• The big winners are Steven Joyce and Hekia Parata, moving up 10 and 13 places respectively in the Cabinet ranking. Parata replaces Anne Tolley as Minister of Education.

• Paula Bennett’s reward for losing the Waitakere electorate is a promotion of 7 places. She keeps her role as Minister of Beneficiary Bashing.

• Tolley drops 5 places in the ranking and is given Police and Corrections as a reward for her sterling efforts in Education.

• We have a new Colossus of Roads, with Gerry Brownlee taking over from Joyce as Minister of Transport.

• Phil Heatley takes over from Brownlee as Minister for Drilling and Digging.

• Environment Minister Nick Smith drops 4 places and Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson languishes at a lowly No. 17 in the rankings. I guess that reflects the importance with which National views those portfolios.

• Judith Collins gets the job of handing ACC claimants over to be crushed by private insurers.

Update: Jan Logie has just pointed out that another feature is Women’s Affairs being allocated to a Minister outside Cabinet. Again a reflection of the importance with which National views that portfolio. Disability Issues is outside Cabinet too.

Tanya, the marine biologist from Massey, explained how it worked to clean the rocks in a single application and was an organic peat product. The company that makes the product (Spillsorb) was offering it at wholesale price to Maketü locals. I was thinking that Maritime NZ and the Government need to assess it and if anybody was paying it should be the Crown, not a small marae in a small community dedicated to cleaning up the coast.

We struggled into the white overalls, plastic bag feet and gloves and followed Tanya down to the nearest rocky shore. At first sight the place looked relatively untouched. Then we looked closer, large and small splashes of jet black oil were everywhere in the rocks and seaweed. The sea was slimy with oil sheen. We placed the sawdust like peat moss on the splashes of oil and waited for about two minutes per rock. Then we scraped the moss and oil into dough and bagged it. The peat moss worked brilliantly but there was no end to the amount of work to be done. It was hard to know whether to do every rock perfectly or whether to focus on the big patches. Rain came and went and the locals just kept going. For these Te Arawa people the coast is the kitchen and there is no question they will keep cleaning it up.

After a few hours we headed back to Papamoa to hear John Key speak. Nothing new was learned but people were muttering about any number of issues associated with delays and costs and rules of navigation. We met Kevin Hague on his way to the Marine Wildlife Centre where the dead outnumber the living birds. The locals at Maketu were very worried about their shag colony. Greenpeace were parked on the side of the road organising for a weekend of volunteer beach cleaning.

I also ran into the Minsiter for the Environment and asked him to look at the Spillsorb option and if they are going to use it to make sure the Crown pays, not the community. On our way back to a mining meeting in Waihi we called in to Waihi Beach. All looked untouched although locals said an oily penguin had been rescued. The currents are threatening the southern communities. Te Arawa and Ngati Awa are preparing for the worst.

We are all praying they can get the oil off that ship before she breaks, enough damage has been done.

Dr Smith has announced today that he is  “…asking businesses to come forward with innovative solutions on how we can expand the infrastructure for TV recycling and raise awareness of how to recycle and properly dispose of this electronic waste.”

A report published in July this year highlighted the nature and scale of the crisis facing us, associated with the switch from analogue to digital television, and the general preference of many consumers to replace older style cathode ray (CRT) television sets and computer monitors with the modern ‘flat screen’ style. The volume of old and soon to be unwanted CRT TVs means that  (among other things) thousands of tonnes of lead will be available to be recycled and reused in some way, or dumped in landfills to pose a real threat to the environment and human health.

The Community Recycling Network in partnership with RCN has made good use of funding from the Waste Minimisation Levy (another successful Green Party initiative) to establish a ‘pilot’ programme setting up collection points and recycling facilities around the country, and more are planned. The bug in the ointment however is that people bringing unwanted items in for recycling are obliged to pay, to meet at least some of the $20-00 (approximately) cost of processing. Some individuals (and many businesses) will pay the sum quite willingly, but many will not.

The Minister could resolve the dilemma very quickly by establishing a mandatory product stewardship scheme which would provide the cash flow to manage the backlog of e-waste that is very soon expected ‘on stream’, and in the longer run to maintain the viability of collection and processing facilities.  Purchasers will pay marginally more for the product,but not to a level that will cause pain, and will then have no liability when they dispose of the item.

We know that the industry, especially the importers of product, are not opposed in principle to a scheme, but will not support a voluntary scheme because they are immediately put at a commercial disadvantage from ‘free riders’ who would enjoy the benefits but not share the cost.

The Minister needs to cut to the chase and initiate a comprehensive scheme, rather than continue to work around the margins with incremental and ‘one off’ projects, worthy though they might be.

