Rumours about such a significant proposal should not be swirling around in the media without a confirmation or denial from the Ministry. School boards and parents should be formally notified if this change is really on the table.

Prior to the election the National Party gave no signal that the Ministry would be taking over this role. It wasn’t mentioned in their policy.

The Government’s rhetoric around education is extremely contradictory at the moment. One minute National says parents need more choice via charter schools and the next it’s taking away choice from communities by removing the power of boards of trustees to appoint their own principal.

Giving local communities a degree of control over their school was central to the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms. I haven’t seen any evidence that the hiring of principals is too difficult a task for schools. It is more likely that the Government wants to make principals answer directly to them rather than the kids and parents in their local community.

National seem to be making up policy which suits their mistrust of schools and helps to impose their unpopular policies. Principals have been a fantastic voice for children in the recent debate over national standards. They are experts who know what they are talking about. Silencing principals is Nationals way of shutting down that important debate.

The Government has no mandate to undermine boards of trustees powers and to continue to operate in a contradictory and hostile manner towards the education sector.

It is time for National so show principals, teachers, parents and children some respect, and listen to their important contribution of ideas that really would improve our education system.

As Frog indicated, we knew only that ‘a government bill’ would be introduced under urgency.  At about 10.30pm on Wednesday night, we were presented with one paper copy of the bill,  no electronic version to facilitate distribution to caucus members or our researchers; no supporting documentation, no regulatory impact statement, no evidence in support, and this was ‘graciously’ given only on the basis of keeping the strictest confidence.

We were obliged to speculate about the harm that the bill was intended to remedy and the need for the secrecy and urgency; we were required to second guess what the intent and real purpose of the bill might be, and it was not until about 8.15am on Thursday that we got access by phone to a ministerial adviser who confirmed that our speculation was more or less on track. 

We learned in the course of the debate that the Maori party, as a confidence and supply partner, had the bill  ten days earlier.  (I must say in passing that they made good use of the time – Rahui Katene delivered some very fiery and well crafted speeches opposing the bill , and good on her for doing so!).

I have it on good authority that the Act party, on the other hand, was as surprised as we were by the content of  the bill, and had as little prior warning of it. Indicative of the parlous state of the Nat – Act relationship perhaps?

Despite my direct questions, Labour was rather coy about confessing when they were given access to the bill, which leads me to assume they saw it well in advance of the tabling.

My point in all this is that the process demonstrates that the two old parties are locked into the game of making deals with each other, without making any  attempts to build consensus across the House, which they might otherwise have done had they approached us in a reasonable fashion about the ‘error’ they sought to correct. 

Had we been taken into their confidence about the problem (which they have been aware of  for ten months!) we could well have negotiated a process that would have allowed us to air our misgivings, to draw on appropriate legal advice, and even potentially to cooperate in drafting a piece of legislation that would then have gone through a proper process of public and parliamentary scrutiny and delivered an appropriate outcome. 

We have had an MMP parliament for nearly 15 years – how much more time do these guys need to get up to speed with the ‘new’ reality, and to respect and indeed to utilise the possibilites for the more consensual form of politics that it presents?  Maybe the next generation…?

One comment in terms of the substance of the bill – I repeatedly asked the government during the debate for evidence that since the police stopped retaining youth particulars ten months ago, their task of identifying and apprehending young offenders has been more difficult.  I’m still waiting for an answer, which leads me to suspect there is no such evidence, and so the law change was not only procedurally undemocratic but also unnecessary!

g.blog was set up before the 2008 election, but has been in hibernation for a while.  It is a blog where any Green Party member can post. If you are a Green member,  all you need to do to get posting rights at g.blog is to email the g.blog administrator.

So why not do it?  Whether you have the time to manage a post a day or a post a month, the more Green voices we have out there the better.

The most recent g.blog post is from Green Party member and regular frogblog commenter “Toad”:  – on misogynist, homophobic and Islamophobic (Toad missed those bits) former National MP Bob Clarkson lending his weight to the Act Party:

Just when I thought the ACT Party couldn’t get more dominated by wealthy, bigoted, elderly white men, Bob “Left Testicle” Clarkson joins up.

