The House grants outgoing MPs a chance to reflect on their time in Parliament with a valedictory speech. You can watch Sue and Keith reflect on their 12 years as Green MPs below.

Sue Kedgley

Keith Locke

Both Keith and Sue’s tireless dedication will be sadly missed. But, as Sue showed in her speech, the baton has been passed on and we’ve got heaps of awesome young faces coming through.

Mr Joyce was the founder and owner for 18 years of Radio Works which merged to become Media Works. He retired as Managing Director of Radio Works in 2001 when Can West purchased it.

One has to wonder, is this the same government which has stripped the public service functions from TVNZ, arguing that the country can’t afford to prop up public service broadcasting?

The government appears to have a double standard when it comes to its dealings with broadcasters: a get-tough attitude towards publicly owned TVNZ, and a lenient one for private broadcasters. A big stick for public service broadcasters and a carrot for privately owned ones.

This story shows just how cash-strapped the private equity company which owns TV3, and half our commercial radio stations, is. And how vulnerable broadcasters become when they are reliant on finance from private equity companies, and the likes of Goldman Sachs and the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The incident also highlights why we need at least one publicly owned television channel in New Zealand –a channel that is not owned by overseas companies like Goldman Sachs.

Whatever one’s reservations about TVNZ and the government’s decision to strip it of all of its public service functions, so that it is now virtually indistinguishable from commercial television, at least it isn’t reliant on a cash strapped private equity company.

The incident also highlights that TV3 –and Radio Works—could go broke. What would happen then? I can’t imagine too many buyers lining up to buy TV3 in the present climate.

The Bill is a very very very small itsy bitsy step in the right direction, but it does not go anywhere near as far as what Geoffrey Palmer and the Law Commission suggested in their report Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm.

Simon Power is only tackling the easy bits and scapegoating youth in the current legislation. He hasn’t nearly gone as far as the 3000 or so submissions to the Law Commission show the political will to be.

So if you’re going to make a submission on this Bill—which I highly recommend you do—here are some topics to concentrate on.

• The current Bill only tinkers around the edges while the Law Commission asks for comprehensive reform. This means addressing a broad range of problems from regulating the supply of alcohol, to price, advertising, reducing demand and increasing treatment options.
• The Bill totally neglects the impact that advertising and sponsorship have on peoples’ drinking. We’d like to see proper enforcement of advertising standards for liquor and a move to remove all alcohol advertising and sponsorship from our TV screens, billboards and sports stars chests within two years.
• More than 19 countries require health warnings on alcoholic products. We don’t and the Alcohol reform Bill doesn’t even touch the subject. We think that with over 500 babies being born in New Zealand every year with Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder that a small reminder on the side of the bottle is worth it.
• Importantly the bill does not address price. Literally hundreds of public health studies show that the easiest way to reduce excess alcohol consumption is to increase price.

So if you want to help change New Zealand’s heavy drinking culture for the better please submit by this Friday.

There is a trend out there called “laddism” which is actually old school sexism mutating as it does in many glorious forms. The Prime Minister is leading the way with his cosy chats with Tony Veitch. I am a great believer in second chances but Tony and his “hot chicks” list needs no encouragement, let alone from John Key. The counter attack on Sue Kedgely has been an illustration of ignorance and disrespect for women in general and for a particular woman whose leadership has changed this country for the better on many issues.

Another bizarre manifestation of“laddism” is the new police recruitment poster which targets young people hoping they will apply to join the force. It’s an advertising campaign that says things like “We’ve Got A lot in Common with Cougars We Like Em Young” . They have really multitasked with this effort by insulting older women and sounding predatory towards young flesh in one breath. A recent study stated that the police culture in this country has a way to go in terms of restoring women’s confidence after the Rickards affair. This new messaging is a huge step backwards!

The Facebook campaign against the “Radio Rock” wife raffle includes men and women and is having an impact on sponsors, but it’s going to take a more sustained effort to curb the new age of sexism. The mainstream media commentators are generally spinning any challenge as “ugly old women who are jealous”. This line is as old as the “men will be boys” justification. However, someone benefits from this behaviour. Ask yourself who?