The Convention came into force in the early ‘90s as a response to the then emerging trend of developed ‘rich’ countries exporting their hazardous and toxic waste to developing, ‘poor’ countries. A key principle of the Convention is that we should all take care of our own waste, and either deal with it domestically or export it to a receiving country better able to deal with the material in a way that does not cause harm to the environment or to human health.

Turns out we have exported close to 100,000 tonnes of used lead acid batteries (the kind you have in your car) to Korea or the Philippines over the last three and a half years, despite being able and therefore legally — and ethically — obliged to deal with recycling them locally.

There is clear evidence that the Ministry of Economic Development has been remiss in allowing for exports of this material.

It appears that the approach of MED to assessment of the export applications is lackadaisical at best — the worst kind of ‘she’ll be right’ attitude. The complete application process was a one pager and the investigation of the recycling plant consisted of a handwritten note which says “fine by me” [picture to the right and pdf here].

Not only that, but one of the applications has a handwritten note from an official which states “we’re not fulfilling our obligations under the Basel Convention” [PDF].

We are now exporting so much that the viability of our local facility is under threat. If we lose the capacity to recycle locally, we are not only in breach of the convention but are creating a major problem for ourselves if for whatever reason the receiving countries ever cry ‘enough’.

We have a high-level vision of a waste free New Zealand and that is what should be working towards. To do this we need the ability to recycle hazardous materials safely — environmentally, for workers, public health-wise, and with community input — in New Zealand. By losing the capacity to recycle we’re not only not fulfilling our obligation but we’re losing capacity to deal with our own waste.

Exide’s existing facility at Petone has a chequered history. We in no way condone the leaching of highly toxic materials into our rivers, soils, and communities. But, with the right regulation, standards and suitable placement of processing facilities, we retain capacity in New Zealand and the jobs of the workers.

We will be watching very closely the progress of the review that the Minister has promised, and will be looking for an outcome that involves us taking responsibility for our own problem and coming up with an enduring solution.

Best stop-him-in-his-tracks question at tonight’s ‘Meet Mr Smith Meet’ went to the lovely lady from Lumsden, who asked the Minister (who had just described how important the Government felt it was to follow Best Practice with all mining and drilling projects in NZ, based on overseas models),

“Minister, can you tell us, where is the world’s best practice example of lignite mining?”

A stunned and awkward silence enveloped the Minister before he claimed that he ‘wasn’t willing to say’.

The complimentary bag of dirty ol’ lignite goes to Chris Henderson for both the quality of the question, and the timing!

It seems Minister Smith still doesn’t get it that “best practice” as far as lignite is concerned is to leave it in the ground.

Yesterday, I signed an extension our Greens’ Memorandum of Understanding with the Government to advance cleaning up toxic sites. I did this because, under MMP, we can make policy gains without voting for policies we disagree with or endorsing a Government whose overall programme is at odds with many of our core principles and policies.

After some negotiation, Dr Nick Smith has agreed to some critical steps necessary to adequately address this issue. Now, there is more money to stabilise the Tui Mine tailings dam on Mt Te Aroha and there will be a publicly accessible national register of priority sites. There will also be regional council registers that will be accessible for the public. They will use common software so everyone can get information about where sites are and how polluted they are.

We have agreed to have an independent peer review of the National Environment Standard for contaminated soils. This was announced Tuesday and will cover the risks to human health on contaminated sites. We want this to include environmental effects — not just immediate health risks. The Minister for the Environment has agreed to the independent peer review despite the Ministry for the Environment’s advice that it’s too difficult. Other countries have both human health and environmental standards for sites and associated impacts off site which affect the food chain. No contaminated site is an island.

We have also agreed to work on policy and legal changes around the issue of pre-1991 liability for cleaning up sites. Prior to that, original polluters didn’t have to pay to for cleaning up their toxic sites. That is just wrong. But it can be changed by amendment to the Resource Management Act.

People have asked me why the last Government didn’t address these issues. That’s a damn good question and I will be challenging whoever is the next Government to work with us to progress this work even further. Human life, our environment and our international reputation are at stake. As the wahine from Hauraki said at the Tui Mine event at Parliament yesterday, we destroy the environment, we destroy ourselves. Hauraki iwi want their mountain returned to them and they want it returned in a healthy state!

One person amongst many deserves credit for the progress we hope to make under this new agreement and that is Gordon Jackman. He first exposed this issue in 1991 while working for Greenpeace. I can truly say he has taught me everything I know about the issue as has given me the encouragement to take on this work!

One of these things is not like the other ones, one of these things is not quite the same. Any ideas?

I’ll give you a clue: all bar one have taken on board a vast array of international advice, and adopted a policy that protects the apex predator in our largest and most complex ecosystem.

Got it yet?