Former National MP Clarkson was the subject of sexual harassment allegations made by a former employee. Clarkson claimed the allegations were the result of a misunderstanding arising from a mention of his left testicle to a colleague. Clarkson, in the heat of the controversy, grabbed and talked about his crotch to a female reporter.

Clarkson’s sure to work wonders to improve ACT’s 0.00% polling among female voters achieved in the latest Herald Digipoll.

Cheers, Toad.  I agree completely.  And your post was picked up by The Standard, so got much wider coverage.

Let’s get the grassroots Green voices out there via g.blog.   And no problem if you want to challenge Green policy – g.blog is an open blog for any Green member to post to, but remember that anyone in the blogosphere will be able to read it.

If I was a member of the ACT Board, I would be asking why are all these National Party members trying to take over ACT.

This is major Don to ground control, I’m stepping through the door
And I’m floating in a most peculiar way

Don Brash and John Banks are both members of National. The rumoured financial backer is not a member of ACT as far as I know.

And the stars look very different today

Not exactly a deep devotion to ACT then. I won’t join your party unless you agree in advance to make me leader, and if you don’t I will set up my own party.

Here am I floatin’ ’round my tin can far above the world
Planet Earth is blue and there’s nothing I can do…

Can you imagine if ACT get 3% but loses Epsom and a Brash led party gets 4%.

Ground control to Major Don, your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong.

Best result possible, DPF!

Somehow, I think I prefer the original:

Support for the center-left environmentalist party has risen to 28 percent, seven points higher than in Forsa’s previous survey.

The Social Democrats (SPD), traditionally Germany’s largest center-left party, are polling at 23 percent. The SPD is normally the senior member in coalition governments with its partner-of-choice, the Greens.

Add up the numbers!  If that happens, there will be a Green-led Government in Germany, with the SPD (our equivalent is Labour) as its minor partner.  The CDU (our equivalent is National and ACT) would be in Opposition, because, despite being the largest party bloc, it has less support than the Greens and the SPD combined.

How quickly things can change in politics!

Germany has to wait another two years for a national election.   We in New Zealand  have another seven months, but we have essentially the same very democratic electoral system as Germany, so it could happen here.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could soon start to replicate the German polling here in Aotearoa/New Zealand.  It’s up to you all, and our Green MPs in Parliament, to make it happen.

Kia kaha!

We may have a Government that is clueless about the economy, has done nothing to create jobs in the wake of the global financial crisis, and is threatening to impose massive Budget cuts in two months time, not to mention their post-election privatisation proposals and Working for Families cuts.

We may have the major (at least for now) Opposition Party in complete disarray, with a Leader who also has no credible economic plan other than to leave us to the whims of the market and revealing himself as completely incompetent in dealing with a crisis of allegations of sexual offences against one of their senior MPs.

But back to cricket, there is some hope. It will be a massive task for New Zealand to beat Sri Lanka at their own home of cricket on Tuesday and make the final, especially given NZ’s hopelessness against Sri Lanka’s spin bowlers in the preliminary round. Get past that, and anything is possible.

But, hey, let’s hope. A win in the Cricket World Cup would help bolster New Zealanders to cope with the inevitable defeat by France in the Rugby World Cup.

The little guys and girls can win though.  We just need to play really well on the field and get stronger support from those in the stands.

It’s like that in politics too.

Yep, that’s a lot of cow pats next to the lake (photo from 2005) - faeces just waiting to wash in, and nitrogen just waiting to go through the groundwater – adding to the heavily polluted lake.

This was an initiative of the BlueGreen Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson and the BlueGreen Amy Adams, as revealed in this Press article. The Nats leant on DoC to extend the lease. This was against the advice of the Department of Conservation, from the article:

The [DoC] report said allowing Clark to continue grazing cattle “would be both inconsistent with our policy of lake margin protection and also unfair on those other concessionaires who we have modified or cancelled their licences to exclude cattle from lake margin lands”.

A Department of Conservation ecologist, who assessed the site in November, said Clark’s cattle were damaging the grazing site and having a detrimental effect on the lake’s ecosystem.

