The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill proposes to set up an environmental management regime for certain activities in New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone − the area of sea, seabed and subsoil from 12 to 200 nautical miles offshore − and the continental shelf beyond that. The activities covered by the Bill include seabed mining, some aspects of petroleum activities, and energy generation carbon capture and storage. The Green Party welcomes greater regulation of activities in this zone, however we have serious concerns with the Bill at present and will work constructively with the Government to try and improve the legislation.

It’s vitally important the public has a say on this bill, which I fear sets up a framework to allow controversial deep-sea oil drilling in New Zealand waters, which risks a disaster similar to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. You can make an online submission to help people send in a submission advocating for protection of our ocean.

The Government has sold New Zealand cheaply to oil drillers with a $25.4 million seismic survey subsidy, the forth lowest royalty rates in the world, and now legislation with no environmental bottom lines. Oil drillers will benefit from this legislation while the public and environment faces all the risks from a catastrophic oil spill.

Send an electronic submission here

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!

The council has a lot on its plate in the coming year, not least of all because general tree protection rules that were typically put in place as a defence against the more rapacious forms of urban development in the 90’s fell victim to the Government’s first round  of ‘streamlining’ of the Resource Management Act (RMA).

The reform of the RMA  makes it illegal, as of Jan 1^st 2012, for councils to use general tree protection rules as a management tool for our urban forest, and means trees on private land may be pruned or cut down with no approval required, unless they are scheduled.

Scheduling individual trees is a time consuming and expensive process, and we need a much more comprehensive set of tools to allow councils and the public to manage and protect trees, which are of course crucial to the city’s amenity, biodiversity, and are an essential part of our ‘green infrastructure’.

The general tree protection regime was imperfect, as acknowledged by the Council, the Arboricultural Association and others, but its removal has left our urban forest hugely exposed to the predations of those who take a very short term view of ‘development’ and could drastically affect the quality of our urban environments.

We are currently waiting for a statutory declaration from the Environment Court’s on the interpretation of the legislation, which was called for by the Waitakere, North Shore and Auckland Regional Councils

The Greens will be doing what we can to support the Tree Council and other groups as they lobby local and central government to take a more intelligent and creative approach to the issue.  Watch this space…

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.

What irks me no end is Labour’s Phil Twyford grandstanding on the axing of tree protection, when he and his Labour Party voted in favour of gutting the RMA last night.

For shame Labour. Empty promises about reversing this decision if you win the next election are in vain.

It will, as usual, require the Greens and other small parties to keep the old grey parties honest – under MMP.

This dishonest double-speak and I hope people remember it.

Labour is just as culpable as National when it comes to the RMA deforms.

The Feds say, “Most importantly, we are concerned a streamlined approval process may signal to Transpower that it no longer has to discuss suitable easement agreements with farmers or provide appropriate compensation.” Exactly – streamlining the RMA will mean that Kiwis of all walks of life will no longer have a say on what is most important to them. Note that we’re talking about a right to have a say here, not blanket nimbyism.

For more information about these changes to the RMA check out the Green Party’s submission guide.
 
I look forward to a press statement from the Feds opposing this latest round of RMA changes!

My question today directly concerning Maori and their loss of rights under the RMA reforms was transferred by the government from the Maori Affairs Minister to the Environment Minister. When I took a point of order on it, Nick Smith responded but the Maori Affairs Minister stayed silent. And of course, before my question was the long debacle of Gerry Brownlee stopping the Maori Affairs minister from answering Labour’s questions about the foreshore review.

I agree that Labour have no cred on the foreshore issue. But the Minister should still answer questions within his ministerial portfolio even from Cullen. There is nothing that suggests that he will make any blunders like other National MPs have. So why is he gagged?

Pita Sharples did defend his reputation today but he should defend the right of Maori to hear from thier Minister. Why is he not standing up to his Cabinet colleagues and demanding that he answer questions about Maori issues? Otherwise Maori could rightly think that the National government is gagging the Maori Affairs spokesperson in an effort to lock Maori out of the public discourse, on Maori issues. That was the old bad Pakeha dominance of last century, why is a Maori Party MP allowing this to happen to them in the 21st century?