Shark finning, or the practise of killing a shark, taking its fins and tail and dumping the carcass at sea, is still legal in New Zealand. Every other country on that list has legislated against shark finning (or in the case of Gordon Ramsey and Jamie Oliver started a massive campaign against fisheries exploitation), and that’s just within the last six months. So why do we, in little old NZ, who is the first-fifteen of global shark catchers, not want to be on that list, and why aren’t we?

Internationally, 73 million sharks are killed annually for their fins. 20 million blue sharks are killed annually solely for their fins. In many cases, the shark is still alive while being finned. This is a well-documented issue that I’ve blogged on before.

So what’s new? Well, within the last 24 hours, the California legislature has voted“overwhelmingly to approved a ban on the sale and distribution of shark fins”, because they recognised the harm that unchecked attrition of the top predator does to the entire ocean. Californian legislators acknowledged that they had to balance the cultural value of shark fin soup with the detrimental effects of finning, but even the cultural argument may not be so strong in years to come, with indications that even China, the world’s biggest shark fin consumer, may be moving to legislate against shark finning.

The world acknowledges that you can’t just endlessly kill (in a wasteful, cruel manner) a long-lived, slow-breeding predator, essential for regulating the oceans of the entire planet.

So what’s keeping us? We don’t actually seem to have any real reason. Even the current Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, whilst in opposition, called the practice “abhorrent”. This is why I, along with the United Nations General Assembly, Forest and Bird, the IUCN and others are calling for NZ to immediately implement a ‘fins naturally attached’ (requiring vessels to keep the whole shark, rather than discarding carcasses at sea) policy on shark catch, which would significantly hamper the trade. The Greens are also calling for an immediate review of our National Plan of Action (Sharks), and adherence to the fundamental principle of that document: “to ensure the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use”.

Our status quo, offering legal protection to only two of the 112 species of shark found in our waters, is not sustainable.

We can join the swelling ranks of the environmentally and socially responsible, or we can look increasingly like the shark conservation pariahs we are.

One of these things is not like the other one, and I know which one I’d rather be.

I couldn’t agree more with MacDoctor’s definition of the problem:

The worrying thing here is that Mr [sic] Smith apparently has no idea whether there is a problem with ACC claims and no inclination to find out.  Over 400 people have complained to the Herald and ACC lose fully one third of all their disputed claims. Yet Mr. Smith would like “a larger number”!

How many would be big enough, Mr. Smith. Ten thousand? A Million? Would losing 50% of all claims be enough? Or will you only do something when it hits 99%? All those management seminars which told you to put a specific action or date on something didn’t do you much good, did they, Mr. Smith?

Of course, it occurs to me that the government is happy to let ACC get as belligerant [sic] as it likes. After all, they are saving the government money.

Spot on!  But as for MacDoctor’s proposed solution:

I can’t think of a better reason why ACC should be completely privatised. Monopoly government insurers have no place in compassionate, civilised society.

I could not disagree more.

Privatising ACC will exacerbate that problem.  Insurers want to minimise claim costs.  Employers want to minimize levies (or insurance premiums, as they would be called under privatisation).  The easiest way to do that is to deny legitimate claims, in the knowledge that most claimants don’t have the fortitude, legal knowledge, or financial capacity to obtain suitably specialised legal representation to contest wrongly denied claims in what is a complex area of law.  MacDoctor’s “solution” opens the way for collusion and corruption between insurers and employers and (dare I say it), the odd corrupt medical practitioner to deny legitimate ACC claims.

The result of the privatisation MacDoctor purports to be the solution will actually be more legitimate claims being denied, not less! The insurance market model breaks down seriously when the people who pay the premiums are not the same people who make the claims. Someone dissatisfied with their insurer normally has the option to go somewhere else. An injured worker does not, because his or her employer will determine the insurer under a privatised ACC regime.

The solution that will work for claimants is for Government to impose constraints on ACC’s zeal to reduce costs at the expense of justice to claimants, including key performance indicators re the percentage of claim declines overturned on review and appeal; and to give claimants a choice of suitably qualified assessor.  Sending all back injury claimants to assessors of ACC’s favoured choice, such as orthopaedic surgeon Brian Otto for example, with no choice to the claimant of an alternative  assessor should not be an option.

The governments’ announcement that they will be injecting $15 million over the next two years into cleaning up our waterways, is overshadowed by the fact that they will also be forming an Irrigation Acceleration Fund which will receive $35 million within five years, and is expected to receive total funding of $400.

Fish and Game’s chief executive Bryce Johnson has claimed that this package will potentially pave the way for further 1 million cows in New Zealand.