The Lake is already heavily polluted with faeces and nitrogen but the BlueGreens seemed to think not enough. And poor old Ngai Tahu was told big fat porkies when they inquired about it – and they are not happy. It’s also very revealing that it’s about rewarding the farmers that are dragging the chain and effectively punishing the farmers that have done the right thing.

And just to remind our friends in the Blue Greens what they forced DoC and the Lake to accept here’s another photo:

Maybe it’s time to join the True Greens!

UPDATE – I should add that it was TV3′s temerity to even mention this issue when they covered the BlueGreen’s conference that so upset National Party blogger David Farrar.

In the latest (December 3rd) issue, Mr Hooton reveals that, “…everyone from Mr [Trevor] Mallard to Mr [David] Cunliffe to Mr [Bill] English agrees SOEs need to become more dynamic… [so] surely it’s time to abandon the current practice of having SOE ownership policy determined solely by the demented ravings of the Greens?”

Who knew we had such power over the government’s policy? I wonder what we should start raving about next (in a suitably demented manner) to determine what John Key et al put into their policy platform? The opportunities are limitless!

(just in case you’re wondering, my favourite comic strip is Dilbert)

The NZCTU are organising a protest against National’s attacks on workers rights – outside the National Party Conference: Sky City Hotel, Main Entrance 72 Victoria Street West, Auckland City, this Sunday 18th July, 10.00am.

If you live in Auckland, try to make it along.

But today the Government revealed its true colours:

Prime Minister John Key today announced the National government is looking to extend the 90 Day Trial Period scheme, put in effect last year.

The government intends to broaden the use of the scheme, which allows a new worker to be fired within the first three months of employment without the right to take a personal grievance.

…

Currently the scheme is only available to businesses with fewer than 20 staff.

The government considered extending that to businesses with up to 50 staff, but soon all companies will be able to use the scheme regardless of their size.

Yep, no right to challenge a dismissal – however unfairly or oppressively an employer has behaved!  Even an employee who has refused an employer’s unwanted sexual advances could be dismissed under this law, and will have no comeback in law, because the employer is not required to provide reasons for the dismissal.

But it gets worse:

The government also wants to change employment laws so bosses can refuse unions access to the workplace.

“The employer should be in charge of his workplace, but we still want good faith to remain and we still want the employer to have reasonable grounds to withhold consent – we doubt that will happen very often,” says Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson.

So, not only are workers in their first 90 days of employment denied the opportunity to challenge a dismissal, but unions whose responsibility is to represent workers are denied the ability to go into the workplace to meet with their members to discuss their industrial relations issues.

No more “Labour-lite” – this National-led government has now revealed itself as hard right wing and anti-worker.  I wonder how long it will be before the privatisation plans emerge. 

Oops, Roger and Richard didn’t talk about that at all, did they?  At least until it was too late for anyone to mount effective opposition!

The government is intent on tearing up Schedule 4, which protects our most important conservation lands from mining. This is National’s own cross-party agreement negotiated in the 1990′s covering just 13% of the country. But at a time when our clean, green image is increasingly looking shaky and the reality of climate change demands action, the government’s response is instead to dig up our parks to harvest even the coal that lies beneath.

It is not too late to prevent this from happening. The Prime Minister says he wants feedback from the public. Many Kiwis have already said enough is enough – don’t mine any more of our parks!  But the pressure needs to be kept high before final decisions are made.

You can show how you feel by attending one of our Earth Day events today. Details can be found here.  Afterward, or if you can’t make it to a public event, please make a submission on the discussion document released by the Ministry of Economic Development. Links to all the info you need to do this are here. The deadline is 4 May.

Show that you want to save our treasured places!  We really hope to see you today!

The Greens will be supporting the Bill to Select Committee, despite concerns about the lack of spending caps for those campaigning in the referendum.  Hopefully that issue will be addressed by the Select Committee.

So it is timely to recall how much of a perverse affront to democracy the First Past the Post (FPP) electoral system New Zealanders threw out in 1993 was.