“Boorish and unbecoming of a Prime Minister” was Sue Kedgley’s take on John Key’s Radio Sport interview with Tony Veitch in which the PM revealed his sexual fantasies.

“Obviously for the money I would be Tiger Woods. You get paid a truckload of money,” he said, adding “there are other benefits that clearly come with the job” too.

The conversation took a sexy turn after Veitch asked the jovial PM if he’d like to be love-rat Warnie. “Yeah, well given his current liaisons with Liz Hurley,” Key said.

“I like Liz Hurley actually. I reckon she is hot.”

I’m with Sue on this one.  I can’t imagine Helen Clark, Jenny Shipley or Jim Bolger even allowing themselves to be interviewed by someone with Veitch’s track record of/on domestic violence, let alone allowing encouraging the interview to go down that path.

Too much information, Mr Key!

The final bill glosses over a lot of the essential recommendations from the Law Commission’s report. It fails to address the main causes of alcohol related harm: price, saturation advertising and marketing, and decreasing the blood alcohol limit to 0.5. These are all measures suggested in Alcohol Action’s 5+ Solution.

But the most disturbing thing about the ARB is not the lack of substance, but it is the misdirected approach of thinking that by stamping on peoples civil liberties you can stop alcohol related harm. The Bill as it stands will allow people to be arrested for the equivalent of a parking fine, threatened with arrest if they do not provide information, and it reverses the burden of proof onto the accused.

Put simply: we do not have to trample on the Bill of Rights to address New Zealand’s heavy drinking culture.

Sue wraps up her speech by noting that it’s not all bad. The Bill does allow for community control of alcohol, limits licensing aspects, and it allows for Local Alcohol Plans. So we’re going to be voting for the bill to go to Select Committee so we can fight to take the bad stuff out and put the good stuff in.

It is likely there will be a number of farms requiring corrective actions and … those actions could cause embarrassment to the farmer if made public and could cause embarrassment to the industry if used by animal welfarists, [so] some alternatives to current procedures were put forward.

Here’s David Carter’s response to Sue:

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: Is he taking any action in response to reports that the Pork Industry Board sought to avoid the public embarrassment of reporting conditions in New Zealand piggeries by deliberately evading the Official Information Act; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture): No, and for a very simple reason: I have no responsibility for the Pork Industry Board being compliant with the Official Information Act.

But a quick check of  section 6 of the Pork Industry Board Act shows that it provides:

(7)It is also a function of the Board to report regularly to the Minister on—
(a) the performance and present state of the New Zealand pork industry; and
(b) the Board’s achievement of its object; and
(c) the Board’s performance of its functions; and
(d) any other matters the Board thinks fit or the Minister requests. 

And under Schedule 2 of the Act, the Minister can “remove a director from office for disability affecting performance of duty, bankruptcy, breach of any duty set out in Schedule 1 that applies to the director, or misconduct, proved to the Minister’s satisfaction.” 

I suspect this story has a wee way to run.

Here are a few snaps from the meeting in Porirua.

More information on Sue and Winnie’s tour

Multinational corporations are scouring the world, looking for water supplies they can take over and run for a profit. They know that water is going to the be the oil of the 21st century — a scarce resource that wars will be fought over — and they are keen to get their hands on as much of it as possible.

Now they have New Zealand in their sights, aided and abetted by Rodney Hide and the Key government.

This Bill will allow the management of our water resources to be transferred to private corporations, and will transform the provision of water services from a public good to a source of private profit. It will also transform water from something that is essential to human life, into a commodity to be traded for profit.

Once a Council has entered into one of the 35 year public private partnerships, the driving influence on all decisions relating to water will be the return to the shareholder, not the public interest.

Many of these sorts of public private partnerships or water privatisations, have proven disastrous overseas. They have resulted in soaring profits for shareholders — and soaring price rises for consumers. Instead of upgrading infrastructure, companies use the savings to maintain and increase their dividends, so they have resulted in widespread under-investment in water infrastructure (as happened to rail when Faye Richwhite took over its running).

There has also been, typically, a sharp rise in the number of households having their water supply disconnected or cut off, which endangers the health and well being of residents.