“Contrary to some claims by primary industry groups, our rivers and lakes are not in good shape at all – half of our lakes and 90% of lowland rivers are classed as polluted. That’s fact.” says Mr Johnson.
“The science shows our declining water quality is linked to intensive agriculture, and yet yesterday’s pro-irrigation package will potentially mean 1 million more cows, and reduced stream flows to deal with the increased pollution.”

The Science Media Centre approached water management experts to seek their feedback on the initiatives:

Dr Mike Joy, Director of the Centre for Freshwater Ecosystem Management and Modeling at Massey University comments:

“It’s hard to see how this long overdue freshwater NPS will make any difference to the state of NZs waterways when it contains no national standards and farming intensification arguably the biggest issue for freshwater quality and quantity is not addressed.

“Despite the RMA being labelled ‘effects based’ it failed to address the main impact on freshwater quality, that is, diffuse nutrient pollution. The only nutrient inputs to freshwaters that are presently controlled or indeed will be controlled under this NPS are from point sources (out of pipes). On dairy farms this is the waste from the relatively short time that cows spend in the shed. For towns and industry it’s the wastewater discharged out of pipes into rivers.

“The bigger problem is the diffuse waste from intensive dairy farming (through urine and farm nutrient run-off and leaching) is only mentioned once in the NPS (in Policy A4) and only applies to new discharges or increases from now on (actually for applications in by July 1st allowing
for a last minute rush of applications to beat the changes). This effectively means that regional councils will (if they chose to) be able to regulate the main impact on freshwater quality -farming intensity.

“However, given that prior to the NPS the councils chose not to control intensification even though it is obviously having a detrimental effect on water quality it seems unlikely this will change. Thus, we can expect no overall change in water quality any time soon.

“As in the existing RMA freshwater indigenous biodiversity is highlighted (NPS Objective A1), but after 20 years of that legislation we now have close to 2/3rds of our freshwater fish listed as threatened along with our freshwater crayfish and mussel we can see that completely failed that objective. These species are our freshwater “miners canaries” and their threatened status says more than any number of reports can about the disregard local end central government have shown to our freshwaters to date.

“This national policy statement continues that trend of policy containing lots of nice words and lofty ideals but no teeth or standards, so this is a huge opportunity lost and we can expect more of the same the further degrading of the ‘clean green’ myth.”

Professor David Hamilton, BOP Chair in Lakes Management & Restoration at Waikato University and President of the New Society Freshwater Sciences Society comments:

“Over the past decade or so New Zealanders have witnessed accelerated degradation of many waterbodies in response to diffuse nutrients derived mostly from agricultural sources.

“The limits-based approach in the NPS is designed to arrest this degradation and will ensure that land use practices are aligned with the national goal of ensuring clean freshwater in downstream environments”.

“The work programme for the ‘Fresh Start for Fresh Water’ has already identified the potential for ‘gold rushes’ of land use change prior to the implementation of the NPS in Freshwater Management.

“Such changes would be completely at odds with the desired outcome of the NPS, particularly for catchments that are sensitive to pollution, or that have specific cultural or environmental freshwater values, in addition to where available freshwater is already over-allocated such as in areas of Canterbury.

“The Society wishes to see the NPS implemented in a way which will prevent further land use change and degradation of selected waterbodies so that costly clean-up steps are avoided.

“New Zealanders are already bearing a substantial cost for the protection of Lake Taupo and the restoration of the Rotorua lakes and the Waikato River. There is some acceptance that this cost will be spread across the community given that there was limited knowledge of the implications of past land use changes on water quality and quantity, but this is no longer the case and we cannot continue to externalise the costs to communities and the New Zealand taxpayer of pollution by private industries.

“The irrigation and clean-up fund of up to $400 million approved by Cabinet, to fast-track regional irrigation schemes is an example of externalising the costs of greater water efficiency and expanding the irrigation infrastructure while at the same time the Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund will provide only $15 million in additional funding over two years to help communities clean up waterways that are affected by historical pollution.”

Angus McIntosh – Professor and Mackenzie Foundation Chair in Freshwater Ecology, University of Canterbury, comments:

“The need to halt declines in freshwater biodiversity values is critical. The current situation is really quite grim. In a recent survey of small waterways on the Canterbury Plains we have found over 80% are either moderately or severely polluted. For Canterbury urban waterways (pre earthquake), the situation is even worse.

“Delays or a business as usual approach will see substantial loss of water-related ecosystem services (e.g., processing of nutrients and decomposition), increased threats to public health (e.g., toxic algal blooms) and very likely even extinctions. For example, 81% of our native galaxiid freshwater fishes have been ranked as endangered in the most recent classification. Species like the Canterbury mudfish reside completely within the agricultural area of the Canterbury Plains and are on a knife edge as their nationally critical status indicates.