The United Kingdom still has an FPP electoral system, and is in the middle of an election campaign at the moment.  One recent poll put the Liberal Democrats on 33% of the vote, the Conservatives on 32%, and Labour on 26%.  But translate that poll result into seats in the UK Parliament and we get this absurdity:

The Liberal Democrats get only slightly more than half the seats Labour gets, despite being the highest polling party, and Labour gets the most seats despite trailing well behind in third place.

The same undemocratic FPP system here saw the National Party winning a majority of seats and forming governments without the need for a coalition partner in both 1978 and 1981, despite receiving fewer votes than the Labour Party in each of those elections.

Why on earth would anyone want to go back to that or to the similarly undemocratic Supplementary Member electoral system ?

Hat Tip: No Right Turn

Green Party Health Spokesperson Sue Kedgley has been collaborating with Health Minister Tony Ryall and Associate Health Minister Jonathan Coleman on the proposal. This work is part of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between the Greens and National in April 2009.

In this podcast, Sue speaks about the proposal – why it’s needed, what it sets out to achieve, and what the process is from here.

Co-Leader Russel Norman also reflects on the MOU between the Greens and National in light of the announcement.

You can read the consultation document here.

This week’s music is from Auckland-based “chamber pop” outfit Canadia, off their most recent EP Beg Steal and Burrow.

You can now subscribe to our podcasts on iTunes – search for “green party” in the podcast section.

Click to play

If you’re having problems with our Flash player, try this alternative site.

This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.

[For the political junkies, Labour have voted with National 12 times at first readings, and 16 times at third readings, since the start of this term of Parliament. For the Maori Party it's 13 and 17. For the Greens it's 0 and 1.]

Yesterday, Labour voted with the Government again on a Bill that everyone except the Greens supported – the Education Amendment Bill.

We opposed this supposedly “technical” Bill because it included clauses to facilitate corporate control of school boards. In doing so, we seem to be the only ones consistently opposing privatisation in the education system.

The Maori Party did express concern about these aspects of the Bill but they still voted for it.

It’s fascinating, because if you just read the Regulatory Impact Statement which describes the Bill it would seem to be just about police vetting of school tradespeople and registration issues for teachers. Actually, like most legislation there is always fine-print to examine.

This Education Amendment Bill continues a trend towards corporate control by allowing corporates to be statutory managers of schools. It also allows the combining of school boards, potentially disenfranchising local communities.

The Quality Public Education Coalition (QPEC) was one of the small number of submitters against this Bill who saw its potential to further undermine public schools. QPEC has the experience and the capacity to step back and analyse the bigger picture.

With their support, we are prepared to be a lone voice in Parliament to at least make sure there is opposition to any form of privatisation on the public record.

Schools are not businesses to be managed efficiently in order to produce more labour for the market. Schools are communities, and as communities in partnership with the state they need the ability to run their own affairs and proper resources. We don’t need Pepsi Cola High School being managed by a firm of corporate auditors whose bottom line is profit.

The Sunday Star Times ran a powerful feature on the weekend called “Picture imperfect”. It looks at international concern at New Zealand’s environmental performance, including National’s plan to mine conservation land:

IT’S JUST a stock-take of mineral resources, insists Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Energy and Resources. But the August announcement of a review of the schedule that prohibits mining and exploration in our national parks raised international hackles.

The 9th World Wilderness Conference (1500 delegates from 52 countries) in Mexico last month passed a resolution asking our government to retain the no-mining status quo measures of protection in relation to public conservation land within protected areas.

The government had already received a letter from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, after 200 delegates met in Korea: “The news that a modern, comparatively wealthy nation such as New Zealand is prepared to exploit its resources in lands set aside for biodiversity sends a disturbing message to more populous countries,” the IUCN said.

Today, the Greens received an e-newsletter from the Mountain Protected Areas that is being circulated around the world. It will be read by influencial policy makers world-wide.