The contracts that are negotiated with the companies are invariably ‘commercial in confidence’ so you cant work out what’s in them or what the terms of the contract are. Some contracts have a guaranteed rate of return for the private operator built into them, for example.

And what happens when the companies (many of which are private equity companies) go bankrupt? Who takes over the contract then — their bank? What happens when a company passes the contract over to another subsidiary. The company that runs the local Wellington sewage and water treatment plant has changed hands three times in the last few years.

These are just a few of the reasons why we should never allow something that is basic for human life and survival — an asset that has been built up over generations — to pass into private hands.

We need as many people as possible to make submissions against this bill. Submissions will be called for shortly and I will post a submission guide on here.

To read Sue’s speech on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, click here.

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.

One of the younger Radio NZ fans who turned up to the parliamentary protest to defend our under siege public broadcaster

It was great to see several hundred people at Parliament yesterday, protesting the government’s freezing of funding for Radio New Zealand.

I hope this is just the first protest of many around the country. Already there are signs that the government under-estimated the level of support for Radio New Zealand, and if we keep up the pressure it may be forced to abandon its plans to destroy New Zealand’s last remaining public service broadcaster.

Make no mistake about it, the government’s decision to freeze Radio New Zealand’s funding indefinitely will be devastating for Radio New Zealand. There will be staff lay-offs, and more and more pre packed overseas programmes in place of New Zealand made ones.

And its clear that the government is deliberately freezing the funding to try to force it to become more commercial. Having stripped TVNZ of it Charter and all its public service functions, it is trying to do the same to Radio New Zealand.

But the whole point of public service broadcasting is to have a broadcaster which is free from commercial pressures – free from the pressures of advertisers and sponsors – so that it can be fiercely independent and impartial. It should also be free from political pressures – but the Minister’s heavy handed and threatening letters are coming dangerously close to political interference.

John Howard targeted Australian public broadcasting for years. The only way it survived was because there was a huge public outcry – and that’s whats needed here in New Zealand too.

Help out RNZ and join the Save Radio New Zealand Facebookpage here.

This is one of the oldest political tricks in the book – introduce unpopular legislation just before the summer recess and hope that people are so preoccupied with summer holiday activities that hardly anyone gets around to making a submission before the closing date.  The Government can then argue that most people weren’t all that concerned about the Bill because there were few submissions.

This is a truly appalling Bill – it’s packed full of measures that undermine local democracy and promote the privatisation of Auckland’s assets.

Sue Kedgley and David Clendon have prepared a submission guide to assist people wanting to make submissions.

And don’t forget the closing date – 12 February 2010.

The Bill reveals a hardcore anti-democratic agenda for privatisation.

Sue Kedgley and David Clendon are preparing a submission guide, which should be available before the end of the week.

Meanwhile, they’ve alerted me to a few of the turds gems the Bill proposes to deliver:

• The Minister of Local Government, rather than democratically elected local politicians, will decide what Council Controlled Organisations to establish and appoint their initial directors.

• The new Council Controlled Organisation “Auckland Transport” will have between 6 and 8 voting directors, but only 2 of them can be elected members of the Auckland Council.  This transfers effective control of transport-related powers and functions from elected councillors to unelected Ministerial appointees.

• Elected councillors will be prohibited from being directors of all other Council Controlled Organisations, again transferring effective control of vast areas of Auckland’s governance from elected councillors to unelected Ministerial appointees.

• Watercare Services Limited’s water pricing will not be subject to Auckland Council policy or direction from mid-2015, and the Auckland Council will be permitted to privatise it from that date.

• The Auckland Council will be permitted to sell strategic assets from mid-2012, meaning that privatisation plans can be completed before voters get a chance to have a say on them at the 2013 local elections.

• A tokenistic and toothless board will be appointed to advise on issues of significance for mana whenua and Maori within Auckland.  The Auckland Council will have no obligation to follow its advice.

It is highly likely that the Bill will be open for submissions for little more than the summer holiday period to minimise opposition to it – another favourite trick of those who have no respect for democracy.

Update:  Submissions on the Bill have been opened to close 12 February 2010.    Sue Kedgley and David Clendon have now published a submission guide to assist people wanting to make a submission.

