Archive for the 'Environment' Category

Ethical Investment Bill goes down

August 4th, 2010

Well, my first private members Bill is over. The Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill was voted down 63-58 tonight. Supporting it were Labour, Progressives, Greens, Maori and United, against National and ACT. Check out the debate here if you are interested.

It was not a great surprise that National and ACT opposed the bill, but disappointing all the same. The Bill sought to have clear and consistent criteria for ethical investment in the legislation that govern our major investment funds such as the Super Fund and ACC. The criteria are based on international norms and treaties and emphasise the importance of investing in organisations that have good governance, treat their stakeholders fairly and uphold human rights and good labour standards. From an environmental standpoint the organisations that are invested in should be conscious of their ecological footprint and should not be harmful to resources such as air, water and land.

The opposition was based on the fact that some good progress has been made in ethical investment policies and that “the market” would deal with the issues. I thought this was an opportunity to move from a passive approach to ethical and sustainable investment to a positive one that could re-inforce our image as an environmentally and socially conscious country on the world stage.

Anyway it was an interesting process to go through, and I am the wiser for it. Pleased to extend the support for the Bill across the House, and have agreed with other parties to keep working on the issue.

In support of Gerry (kind of)

July 20th, 2010

There has been a bit of comment yesterday and today (including from Guyon Espiner on TV1) that Gerry Brownlee “over-reached” himself when it came to the mining of Schedule 4 land.  I certainly think that Gerry failed miserably to sell the policy, but its a bit harsh to blame him for over-reaching when we have this from the John Key’s opening statement to Parliament in February this year.

Notwithstanding the public consultation process, it is my expectation that the Government will act on at least some of these recommendations and make significant changes to Schedule 4. This is because new mining on Crown land has the potential to increase economic growth and create jobs.

That is an unequivocal commitment to major changes to Schedule 4 and to new mining. Gerry was only acting with that in mind. I still think that by the time they got to announcing anything they planned to use Great Barrier as a bit of a stalking horse, but the initial blush of enthusiasm was very much John Key’s. Which is why it was so interesting he tried to get as far away as possible from this policy disaster today.

As an aside in Parliament today the pressure of this and the industrial relations package was telling on Mr Key. He got very side-tracked by interjections, launched into Darren about his hair (he may have a point on that score ;-) ) and at one stage totally tossed his toys and sat down in the middle of an answer. Tough day at the office.

NZ and China- The 5th First?

June 27th, 2010

This weekend I am attending part of the University of Otago’s Foreign Policy School that examines China’s place in the world. It is timely, and not because of the incident involving Russel Norman’s flag. China’s “ascent” as the conference title terms it, in world affairs is remarkable, seemingly inexorable and certainly vital to our future economic, strategic and security interests. Forget about the G20 for a moment, people are talking about the G2 (US and China, though some speakers today are wary of this).

MPs, and indeed all New Zealanders must have their right to protest protected. My view, though, has always been that a strategy of engagement with China is the best path for New Zealand. I do hold concerns over human rights abuses and lack of media freedom in China as elsewhere. I have been in the room when Helen Clark and Phil Goff have raised these concerns, as they should. But to really see change in these areas, and some depth to the relationship of a very small country with a very large country we have to engage- and we have to be bold.

There is instant recognition in Chinese government circles of the “four firsts” that have defined China and New Zealand’s recent relationship. The first first being supporting China’s entry to the WTO, then the first recognition of China as a market economy, followed by being the first to start free trade negotiations and finally the fourth first by finalising a free trade agreement.

When I was in Shanghai recently with the Wellington City delegation I challenged the participants at a Young Leaders Forum (thank goodness 38 is still considered young in China!) to work out what the fifth and sixth firsts will be in our relationship. We need to have the courage to move the relationship forward, as a relatively insignificant country in terms of China’s wider interests.