The newsletter is from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s World Commission on Protected Areas, of which the New Zealand Government is a member. A section is critical of New Zealand’s change in position on mining protected areas:

Potential Problems In New Zealand PAs [Protected Areas]

From IUCN Regional Vice-Chair for Oceania, Penny Figgis comes some disturbing news about a threat from mining in NZ’s conservation estate. In a recent address to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 2009, the NZ Minister of Energy and Resources spoke on “Unlocking our Minerals Potential”. In it he stated: “In my short time as Minister, I have become acutely aware that one of the fundamental barriers to mineral exploration and development is access to prospective land, particularly to land administered by the Department of Conservation.”

Reasonable access to the mineral estate in Crown-owned land, particularly conservation land, is a key issue. Kiwi Bruce Jefferies has written expressing concern, and Nik Lopoukhine, WCPA Chair has written on behalf of the Commission. He has reminded the Prime Minister and the Ministers for Energy and Resources, and of Conservation, that NZ as an IUCN member, supported the resolution on mining passed at the 2000 World Conservation Congress in Amman, Jordan. It called for no mining in IUCN Categories I-IV. The mining industry itself in 2003 agreed not to exploit any World Heritage areas. It is hoped that the NZ Government will not permit this to move forward, especially in view of the PA leadership NZ has exhibited to date.

Last week, the Greens and the Federated Mountain Clubs broke the story that 20% of Mount Aspiring National Park was being touted for removal from Schedule 4 to make way for mining.

Since then the “Hands off Mt Aspiring” facebook page has gone ballistic, with 4325 members in a week. Join it now! I love this graphic:

Image from Julia Hamilton on the Facebook Page

There’s been commentary claiming the government hasn’t actually done very much in its first year. Rodney’s embarrassment aside, it seems safe to say that Rod wouldn’t agree.

First off is the long list of backward steps taken on environmental protection. National started the year as it is likely to finish it – under urgency. Under the guise of the collapsing world economy, legislation having little to do with the crisis was repealed, such as the act that set standards for sustainable biofuels, and one that established a renewable preference for electricity generation.

At the other end of the first year, we have the fiasco of the government’s 0-20% emissions target (for who knows where it will end up), and an Emissions Trading Scheme that will subsidise polluters by the billions at taxpayer expense, likely increasing our emissions rather than reducing them. I’d forgive Rod if what he might have to say about that wasn’t even printable.

The great worry is that this government has only just begun its programme of environmental negligence. The Resource Management Act part two reforms is an example of things still to come, with the government showing it will trade short term economic gain for long term economic and environmental sustainability.

And you can be sure Rod would be out there gathering signatures for the Green Party mining petition too.

Rod's tree at Parliamentary Library

One of the other early casualties was Rod’s beloved Buy Kiwi Made programme, ably implemented by Sue Bradford after Rod’s death. The Kiwi Diary 2009 notes today is the anniversary of when the Green Party won the battle to have the “Buy Kiwi Made” campaign restricted to goods and services manufactured and processed in New Zealand, 2006. Even Labour didn’t get it.

There are so many other examples. But most of all, I think Rod would be gearing up for the next public discussion on MMP, due to occur over the next two election cycles. Rod was a passionate advocate of the new system recommended by the Royal Commission and helped lead the coalition advocating change. Rod knew that MMP meant  fair representation for all Kiwi voters and that it would lead to the current diversity we see in the House today. I think Rod would agree that there are improvements to be made to our MMP system. I’m certain he would be fighting hard on behalf of all citizens for its retention.

Greens across Aotearoa are thinking of you today, Rod.

The Wild Rivers campaign was stoked to hear it – they’ve only just launched and the Mokihinui is a prominent precedent-setting proposal to destroy a river ranked seven in the country for natural values.

Metiria rafting the Mokihinui

Here at the Greens we’ve certainly done heaps in and out of Parliament to tackle the threat to this premiere wild river. Our Co-leader Metiria Turei rafted it last year to check it out first hand. The Greens firmly oppose damming irreplaceable wild rivers like the Mokihinui – it’s unnecessary for energy supply, and it’s conservation sacrilege.

Peter Dunne welcomed Brownlee’s ‘burp’, perhaps inspired by the hunting lobby being members of the Wild River campaign. Labour slapped Brownlee down for his indiscretion. However, Charles Chauvel seemed to imply that Brownlee should be damming the river, without actually saying as much – or at least that’s how I interpret his three paragraph “secondly” point. Well Mr Chauvel, I recommend you read the Wild Rivers campaign information – it’s clear we don’t need to dam rivers to have a renewable energy future. Maybe I’ve misread him.