“The National Policy Statement (NPS) offers the chance to halt these declines and rehabilitate damaged ecosystems, but only if we get the details right. Appropriate environmental limits are needed. Our research indicates an environmental tipping point around 20% fine sediment (i.e., silt and sand) in a stream, for example. Any more than that, and biodiversity is substantially degraded. Moreover, a whole water network approach needs to be applied. Indications in the NPS that outstanding sites should be selected is worrying because it implies the rest can be left.

“That idea was firmly rejected by the NPS Board of Inquiry because it ignores the fact that freshwater ecosystems form networks. To reverse the declines, environmental limits and riparian protection need to be applied across the board. The scale of that is huge. There are over 8000 km of small waterways on the Canterbury Plains that largely go unmanaged because they are so small that they are regarded as drains or ditches. I would hope a decent chunk of the government funding announced will go towards dealing with those sort of issues.”

Professor Jenny Webster-Brown, Director, The Waterways Centre for Freshwater Management University of Canterbury & Lincoln University, comments:

On the NPS:

“As a framework, the NPS seeks an outcome for freshwater systems which we (and I believe most New Zealanders) strongly support, but it stops short of defining the conditions that will make this outcome a reality; nationally consistent environmental limits for water take and for water quality.

“Therefore the next important step, once this policy statement is in effect, is the determination of these environmental limits. This is anticipated in 2012, and is essential if we are to move significantly beyond the ideals originally embodied in the RMA, in reference to freshwater. The RMA has not prevented widespread degradation of water quality in New Zealand, so a better approach is certainly needed if we are even to maintain current water conditions, let alone seek an improvement.

On the Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund

“This fund for councils to restore historically degraded freshwater environments is very welcome. Restoration of these systems and their catchments is an expensive process. To be successful, restoration requires two-fold support; funding for research to identify successful restoration strategies, and funding for restoration logistics and resources. One without the other has a limited chance of success and too many of our most impacted catchments and water systems have neither. The $15million fund over 2 years should help restoration efforts get off the ground, but a longer term commitment will be required to ensure successful restoration of many systems.”

Irrespective of the legal technicalities, it was an anomalous decision for a compensation scheme that is meant to provide comprehensive compensation, and Government should have legislated to correct the anomaly.  To the discredit of the previous Government and the current one, both of which have piloted other legislation to amend the ACC scheme through Parliament, neither did, and ACC proceeded to cancel the weekly compensation of other claimants in these circumstances.

However, in February of this year Judge Martin Beattie issued a decision on an ACC appeal that opined the 2006 decision ACC were relying on to disentitle claimants to weekly compensation was wrong in law:

[21] l have considered the decision of Judge Ongley in Giltrap (Decision 141/06) and acknowledge that he was faced with a similar factual scenario to that of the present case, the only difference being that Mrs Giltrap was an adult at the time of injury, but not working. But she was working at the time she was obliged to give up work because of the worsening of the injuries that she had suffered some years earlier in a motor accident.

[22] I have read His Honour’s judgment and find that his reasoning can be interpreted from the the provisions in question, and where he found that under Section 100 the right to receive weekly compensation is to be decided by determination of incapacity as contained in Section 103(2) and also eligibility under Clause 32. His Honour considered that the section clearly expresses a dual requirement for incapacity in the first place and eligibility from time to time.

[23] I prefer to find that the section does not require incapacity in the first place, but merely incapacity at the time when a claim for compensation is sought.

I would have thought ACC, who have appealed the latter decision to the High Court, would have put everything on hold until the law was clarified one way or another.  But recently a claimant approached me with this letter, advising her weekly compensation had been stopped on the basis of the 2006 decision:

So I decided to ask ACC Minister Nick Smith a question:

35760 (2010). Kevin Hague to the Minister for ACC (15 Nov 2010): Has the Accident Compensation Corporation continued, subsequent to the issuing of the District Court’s decision in Vandy v ACC (Decision 23/2010), to rely on the District Court decision in Giltrap v ACC (Decision 141/2006) to disentitle weekly compensation to claimants who were not earners at the time of their injury but later became incapacitated from their subsequent employment due to that injury, and if so, why?

Hon Dr Nick Smith (Minister for ACC) replied: ACC has the difficult situation of two contradictory court decisions over this detailed issue which is now subject to an appeal. I am reluctant to comment further until such a time as the appeal being heard this week in the High Court is concluded.

This is a shameful exercise from start to finish.  Government should have legislated to correct an anomaly that appears to have arisen from a drafting error in the legislation. It didn’t. When the interpretation of the law was brought into question, ACC should have stopped relying on the earlier decision to stop claimants’ weekly compensation.  But in its cost-cutting fervour, it has continued to disentitle claimants.  And Minister Smith should show more accountability to Parliament than to hide behind the High Court appeal in refusing to confirm or deny that ACC are still relying on the disputed 2006 interpretation of the law to disentitle claimants (which they obviously are).

