TVNZ’s Q+A on Sunday 24 April featured an interview with Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett. Her responses were further evidence that National was increasingly unable (or unwilling) to cope with the growing threat of climate change.
Posing a series of surprisingly incisive questions and follow-ups, the ever-youthful-looking Jack Tame held Minister Bennett to account in a way that few other interviewers have done;
Up untill now, Jack Tame’s presence in the US focused mainly on the theatrics of the Hollywood entertainment industry or the equally-theatric Presidential primaries. They were for the most part light, breezy stories – even with the increasingly bizarre and somewhat menacing nature of the rise and rise of
Lex Luthor Donald Trump, as the potential Republican candidate.
However, on this occassion, Tame’s Q+A interview was a masterful deconstruction of Minister Bennett’s waffle, revealing how woefully unprepared for Tame’s skillful probing she really was.
As the thirteen minute segment progressed, it rapidly became apparent that, aside from platitudes and rhetoric, Bennett had no real answers or any actual, meaningful commitment to addressing New Zealand’s increasing emissions of greenhouse-gas pollution of our atmosphere. It was as it she were still Social Welfare Minister, patiently explaining how National would be “helping” solo-mums with contraception, all the while sounding like an overly-concerned, benevolent, tough-loving nana.
In fact, not since 2 May 2015 – when Corrections Minister Sam Lotu-Iiga was interviewed and demolished by seasoned interviewer, Lisa Owen, on TV3’s The Nation – has a government minister had their ineptitude so publicly paraded for the entire country to witness (if they so decided to tune in on a Sunday morning, at 9am.
Unfortunately, we should not be surprised that National is luke-warm on the looming crisis of climate change. Despite making very clear promises, National has broken one of it’s prime committments to the Emissions Trading Scheme – to eventually include agriculture.
The time-line to this act of duplicity clearly illustrates National’s early promises and then reneging;
13 May 2007
In a speech by then Opposition-leader, John Key;
“In particular I’m going to speak about the biggest environmental challenge of our time: global climate change.
The National Party will ensure that New Zealand acts decisively to confront this challenge.
The scientific consensus is clear: human-induced climate change is real and it’s threatening the planet. There are some armchair sceptics out there, but I’m not one of them…
… National is committed to growing our economy. Confronting climate change will be a vital part of the policy mix for fuelling that growth…
… In the decades ahead, peoples’ perceptions around climate change will affect the brand image of New Zealand and its exports. New Zealand must take credible steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or risk becoming a trading pariah…
… National will have policies that reflect the fact that living on a diet of carbon will be increasingly bad – bad for the world and bad for our economy. We will have policy that encourages ‘climate friendly’ choices like windmills, hydro power and tree planting, and reduces the desire for ‘climate unfriendly’ behaviours, like burning coal…
… National will bring all Kiwis – industry, energy producers, farmers, mums and dads – closer to a shared and well-understood goal. We need to be united in our pursuit of a ’50 by 50′ target.“
8 April 2010
Prime Minister John Key rejects demands to amend the Emissions Trading Scheme before it takes effect on the energy and transport sectors in July despite calls from business groups, farmers, and ACT.
Key tells reporters at the launch of the Global Research Alliance’s inaugural meeting on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions,
“I’d say it’s unlikely it would be amended.”
6 June 2010
Climate Change Minister Nick Smith announces that whether or not agriculture comes into the emissions trading scheme in 2015 will depend on technological advances and what other countries do.
9 November 2011
Environment Minister Nick Smith announces,
“… It is not in New Zealand’s interests to include agricultural emissions in the ETS yet.“
2 July 2012
Then-Climate Change Minister, Tim Groser, announces four amendments to the Emissions Trading Scheme;
- Keeping the ‘one-for-two’ obligation in place until after this year. This means participants in the scheme will continue to surrender units for half the carbon they emit;
- Maintaining the $25 ‘fixed-price option’ until at least 2015, which caps the price firms will face if carbon prices begin to rise internationally;
- Introducing off-setting for pre-1990 forest land owners, and allocating the full second tranche of compensation where off-setting is not taken; and
- Leaving agricultural emissions out of the ETS until at least 2015.
20 August 2012
National introduces “Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2012”, which will remove agricultural emissions indefinitely, and will,
“remove a specified entry date for surrender obligations on biological emissions from agriculture”.
National’s repudiation of it’s 2007 committment to include agriculture was complete. Despite a clear promise by our esteemed Dear Leader, agriculture was permanently omitted from the ETS.
As I pointed out in October 2012;
During National’s four years in office, they have broken several promises and the weakening of the ETS is simply one more on the list. It also further highlights John Key’s ability to say one thing – whilst knowing full well that he has no intention of fulfilling committments, or will do completely the opposite.
An editorial in the Dominion Post, on 20 April, was no less scathing in it’s condemnation of National’s inertia;
The Government’s climate change policy has been a failure and will have to be rebuilt. There needs to be a fundamental change in the Emissions Trading Scheme, the subject this week of a damning report by the Gareth Morgan Foundation. But other changes are also needed.
Bennett concedes, however, that the ETS was “not perfect”, and is now being reviewed. In fact the ETS has been a fiasco. What’s more, it continues to cast its dirty shadow.
The Government has banned the purchase of foreign credits, but it could still use the bad credits to meet its climate change targets up to 2020.