Mokihinui from the air

Anyway, I digress. So what does Brownlee know? While most media and comments have focused on the fact he shouldn’t interfere in the RMA consenting process – for which a decision is imminent, and will probably be appealed to the Environment Court either way – they’ve overlooked that there are two ticks required for this terrible project. Apart from the RMA, the dam requires a concession under the Conservation Act because it is on public conservation land.

And in this case, Meridian has offered a dodgy land-swap as I wrote here earlier this week.

Brownlee sits around the Cabinet table with Groser – indeed they’re holding hands in the rush to mine National Parks – and may well know something about the concession and landswap. I guess we’ll find out one day. Here’s hoping they’ve seen the dam proposal for what it is, a sacrifice of permanent, public natural capital for temporary, private physical capital – irreversible and not renewable at all.

If the dam does get approved contrary to Brownlee’s brain-burp, I’ll be the first to hop down to the river to stare down a bulldozer, if my minders will let me…

An odd Flikr photo from 'Dead Scene'

Well known conservative commentator Thomas Friedman contends that destroying our biodiversity to fuel unregulated economic growth is like burning the Mona Lisa to cook dinner.

The issue of how we should treat natural capital in our economy resurfaced today. A new NZIER report on environmental priorities notes that using up natural capital can be irreversible and impossible to replace, which means ‘it becomes more valuable to protect it in its natural state to sustain the benefits it provides for future generations’.

Russel Norman’s response was:

I’m pleased to see mainstream economists recognising that it is not sustainable to trade natural capital away.

Applying natural capital theory to pollution and overuse of water, the rush to mine our conservation lands, and the threat to species and ecosystems from habitat loss, we can see that strong environmental protection rules and standards are crucial.

But beyond that step in the right direction from the think-tank, Russel pulled no punches on their reductionist ideas of separating environmental issues out and picking winners.

The report, Sustainable Development: Have we got our priorities right?, applies a theoretical cost-benefit analysis to some of the environmental issues facing New Zealand. It concludes that air quality and biodiversity should be top priorities, while waste and greenhouse gas reduction should be low priorities. It got plenty of comment on Morning Report this morning.

Russel criticised the failure to connect the dots (as does The Standard): first, between climate change obligations and actually reducing emissions:

It is nonsense to think that we can prioritise meeting international climate change obligations without reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot pull the wool over the world’s eyes, pretending to be a team player without contributing to the team effort. The world will see through that and our economy will suffer when emission reductions are forced on us in future.

Second, the dots between a low carbon economy and an economy at all:

The report overlooks the economic opportunities of moving to a low-carbon economy, and the dire economic consequences if we don’t do that quickly and deliberately. A fair and effective Emissions Trading Scheme would help, as would Government leadership on low-cost emission reduction opportunities – but unfortunately the National Government is dragging its feet on both.

Third, between reducing emissions and solving other environmental problems at the same time:

The report also fails to see the links between environmental problems and their solutions. Suggesting that New Zealand should prioritise air quality and biodiversity at the expense of greenhouse gas emissions reductions overlooks the fact that:
• climate change is the biggest long-term threat to our biodiversity;
• home insulation and vehicle standards improve air quality and reduce emissions, as do more buses, trains, cycling and walking;
• lower-intensity dairy farming reduces emissions and water pollution; and
• pest control to protect ecosystems can capture climate change emissions.

And fourth, between Kiwis’ mucking-in give-it-a-go willingness to be part of the solution:

The report also fails to account for New Zealanders’ love of doing their bit: the popularity of individual environmental action like recycling, planting trees, and using cars less. It is disrespectful to dismiss these useful contributions to creating a healthier planet.

When will our Government understand the fundamental connection of the natural environment to our economic livelihood, and pursue policies that protect it rather than cash it in for short-term profit?

