling infrastructure. Vision?

Maybe Labour needs to read Dot Earth’s article Are We Stuck With ‘Blah, Blah, Blah, … Bang’?

It seems Homo S “Sapiens” at large needs to first get hit by the wall before changing path. There will be always someone debating (denying) the science (evidence) of walls and bricks. We can’t falsify the theory about that wall ahead, so it’s no science, blah, blah, blah, … bang.

Labour’s transport plan as climate change and peak oil both collide onto the political agenda = spend a record breaking amount of taxes on building new roads for more cars to drive on.

National’s plan = yup that sounds good, but we’ll spend even more. Here’s the credit card. What do you mean ‘insufficient funds’?

Image credit: Chris Slane

Winston’s crew were up and down one after another again today to spout off at their leader’s prowess. Ron Mark was batting questions down implied even any hint of potential corruption. The PM was backing him all the way. John Key had his especially thick woollen mittens on when he asked some rather lame questions – not of Peters, but of Clark. If they both acted in concert to sink him – he would be gone most likely.

The problem of course is that neither Labour nor National wants to let their sharks take a bite until they’ve got proof that the blood in the water is a corpse not just a flesh wound.  Because they both might still need that fish after the election. (In fact Labour’s reticence may be even more genuine than that.  They seem to have found Peters a very loyal and capable Minister in the last 2 and half years, a better performer in the house than many of their own, and a good safe investment for the price of not much more than a few baubles.)

In the meantime there was Sue Bradford:

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister have confidence that the Minister for Racing acts at all times with the interests of the whole racing sector at heart, or does she have any sense, as some in the racing industry do, that his actions tend to favour those at the high end of the industry, which, incidentally, is the same end from which New Zealand First has received substantial donations?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Obviously, I do not have any independent information about where donations come from, but I can say to the member that I have had absolutely no advice or, indeed, even any suggestion of the issue of preference that she has raised.

Metiria:

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister think that the Government’s failure to get the numbers to progress sustainability measures like the Marine Reserves Bill and the Fisheries Amendment Bill may have anything to do with the large financial contribution to the party of her Minister of Foreign Affairs from Vela Fishing, which is involved in serious-

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is the very implication that I raised in my point of order-that the Minister is involved in corrupt practice. I ask that that question be ruled out of order.

[...a long debate about a the point of order before Metiria is invited to reframe the question...]

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister think that the Government’s failure to get the numbers to progress sustainability measures like the Marine Reserves Bill and the Fisheries Amendment Bill through the House may have anything to do with the relationship between her Minister of Foreign Affairs and other fishing interests, particularly, for example, those of Vela Fisheries, which is involved in seriously unsustainable fishing practices, including the fishing of orange roughy, tuna, and Antarctic tooth fish?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If I were for a moment to accept that, in respect of New Zealand First, I would have to accept it in respect of every party that was unsympathetic to those particular law changes-not least, of course, the New Zealand National Party.

And Russel:

Dr Russel Norman: Do any of the Prime Minister’s Ministers receive donations from industries they are meant to be regulating and taxing; and does she expect any Minister, including her Minister of Racing, who finds himself or herself negotiating tax breaks for party donors to bring that to her attention?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do think there was in that question exactly the implication that Mr Mark objected to before. I can say, in respect of Ministers, that they are not expected to receive donations from industry, at all. But I will also make the obvious point that when a Minister is appointed in charge of a portfolio, there is a legitimate expectation from sectors relating to that portfolio that they will be able to put a case to that Minister-whether it is fisheries, forests, agriculture, health, racing, or whatever-so that they can have their requests considered. That is the normal business of Government.

The normal course of business of course, but I think what Russel was asking was did the PM see a difference between putting a case and putting a case and an envelope?

Meanwhile with all this advice coming out of 08wire about what the Greens can and can’t do and who they need to enter governing arrangements with there has been nothing yet directed at the party that this term in Parliament chose to go into coalition with New Zealand First and Untied Future.  How about asking that party to commit before the election, like the Greens have said we will do, to saying who it will or will not work with after the election?  That way Labour voters won’t end up finding out they have accidentally helped make Winston Peters Foreign Minister and Peter Dunne Minister of Revenue again.