Well, its difficult to give a question to a Conservation Minister who has been MIA now for weeks and weeks. And I guess they wouldn’t want to give it to the new Associate Minister who has only been appointed because the other guy isn’t in the country. Why bother having such a Ministerial position if there is no-one competent to fill it or to answer questions about it?

Maybe that is the heart of it. National’s RMA bill currently at select committee will remove the Conservation Minister’s power as effective ‘landowner’ to stop any developments in the coastal marine space. That power will rest with regional councils instead. In effect, as the Environmental Defence Society has said, the power to “permanently alienate” the coast will be in the hands of regional councils – many of whom are demonstrably weak in keeping environmental resources from the hands of developers out for a buck

The Government clearly has not bothered to consider impact on Maori, local communities or to the environment itself. The Conservation Minister has a statutory obligation to advocate for the environment. If the Minister doesn’t even have the normal rights that other landowners have to say “No” the coastal environment is left in the hands of councilors and private enterprise.

Back in 2004, when the Labour Government began ‘Whole-of-Government’ (WOG) approaches to selective resource consents – the idea that the all Government agencies submit a single and coherent view – the Greens sought an assurance that this would not result in the Department of Conservation being prevented from submitting evidence and advocating for conservation and recreation. The unequivocal answer from Environment Minister Marian Hobbs was that it would not.

DOC has a statutory function under the Conservation Act (6b) “to advocate the conservation of natural and historic resources generally”. You see, DOC is the the owner-in-trust of our flora and fauna on behalf of all New Zealanders, and on both public and private land or sea. It is also a massive land owner/manager itself, again on our behalf. As Metiria stated yesterday, the law requires them to able to stick up for it.

But the WOG approach has sometimes meant that DOC is prevented from submitting (and appealing) proposals that have obvious conservation impacts – examples include Meridian’ s North Bank hydro and Central Wind projects, as well as Project Hayes. In the case of the Mokihinui hydro dam, DOC was thankfully allowed to submit (strongly opposed).

The Prime Minister said at yesterday’s post-cabinet press conference that while he supported a WOG approach where the Government has a clear policy, he also does not wish to see agencies with particular objections prevented from submitting them. For that to happen he needs to issue an instruction that DOC is to sit outside WOGs. He also has to be careful: the whole idea of the RMA is that decision-making is not vested in the Government, but in Councils and Courts, so the Government needs to participate but not interfere.

John Key also said he is “hopeful that the changes to the RMA will improve this”, yet it is National’s policy to explicitly REMOVE DOC’s advocacy function. How on earth can removing advocacy powers improve them!

The RMA Amendment Bill to be tabled this week will take the first step in doing this - a Cabinet paper leaked yesterday states the Bill will “remove the Minister of Conservation’s powers in respect to decision making on restricted coastal activities”. The Greens insist that the Minister of Conservation must have the power to protect our coastal flora and fauna.

Russel, however,  looked at it far more carefully than I did, and his press release is here. He pointed out that the “reforms” eroded the public’s ability to participate in the process while offering nothing to enhance protections for the environment.

Gary Taylor over at the Environmental Defence Society was less circumspect, hitting out against the anti-democratic nature of the reforms:

“Overall there are a number of changes that taken together will weaken proactive planning, further limit public involvement in RMA processes and shift the balance further towards development interests. This is hardly surprising given the development bias in the membership of the TAG.

“We note that there is a second phase of RMA reform to follow. This is likely to deal with more substantive issues. It is hoped that the government will set up a more balanced and consultative process than the one it used this time,” Mr Taylor concluded.

Forest and Bird echoes the anti-democratic line, with an interesting point about how the reforms erode individual property rights:

“It will be a very sad day for the environment and our communities when only those who can afford expensive lawyers can have a say,” Forest & Bird Advocacy Manager Kevin Hackwell says. “Most of the proposed changes will make the RMA easier for very big, wealthy companies and rich individuals.”

The proposal to remove the Minister of Conservation’s powers to make decisions on restricted coastal activities is a real concern. “The Minister represents the Crown’s ownership of the coast and as the ‘owner’ the Minister should be able to have the final say,” Kevin Hackwell says. The logical next step would be to take away private landowners’ rights to say no to someone else’s proposed development on their land.