Addendum: The PCE has just put out a statement calling the report muddled and superficial: “I couldn’t agree less that climate change should be considered New Zealand’s least important environmental issue”, she said.

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].

Does he stand by his statement that “water assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring” of local government; and if so, how does he reconcile it with Cabinet’s decision to allow “ownership” of water infrastructure by the private sector?

Yesterday, Rodney Hide announced Cabinet’s decisions on local government reform. Hidden among them were changes that will effectively privatise local government water services, by allowing PPPs and repealing public ownership protection provisions in the Local Government Act.

The following legislative changes will be made:

• extend the 15-year limit on water services contracts and joint arrangements with the private sector to 35 years, which makes these arrangements more workable
• allow water services arrangements to include BOOT schemes by allowing ownership of infrastructure by the private sector during the contract period
• repeal the provisions that require councils entering into a contract or joint arrangement with the private sector to retain control over the management of water services (control over pricing and policy to be retained by councils).

Yet, back in May, the beleagured Bill English, as Acting Prime Minister, categorically said “water assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring”. Here’s the relevant Hansard from the May question exchange:

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Will he guarantee that sections 130(3) and 136(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, which prohibit the privatisation of council water services, will remain in force as long as he is Prime Minister?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Privatisation of council water services is not being considered by the Government, in Auckland or anywhere else. I cannot give a guarantee on the sections of the Act, because they do not do exactly what the member describes. Officials will be considering those sections, along with many other legislative provisions, in the light of whether they assist or inhibit investment in infrastructure.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister therefore confirm that his promise not to privatise publicly owned assets during this term of Parliament is going to be broken, or is it going to be kept—that is, will he ensure, in respect of the restructuring of Auckland local governance, that water assets cannot be privatised as a result of that restructuring?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can confirm the Government’s view that those assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister give the same commitment that he has given in relation to New Zealand Superannuation, that if there are any changes—any privatisation of water assets—he will resign as Prime Minister; that is, a complete promise from the Prime Minister that water assets in Auckland will not be privatised while he is Prime Minister?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only confirm what I said in answer to an earlier question. Water assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring. In the end, as with every other local body in New Zealand, the decisions about local body assets are made by the elected representatives of the people who live in that local body area.

Dr Russel Norman: How can the Prime Minister say that it is up to Aucklanders to decide whether the privatisation of water services will proceed, when it would be possible for such privatisation to proceed only if his Government were to change the law around the Local Government Act, removing the protection that currently exists in the Act to stop the privatisation of water services; that is, it is not up to just the people of Auckland; it is up to this Parliament and his Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not exactly sure what the member means by the privatisation of water services, or of the way the section of the Act to which he is referring protects it. Some councils already have water services delivered under concession. The section he is referring to simply puts a limit on the length of the concession at 15 years. So it is not saying that councils should not have concessions; it is just saying that they cannot be longer than 15 years. If that is the way the law is, then Auckland local bodies will have to work with it unless it changes.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is difficult to raise this, and I certainly do not want to accuse the Minister in any way of misleading the House, but I think he may have misread the Act in terms of what those—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Whether a Minister’s answer is to the member’s satisfaction is not a point of order. She can ask further supplementary questions to elucidate that matter, but she cannot use the point of order process in that way.

Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister implement the royal commission’s recommendations for block tariffs for water, which guarantee that even large families have enough truly cheap water to live on, while making sure that those who waste water—with very large swimming pools, for example—pay for the privilege; that is, we guarantee water to those who need it, while having a steep price tariff for those who waste it, so there is an incentive to use water wisely?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not the Government’s intention to become involved with the pricing of water. That will be carried out by whatever entity is in charge of water in Auckland, and that entity will be accountable to the elected representatives of the Auckland people.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister received any advice as to whether section 133 of the Local Government Act requires councils to retain their water services and not sell them, and any advice as to whether section 136(2) limits the matters that can be contracted out, to purely operational engineering matters?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has not received any detailed advice on that matter. The relevant sections do not prevent the use of concession agreements. They simply set out some of the limitations on what those agreements might be.

Join us at 2pm as Russel and the Green Team fight to keep our public drinking water clean, affordable, and ours.