Update: At the time I drafted this post, I was not aware that the High Court judgment on appeal had been released.  Thanks to Acclaim Otago for sending it to me, and a copy is here.  It supports the 2006 District Court decision ACC was relying on.  That doesn’t change my opinion on either the inappropriateness of ACC continuing to rely on that decision to disentitle claimants while the law was uncertain, or on the inadequacy of the Minister’s response to my question.

I hope to comment further on the substance of the High Court appeal judgment tomorrow, after I have had time to consider it in more detail.

The seminar was comprised mainly of government officials, academics and think tank experts.  There was a high-level of knowledge and acuity around the table on the subject.  The Minister (Groser) came and spoke, then left.  There was a general air of malaise in the air, a feeling of fin de siècle, of disempowerment. We were busy with the deck chairs – sorting where they should be arranged – maintaining the system since we only have the system.

I remained silent for nearly all of the meeting but surrendered to a comment at the end.  The issue, I suggested, was not one of degree but of kind.  We cannot solve climate change by more feverishly re-arranging the deck chairs.

It is a paradigm thing.  We can only solve climate change by treating it for what it is – an unprecedented alteration to our human existence on Earth – both causally and consequentially.  Unless we step out of one paradigm (business-as-usual but tinkering at the margin to ameliorate the problem) and into another (going onto a war-footing where everything else is subordinate), nothing will change.

The others nodded uncertainly.  I understand that, after I left to return to the House, they returned to the deck chairs.

Yesterday I sought to inject a sense of paradigmatic change into the Parliament.  I asked a question of Minister Groser about Cancun.  He was overseas promoting free trade so Minister Nick Smith responded.  We learned from Dr Smith a few things:

• The Govt. remains committed to a global legal agreement with binding cuts.
• It does not expect this to be achieved at Cancun.
• Climate change negotiations are very much the art of the possible, because they require the agreement of over 190 countries on a complex issue.
• New Zealand’s announced cut of 10%-20% off 1990 levels by 2020 is a ‘hugely challenging’ target.

The conclusion is that taming global climate change is an art – the art of what might be possible.  It is not possible for New Zealand to go beyond its ’hugely challenging target’, notwithstanding that it is less than half of its required share of the global target.

We are thus authorised by Her Majesty’s loyal ministers to explain to our children, in 20 years’ time, that while we recognised the magnitude of the challenge, we only did what we thought possible at the time.

Sorry, kids, it was not possible to pass on the planet in any kind of decent shape because there were 190 of us, and we found it too damned difficult to get agreement.

As I said in the General Debate that followed, we are all suffering from cognitive dissonance. Every so often, we see the magnitude and imminence of the threat, and it is simply too frightening to accept individually and politically, so we basically return to business and government as usual. We mumble about bigger cuts later and avoid looking into our children’s eyes.

Have mercy upon us.

Attached to the letter was a very detailed 82 page position paper.  The paper describes how the amendments to the ACC Act that Nick Smith pushed through last year:

• ignored the legal obligations required by the NZ Bill of rights Act 1990, the Human Rights Act 1993, the ILO Convention 17 and the UN Convention on the Rights of persons with Disabilities;

• ignored the international specialist audiological research that states unequivocally that ACC’s assessment process is not scientifically validated, is unfair and inequitable, and produced variable outcomes;

• failed to consider the widespread economic costs of untreated NIHL to New Zealand; and

• dismissed the individual and community hardship incurred by claimants as a result of ACC failing its own statutory objectives.

I agree fully with the paper’s conclusions that the amendments to ACC legislation and regulations concerning noise-induced hearing loss cannot be justified on legal or ethical grounds as they enact discrimination on the basis of disability, age, and race.

They cannot be justified on scientific grounds, as the science does not support the basis of ACC’s hearing assessment and age-related hearing loss schedules.

They cannot be justified on economic grounds as the overall national costs of not treating noise-induced hearing loss are significantly outweighed by the benefits of providing comprehensive rehabilitation.

And they cannot be justified on social grounds, as the implementation of a government policy that knowingly precludes people with a life-altering sensory impairment from receiving rehabilitation is in contravention of human rights.

I’m going to be doing my best to keep raising this issue with Minister Smith.  But I need your support, so how about reading the position paper I’ve linked to above and sending Nick Smith an email asking him to reconsider these cruel and discriminatory cuts.