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.

The Green Party welcomes the decision of the Government to review the decision to mandatorily fortify almost all bread sold in New Zealand with folic acid.  We are not sure why such a review would take three years, however.

In our view a panel of experts should review the new science and perhaps liaise with colleagues in Ireland and the United Kingdom who are undertaking a similar review. The Irish review panel says new data that will become available at the end of the year should allow for an assessment of folic acid levels and the risk of cancer.

We are delighted too, that the Government has worked out that, contrary to what the Minister of Food Safety previously claimed, there is no joint standard between Australia and New Zealand on folic acid fortificatiion, so we are free to make our own decisions on the matter, rather than being bound by an Australian agreement.

We’re pleased that the Bakers Association is already convening a conference to discuss voluntary fortification of some lines of bread. We suggest highly processed white bread would be a good place to start.

And given that the issue has not been debated in our Parliament, and New Zealanders have not been consulted about this contentious issue, we welcome the idea of a discussion paper on the issue.

We note some people are suggesting that a review isn’t necessary – that we should just go full steam ahead with mandatory fortification – irrespective of new evidence of potential dangers from excess folic acid emerging in the past few years, since we signed up to the original standard.
But in our view, if you are going to add a synthetic additive to almost every loaf of bread sold in New Zealand, you have to be absolutely certain that it will be effective;  that there won’t be any harmful side effects, and that nobody is going to get too high a dose of it. 

And we cannot be certain of this when new research has emerged which suggests that high levels of folate can cause pre cancerous cells and undiagnosed colon cancer tumours, to grow more quickly.

This research comes on top of warnings from our very own New Zealand Food Safety Authority that a significant number of children (13% of boys and 8.2% of girls) would be exposed to higher than recommended (ie unsafe) levels, and that there are unknown risks from mandatory fortification that may not become apparent for a generation. 
I note that some commentators claim there isn’t any serious evidence that excessive folic acid levels can cause adverse effects or even harm. But I very much doubt that anyone making such claims has actually read the new research.

Take for example the latest research from Oxford Professor David Smith  (an expert in folic acid) and  his  colleagues. Their paper warns about the link between high levels of folate and potential increase in pre cancerous tumours, and says there is good reason to expect adverse effects on some members of society from mandatory fortification. He says  there has been insufficient research to establish the rates at which these  adverse effects might be occur – especially a lack of large-scale long-term studies.  They claim  that if the US knew what we now know, they would  probably  not have gone ahead with  mandatory  folic acid fortification.  

They are also concerned about recent research that shows that rates of colorectal cancer went up in North America around the same time that fortification began there. Another study shows that the same thing happened in Chile after fortification began there.

Some of the research suggests that the level of intake of folic acid that is safe for one person may be harmful for another.

And then there is the problem  that  some New Zealanders are taking  medications that are designed to block folate acid – to treat malaria, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis and some cancers.  What would happen to them if they were to consume high levels of folate in bread. There is also the concern that amongst  elderly  New Zealanders  high folic acid  combined with low B12 (which is prevalent in older people) increases cognitive impairment and anaemia – one US study found 70% increased risk of cognitive impairment.

None of these are trivial concerns – they are serious issues that have to be weighed when deciding whether the benefits of  mass medicating an entire population with a synthetic substance,  outweigh the risks. Or whether it would be wiser to take an approach more targeted to the people who really need it.  

Some scientists such as Dr Sian Astley say there is as yet insufficient evidence to make a decision one way or the other about whether the benefits of fortification would outweigh the risks. 

Incidentally its curious that a scientist who had just returned from a conference in Europe, who said one paper said there was no evidence linking high folic acid intake with cancer, forgot to mention that the conference (comprised of the worlds experts on folate), having heard all the evidence for and against mandatory fortification, voted against folic acid fortification.

And here’s another curiosity: one large study reported by Prof Smith et al found a 19% higher risk of breast cancer in women taking supplementary folic acid, but there was no increased risk between breast cancer and folate derived solely from food, i.e. natural folate.  