Greenpeace laments the continued destruction of our clean, green image and its affects on tourism and the economy and the environment:

“The Government seems to have forgotten that many overseas consumers won’t visit New Zealand or buy New Zealand products if they discover our clean green reputation is a con.

“In these times of economic crisis, one of our key means of survival will be our clean green brand. Weakening New Zealand’s environmental laws is counterproductive because it will leave that brand in tatters.”

Mayor Harvey of Waitakere City, glibly billing himself as “one of the country’s leading environmentalists”, (cough, cough, splutter), sums it all up better than anyone:

These changes will usher in more and better development.

Too right, Bob. Pity that National’s kind of development is not what real environmentalists are looking for.

NoRightTurn provides his usual excellent analysis, while the Property Council waxes poetic about how these anaemic changes will rescue the economy.

Kiwiblog parrots the New Zealand Herald’s blushing support of the announcement.

The Wind Energy Association, is cheering the changes that will allow some of the bigger wind projects to get through the consent process earlier. RadioNZ brought together both sides of the Project Hayes windfarm for a love fest in support of the changes.

All in all, the voices have fallen out around the lines that you would expect. Those legitimately troubled by the RMA process giving wholehearted or at least luke warm support, while those most aligned to the environment bemoaning the furhter erosion in the public’s ability to have their say. For me it is an issue of democratic participation, and I believe we are worse off for the Phase I reforms.

Along with Pesticides Action Network, Soil and Health and other concerned people, the Green party MP Sue Kedgley and myself made submissions to ERMA on the reassessment. Interestingly if you want to phone in your oral submission from a rural area, as I did, you had to pay for the call yourself. I felt like I was speaking into a vacuum but for once the vacuum acted. All credit must go to the campaigners who fought so hard to achieve both the re-basement and the result. The statutory committee advising ERMA on Maori perspectives, Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Te Taiao, also strongly advised in favour of a ban. There will be no further imports of endosulfan after January 16 2009.

Some food growers are claiming this ban will destroy their businesses. It is hard to believe that an outdated dangerous pesticide is essential; haven’t they heard of more organic methods of pest control? They might even make more money if they start the transition to producing healthy food.

But this victory is just the beginning. There are many more chemicals used in daily life that need to be reassessed. ERMA has made a start on some of the really bad pesticides and fumigants such as methyl bromide and azinphos-methyl. These names sound like heavy metal bands but are in fact heavy duty endocrine system disrupters and connected to a wide range of health effects. Azinphos- methyl for example is a toxic pesticide sprayed on almonds and apples. There are also some nasty persistent chemicals that are not high on ERMAs list, including 24D. 24D is widely used in spraying weeds in forestry and agriculture is the little cousin of 245T. A colleague of mine was helicopter sprayed with this chemical at home and developed violent skin problems; his daughter aged six started menstruating. That’s just one of many horrible stories people around the country have shared with me about their exposure to dangerous pesticides.

It is an extreme waste of time to assess each toxic chemical in isolation. Why don’t we adopt the precautionary approach which the RMA mentions in a “lip service let’s not really do anything” manner. This precautionary approach to chemicals simply means unless you can prove something is safe don’t use it. This principle is vigorously applied in places like San Francisco, so there are practical models we can follow.

So the worms, tomatoes and people are now safe from one ghastly chemical. Lets get cracking on the rest of them.

Allowing just any Tom Dick and Harry to appeal something [to the environment court] is a recipe for endless debate and dispute by people that are just anti-progress and anti-development.

Well Act and its developer constituents might not like it but some of us care about the physical environment and don’t want every developer to be able to build every abomination they can fund.

Many environmentally destructive developments get given the nod by compliant councils and the Environment Court is the last hope for many community groups and regular citizens (yes those Tom Dick and Harrys that Rodney disparages).

And in a society governed by rule of law, the citizens should be able to appeal the decisions of council hearing panels to the courts. But I guess all Act’s talk about ‘rule of law’ is only when it suits them not when it might stand in the way of making a buck at the expense of the environment.