At the opening of the Foreign Policy School I understand Murray McCully said an FTA with Hong Kong is the fifth first. I think we need to focus on how we broaden our relationship, beyond trade. The Chinese are well aware that their rapid economic growth is straining the environment. They see the damage that it does not just to their way of life, but also their international reputation. They are doing a lot in this area, and see New Zealand as a country with much to offer in this regard.

So how about the fifth first being a comprehensive treaty level agreement on the environment and clean technology? One that explicily recognises how much China has done and the scale of the challenges they have. We already have an environmental cooperation agreement that sits alongside the FTA. This could be enhanced to develop cooperative projects on issues such as renewable energy, air quality (a massive issue in Chinese cities), freshwater management, “green” buildings and more. There is enormous opportunity around clean technology, especially in China’s rapidly growing agricultural sector. As the doctor said to Steve Austin- we have the technology. Let’s use it, and take our relationship with China to the next stage.

Mining: Reputational Damage

March 24th, 2010

There is a saying in business that your reputation is your most valuable asset and it must be protected.  If that is the case the government has self-inflicted enormous damage to New Zealand with its plans for mining of sensitive conservation land. 

The Economist magazine is highly critical of the government plans in an on-line article. It takes a look at the current government’s overall environmental record

From an environmentalist’s perspective, though, these positives are outweighed by much larger negatives. The emissions-trading scheme excludes agricultural emissions until 2015, and its generous allocations of free carbon credits to business have been lambasted by environmentalists. The country’s transport strategy favours road-building over already-scant public transport, and there is much talk of the need to ease resource-management rules that act as barriers to business. In February, the government revealed it was considering opening some of the country’s pristine public land up for mining—an activity to which the dwarves in “The Hobbit” are much given, but which is not popular with more elvish sensibilities. Energetic lobbying by environmental groups forced it to scale back the amount of land under consideration, but on March 22nd it announced that it still intended to open 7,000 hectares of conservation land to mining, with other conservation areas to be surveyed for their mineral potential.

As the article says there is a struggle for many countries to balance environmental and economic objectives. To do this requires seeing sustainable growth as the only form of growth that can work for us. This government is going in the other direction, and the dangers for New Zealand are there for all the world to see.

But it is particularly acute in a country so dependent on the export of commodities and landscape-driven tourism. The difference between New Zealand and other places is that New Zealand has actively sold itself as “100% Pure”. Now that New Zealanders themselves are acknowledging the gap between the claim and reality, and the risk to their reputation this poses, it is time for the country to find itself a more sustainable brand, and soon.

This is a crucial issue for New Zealand, but the government seems hell-bent on 19th century solutions, rather than investing in 21st century opportunities which combine our natural resources with smart ideas. The damage to us internationally is going to be hard to undo if National go ahead with their plans.

Mindless

March 22nd, 2010

If you are a country where people really treasure and value the environment around them, and you sell yourself  and your products/ideas to the world as being ‘clean and green’ (even though you know you could do a little better), what is about the silliest thing you could do?

That’s right, start mining the National Parks. Of course the spin is that this is only 7000ha, but the plans are there to do much more.  They will also say it is just like what has happened before. Except its not.  They are changing the law and removing land from the protection of Schedule 4.  Putting a bit in does not make up for the damage of taking the land out. 

 And where does the profit from all of this go- mainly to large multinational mining companies, while we lose part of our pristine natural heritage.

I predict that National have underestimated public concern about this proposal.  The whole process has been a shambles, and they have clearly watered down earlier plans.

Where to from here? Well, certainly Labour, the Greens and interested groups will be mobilising opposition over the coming months, and judging from the feedback I have had, that will not be hard.  Especially when we note we are talking about  the likes of Great Barrier Island and the Coromandel.  This is going to be one big fight.

And for the record as Phil Goff has stated if Labour is elected in 2011, any land removed from Schedule 4 by the government will be returned to protection.




Authorised by Grant Robertson,
160 Willis St, Wellington.

Paid for by Labour Party members and supporters.