Perhaps, after all, its worth making more effort to get people to eat  healthy unprocessed foods  that are high in natural folate and other health-giving vitamins and minerals.  

Even just eating wholemeal bread instead of white bread will dramatically increase the folate intake of many people (maybe that’s why the US doesn’t fortify wholemeal breads).  It doesn’t seem to make sense to fortify wholemeal bread, when it already contains natural levels of folate.

Much like a monkey aboard a 1960s Space Rocket it appears food prices don’t want to come back down to earth either.  A brand of chocolate that is now banned at Auckland Zoo seems to be partly responsible. Apparently the increase in Grocery Sub Group One was driven by a price increase for chocolate that was ‘influenced by a decrease in the size of some chocolate blocks’.

Alarmingly one of my favourite characters from the Munch Bunch Tom Tomato has also skyrocketed in price. Lettuce is up too but this vegetable was too unhip to have a dedicated Munch Bunch character so doesn’t have a snazzy cartoon persona.

But it’s not all slightly bad news – it’s actually even worse news when one realises that apparently recessions love fast food global mega burger corp.  Of course none of the above food price rises for veges coupled with a potential boom in fast food will help our obesity problem.

Also not helping is the government decision to allow any old rubbish back into our schools by getting rid of the healthy food guidelines.  In keeping with modern times how soon will it be before the nation’s youth are dosing up on some cocaine and downing a few demons before hitting their enviro-schools study – oh hang on the funding to that’s gone. 

Anyway you can save the kids from the threat of demons and cocaine by signing Sue K’s petition to keep schools a healthy place for kids and food – while there’s still time!

This decision was taken in 2007 by the previous Labour Government and is aimed at lowering the numbers of children born with neural tube defects in New Zealand.  However while new Zealand is preparing to go ahead with this other countries such as Ireland and the United Kingdom have either pressed pause in mandatorily fortifying bread or are awaiting further scientific reviews.

For those women planning to have children or who may conceive, and, for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy getting enough folic acid is very important. In fact, the United Kingdom’s Food Safety authority points out that just eating food with folate in it is unlikely to be enough and suggests other means of upping a woman’s folate levels. It would be good to see a public health awareness campaign by the Government.

Over in Ireland due to the voluntary fortification across the food sector the Irish Food Safety Authority has held off on implementing a mandatory scheme – there was also concern at the potential for adverse effects to excessive high levels of folic acid.

New Zealand’s Food Safety Minister herself has proposed a ministerial meeting to review the situation – a month after the commencement of mandatory fortification!

One plus out of all this is that the chances are that now there will be a genuine debate around bread fortification and also a raising of awareness around NTDs.

Unfortunately, after three years of successful service to the organics sector, the modest $2.15 million funding has now run out, and the National government has not provided any further funding for the OAS. Was it money well spent, and what does the future hold for the sector?

In 2005, the area of NZ land under organic production was 45,000ha. By 2007, this had increased to 65,000ha – that’s over 20% growth a year. The 2008 figures have yet to be compiled, but Biogro alone certifies 65,000ha, and to that we can add organic land certified by the other 3 certifiers AsureQuality,  OrganicFarmNZ and Demeter. As a proportion of total agricultural land, NZ still lags well behind European countries, but the sector in NZ is certainly a fast growing one.

A 2007 study into the value of the organics sector to the NZ economy found that it generated $120million domestically, and $210million in exports, per year. And that doesn’t include the ecosystem services that an organic farm provides – more soil carbon retained, cleaner water and more biodiversity.

In the pipfruit sector, 10% of production by volume is organic. But this equates to 15% of the pipfruit sector by value because of the price premium (33%) commanded by organic pipfruit.

Organic sheep and beef meat also gets a strong premium, helping organic farmers through a time of low prices and droughts. Apparently, 20% of organic lamb on sale in the UK is from NZ, and our major meat exporter Silver Fern Farms has been advertising for organic lamb suppliers. An SFF statement last year noted that their organic premiums were holding despite the recession.

Looking at the dairy industry, we find that Fonterra is unable to find enough organic milk suppliers to satisfy its demand. Fonterra says it wants to grow its number of suppliers from 80 now to 350-400 farmers by 2013.