I was pondering a post on Environment Minister Nick Smith’s proposed National Environment Standard on forestry.   Then I discovered Robert Guyton and James Henderson at The Standard had already said it all:

“The proposed NES for Forestry could more aptly be called the ‘let the farmers do what they want’ standard. Not only does it enable just about anything to do with harvesting plantation forest, it also makes any earthworks or quarrying within the rural environment a permitted activity (not subject to the resource consent process), except when it is in an area prone to erosion. This would mean all farmers can use the NES to bypass earthworks controls aimed at protecting landscapes and water quality, regardless of whether or not the earthworks or quarrying is for forestry purposes.”

James Henderson, writing for The Standard sounds the clarion for all councils and those people who value a truly clean, green environment and points the finger straight at Nick Smith. Most interesting is his description of the sneaky manner in which this NES was presented – ‘in between councils’ during the change-over period we are in now.

“Nick Smith knew that this wouldn’t go down well with Councils who regulate forestry activities with the aim of protecting water quality, biodiversity, and landscape values. So guess what, the consultation period for the new NES is during the local government elections recess period, i.e. the NES was proposed after Councils could formally consider it, and submissions close in mid October, before any new Councils have had their first meeting of the new triennium.”

Rotten.

I think it is rotten too, Robert and James.  Democracy requires better than Nick Smith releasing a document that will abrogate the rights of local authorities to make decisions on issues that are their core business at a time when the local authorities are lame ducks due to the local elections, and with the deadline for submissions being before the newly elected local authorities can even be properly constituted and meet, let alone consult with their constituents.

As Robert said, Rotten!!!

At the time, I was particularly disturbed that the responses to a series of written questions to Dr Smith made it clear he had no idea how many vocational independence assessments were being done by ACC and he could provide no data about how many people were having their compensation cancelled as a result.

So I tried another approach to get some idea of trends of people being moved off ACC weekly compensation. I asked Social Development Minister Paula Bennett how many new applicants for welfare benefits reported their immediate pre-benefit income as being weekly compensation from ACC for each month of the last four years.  I’ve graphed the replies here:

The gradual increase in the latter part of 2008 is likely explained by the worsening economic conditions making it harder for people who had lost their jobs while on ACC weekly compensation to get a new job.

What really disturbed me was the huge increase in the number of people being shifted from weekly compensation onto welfare benefits since March 2009.  There were no legislative changes taking effect at that time that could explain the increase.  However, March 2009 just happens to coincide with Nick Smith throwing scary and unfounded numbers around, sacking ACC’s Board, and proposing entitlement cuts and levy increases.

This leaves me very suspicious there may have been an informal policy implemented around that time to aggressively move people off weekly compensation without providing them with adequate rehabilitation. This is another good reason to hold the independent review I called for.

I’ve had a couple of classics myself this week. The first came from Attorney-General Christopher Finalyson. I asked for “all documentation considered by Cabinet in making the decision to decline compensation and apologies to the eight women who participated in the Forum of Complainants of Police Misconduct.”

I got the paper considered by Cabinet alright, but the entire section about financial redress – presumably fairly central to Cabinet’s decision to decline compensation – was blanked out. And we’re not just talking a paragraph, we’re talking pages and pages:

And then this morning I arrived to these pearls in my inbox. I’ve sent separate requests to both Environment Minister Nick Smith and to his officials at the Ministry of the Environment looking for documents about the Land and Water Forum, now that the forum’s reported. Seems like the right hand and the left hand need to get together for a little chat:

From Nick Smith

Please note that the request for “… copies of any papers or advice provided by your officials to the Land and Water Forum” has been transferred to the Ministry for the Environment for consideration, as it more closely aligns with the responsibilities of the Ministry for the Environment.

From the Ministry

Please note that the request for “…copies of any advice provided by your agency to your Minister about the Land and Water Forum, including, but not limited to advice on how the Forums activities and/or report might impact on the work of your agency” has been transferred to the office of Hon Dr Nick Smith for consideration, as it more closely aligns with his responsibilities as the Minister for the Environment.

Fun times in OIA land! Have a good weekend everyone.

You did read that right. Not only will our large industries get a completely free ride in terms of emissions, they will get so many free credits that they will be forced to sell the excess on the market for about $145 million. A free ride plus free money, but still it is not enough.

We won’t throw stones at National, because the first ETS had similar provisions. But Labour’s freebies would have declined to zero by 2030. What Smith took away from big polluters in the early years of his ETS, he gave back many times, all that way out to 2089. Compensating big industry for both emissions and electricity price rises was somthing the Greens fought against, but lost. Nobody else gets compensated for electricity price rises under the ETS, so why should they?

The real question here is whether the Leviathans of New Zealand industry should get any more free money from the taxpayer than they are already getting. My thinking? No way!

Sunday’s revelations in the Sunday Star-Times about the role played by Felicity Goodyear-Smith are further cause for this investigation: we simply have to know whether ACC has been colonised by a sick culture, totally at odds with the Woodhouse principles and the intent of the scheme.