So, the organic sector is a valuable market for NZ producers, one that commands a good premium for a high quality product, improves environmental health, and is growing rather rapidly. Indeed, the global $60 billion organics market is growing at between 10 – 20 percent annually according to Organics Aotearoa NZ.

Like all sectors, organics needs specialist advisory support to continue growing. Because it spans across most types of farming and growing, and is a production style that requires specialist experience and knowledge, it isn’t well served by the existing support bodies, although organic farmers pay the same producer levies as other farmers. Farm service and product suppliers (like fertiliser and agrichemical salespeople), who commonly offer support to conventional farmers, don’t have the experience and knowledge of organics production to do the same for organic farmers. So organic producers fall through the gaps. Hence the need for the OAS.

Without good support for farmers through an OAS, the ability for the sector to continue to expand – to provide more jobs, economic activity and a healthier environment – to meet export market demands is in jeopardy.

While the experiments used in the item were not scientific the research that prompted the kiwi journalists to highlight this issue caused shockwaves when it was released in the United Kingdom in 2007.

The research – which was undertaken by the University of Southampton – found a link between hyperactivity in children and artificial food colourings.According to one of my favourite news sources European regulators are now working on a continent wide ban of the food colourings.

However in New Zealand we seem to be taking a cruisier, more relaxed attitude to kids’ health and safety.

Our own Food Safety authority considers New Zealand kids are unlikely to be putting their health at risk from consuming synthetic food colourings. The research cited backing up this statement is nearly a decade old and the page hasn’t been updated (at time of writing this blog) for 10 months.

Sue K highlighted this issue last year and it is worth noting that many teachers consider dietary intake does indeed have a great impact on behaviour in the classroom. Of course earlier this year our school canteens which had been on a road to good health are now back in the business of outdoing Willy Wonka with the ability to sell any and all manner of food.

Time to sign the school food petition [PDF] and remind the Government that kids’ health and learning is being jeopardised with the decisions of those in Government and the inaction of public service watchdogs.

In 1993 my partner and I (while working for Greenpeace) toured the country speaking with virtually all the Regional Councils about the contaminated sites in the region. Our main focus was PCP (a timber treatment chemical banned in 1989) contaminated with dioxin, but we also talked with Councils and communities about dieldrin, 24D, 245T and all the other scary organochlorine chemicals once widely used in our farms, forests and industries. Some of these old nightmares, namely 24D, are still being used and we also have some new chemicals risks but that is another saga.

The 1993 tour included meeting many people who had been poisoned by these chemicals and who were struggling for basic recognition of the heath and environmental effects. Their loudest call however was not for themselves, but for the identification, isolation and clean up of all sites to protect future generations.

Some Regional Councils started to compile registers of known toxic sites, but remained close-mouthed about sites on private land and many minimised the risk to communities. We believe this related to costs of clean up, fear of loss of land sales and development opportunities, and ignorance about the seriousness of dioxin risks.

In 2004 we toured again, this time with the “People Poisoned Daily” group. This tour assisted the Vietnam veterans in their campaign for recognition and health support for their exposure to 245T in Vietnam. 245T was made at the Ivon Watkins DOW chemical factory in New Plymouth.

Progress was also made by the Sawmill Workers Against Poisons in getting some recognition and health care for Whakatane dioxin victims. Meanwhile Andrew Gibbs of New Plymouth with strong support from Sue Kedgley made DOW a household name and a Health Plan was developed for Paritutu residents who had lived near DOW.

However, as Marfell Park clearly demonstrates, the dumping of drums of toxic waste also occurred away from these larger sites. There are numerous historical allegations about dumping of drums from DOW, the Bay of Plenty timber mills, and the Mapua agrichemicals factory. Yet, local people are still being told to relax and trust officials and clean-up consultants.

The history of the dioxin contamination issue is crystal clear. Wherever communities have stood up and fought they have achieved progress. It has taken a very long time and the corporates responsible for the contamination have taken no responsibility at all. It seems that affected citizens can grasp the seriousness of the issues but everyone else has to be dragged screaming to the table.

Kia kaha Marfell Park people, we stand with you!