ACC both commissioned Dr Goodyear-Smith to provide advice on a number of occasions and then, according to the Sunday Star-Times, attempted to cover this up.

Dr Goodyear-Smith’s history of association with the Centrepoint “community” and extremely controversial views about sexual abuse are well-known.

It seems, then, that her engagement by ACC can only have occurred through some catastrophic failure of process and judgment or through a deliberate set of actions intended to reduce support for sensitive claimants.

New Zealanders need to know which of these it is and to be confident that this kind of disaster cannot recur. It’s time for Nick Smith to launch the urgent investigation that I have called for.

Russel’s questions were in light of the World Meteorological Organisation and global insurance giant Munich Re both coming out and saying that the unprecedented amount of floods and other extreme weather events around the world right now are definitely part of a trend attributed to climate change. The head of GeoRisk at Munich Re had this to say:

Climate change cannot be identified from individual events but our figures, backed by verifiable changes in meteorological data, indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change.

The current state of knowledge leaves no doubt about the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

So, climate change is already causing an increase in extreme weather events, just as the science predicted. Go figure!

All Russel was asking the Minister was whether or not he would require local councils to plan for these events, through a National Policy Statement on climate change adaptation.

The Minister didn’t want to say no, so he pretended that Russel was asking for something else – like telling councils where they could build houses and the like.

It was really just smoke and mirrors to indicate that John Key’s Government is going to do absolutely nothing to help New Zealanders prepare for what the scientists and actuaries know is already happening!

This has really turned out to be a do-nothing government of empty rhetoric, busy tearing things down but not preparing or planning for the future.

‘Letting the market decide’ is a poor excuse for a lack of vision and leadership.

Here’s Russel in this week’s Green video:

The Government is proposing to lower and delay air quality standards, which will result in lost lives and billions in lost productivity due to health impacts.

Nick Smith claims that these changes will save hundreds of jobs, because the standards as written would force regional councils to decline resource consents to existing and new polluting industry in areas where the air quality breaches the standard. He says that this is about equity – in other words, it’s not fair for industry to not be able to contribute to the poor health and premature deaths of as many people as domestic heating and vehicles currently do.

Now, it is fair enough to recognise that shutting down industry in 2013 will not actually clean up our air or fully address the problem. But lowering and delaying the standards, including removing industry restrictions, also won’t do anything to improve the quality of our air and avoid billions in health costs.

This Government has a habit talking about “balancing the economy and environment”, which they see as a black and white trade off. Either you can have clean air OR jobs, but not both. The Green Party knows this is a false dichotomy – a smart economy will bring us real prosperity, which means jobs that don’t compromise clean air. As my grandmother used to say, you haven’t got anything if you haven’t got your health.

There is a much better way to address the problem of requiring that consents be declined without just giving industry free rein to pollute for another 5+ years. Option 3 considered in the discussion document would enable the implementation of the standard in 2013, while creating a mechanism for polluting industries to pay their fair share through an offset scheme that would reduce emissions from home heating and vehicles.

This is not the preferred option, although there is no argument in the discussion document to explain why it doesn’t meet the policy objectives – namely cleaning up our air in a fair and equitable manner, without unduly costing jobs.

You can voice your concern about the changes proposed in the discussion document by submitting ASAP. Your submission must be received by the Ministry for the Environment by 5pm Friday 9 July.

The Ministry for the Environment has provided a (pretty lame) online submission form that allows you to make some simple limited comments on the proposal. Otherwise you can send more detailed comments by hard copy to the Ministry for the Environment.

If you need background information or ideas on what to address in your submission, you can read Green Party MP David Clendon’s submission or our submission guide.

The main point to make is that you do not support lowering or delaying the standards, which both of the preferred options do.  We recommend you support the possibility of Option 3, which retains the standard but introduces additional flexibility for regional councils and industry.

Well, it turns out that the only crisis with ACC was the one in Nick Smith’s head.  Last Thursday Smith appeared before Parliament’s Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee to answer questions about ACC’s budget appropriation: 

[ACC] would make about $1.5 billion from its investments this year, he said, and the total surplus would be about $2 billion because of a drop in the cost of claims, better rehabilitation rates and cuts to administration costs. 

That’s right, a $2 billion surplus, and that’s before the levy increases and entitlement cuts have any impact, as they are only now beginning to phase in. 

Meanwhile, the Government continues to roll out proposals to further cut ACC entitlements, including this pernicious proposal that will leave thousands New Zealanders whose hearing has been impaired by accident or workplace noise unable to afford hearing aids. 

The real agenda is clear – get ACC making mega-surpluses in order to facilitate flogging bits of it off to the Government’s mates in the insurance industry.