It must not do so. Instead, it needs to revamp the whole scheme, starting by ending the subsidies it gives to polluters such as the oil industry. The “one for two” scheme introduced in 2009 allows businesses to pay only half the cost of their greenhouse gas emissions.
It also needs to reverse its decision to keep agriculture, which produces half the country’s emissions, out of the ETS. National argues that making farming pay for its pollution would be unfair because there is no workable way yet of reducing animal emissions and our export industry should not be penalised.
Farmers, however, are not exempt from the country’s global environmental duties, and will also respond to economic signals – even if this is a pledge to bring agriculture into the scheme within, say, five years
Jack Tame’s superb interview on 24 April merely confirms pathetic National’s track record on this issue and it now appears that Minister Bennett will simply follow in the footsteps of her do-nothing-predecessors, Ministers Smith, Groser, et al.
Bennett certainly has no intention of adopting any of the bold, radical – but much-needed – policies as advocated by Professor Jim Skea, co-chairperson of the IPCC Working Group III, and interviewed by Radio NZ’s Kathryn Ryan on 27 April;
Listen to the two interviews and judge for yourself which person is seriously committed to combating climate change – and which person is a politician who has plenty of empty platitudes to offer, but little else.
In her previous role as Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett had much to say about welfare-fraud.
Her empty words on addressing climate change is a fraud on a much grander, and ultimately vastly more destructive, scale.
Postscript1: Memo to TVNZ
Jame Tame’s interview with Minister Bennett reveals a young man with considerable journalistic skills. He should be given every opportunity to make full use of his under-utilised talents.
TVNZ (and TV3) should maximise the talents of their journalistic and production staff by shifting Q+A and The Nation to prime time viewing slots during the early evening.
Why hide excellence early on weekend mornings, where it is not easily appreciated and valued by the general public?
Postscript2: Memo to Paula Bennett
Ms Bennett, your performance on 24 April was a dismal failure. You are either unwilling to seriously confront the challenges of climate change or, apparently, you are in way over your head on this issue.
Either way, you should resign your Climate Change portfolio. This job is too important to be left to your glib inanities.
TVNZ: Q+A – Climate Change Paris Agreement signed
NZ Herald: NZ’s greenhouse gas emissions soar
Fairfax media: Beneficiary contraception plan ‘intrusive’
Scoop media: John Key Speech – Climate Change Target
NZ Herald: ETS changes ‘unlikely’ despite pleas
Beehive.co.nz: Government announces ETS amendments
Previous related blogposts
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 April 2016.
= fs =
September 15 – A day in our history when four items of news were reported in our media, and few people seemed aware of the new depths of craziness that our country has sunk to.
It was said that the old Soviet system was riddled with contradictions that, by 1991, led to it’s demise.
That charge could just as easily be levelled against the neo-liberal system, where the pursuit of the almighty dollar/euro/yen/etc has resulted in levels of crazy contradictions that are becoming more apparent with each passing day, and increasingly difficult to sustain and justify by it’s proponents.
Those contradictions, I suspect, were part of the reason of Jeremy Corbyn’s ascension in the British Labour Party, and left-wing governments gaining ground in France, Greece, and elsewhere.
New Zealand has often been behind the times, so it may take a wee while longer for voters to fully comprehend that the neo-liberal system is a fraud, with only a few benefitting.
Four headlines. Four more examples of “free” market, corporate quackery. Four more nails in the neo-liberal coffin.
The purchaser of Silver Fern is Shanghai Making Aquarius Group. Shanghai Maling Aquarius Group will be purchasing a 50% shareholding of Silver Fern, paying $261 million for the buy-in.
Shanghai Maling Aquarius Group is one of four subsidiaries of Bright Foods, a State Owned Enterprise, 100% owned by the Chinese government (though registered in the Cayman Islands – no doubt for tax-avoidance purposes). Bright Foods owns (as of September 2015) of Synlait Milk Ltd, which it bought into five years ago.
At $261 million, the purchase price is still a small fraction of the estimated US$4 trillion it has “in foreign currency reserves, which it is determined to invest overseas to earn a profit and exert its influence“, according to a recent report in the New York Times.
As usual, our National-led government has turned a blind eye to yet another buy-up of one of New Zealand’s primary industry producers.
Yet, with a 50% holding, that almost guarantees that half of Silver Fern’s profits will end up going back to Bright Foods and the Chinese government.
Another report states that investors from China are set to invest US$10.9 billion in our real estate, according to said Andrew Taylor, Juwai.com’s co-chief executive;
“Juwai.com projects that the pilot program will enable US$11 billion of new Chinese money to flow into New Zealand’s real estate market. That’s based on wealthy Chinese investing 10 per cent of their assets into international property, including commercial. It’s also based on NZ getting about 3.3 per cent of that property-specific investment, as it has in the past.“
The question is; why is it permissable for a foreign State Owned Enterprise to buy up New Zealand companies – whilst our own government is busy shedding ownership of Genesis Energy, Meridian, Mighty River Power, Air New Zealand, land owned by Landcorp, and houses owned by Housing NZ?
Why does National think that State ownership by the NZ Government in our productive industries is undesirable – but State ownership by foreign nations is perfectly acceptable?
This appears to be a major flaw in neo-liberal ideology and one that National has yet to confront head-on.
It has been fairly obvious that the flag referendum has been foisted upon New Zealand for two reasons,
- A distraction to deflect public and media attention away from the deepening economic downturn that has every indication of turning into another full-blown recession,
- A personal vanity-project for John Key, because eradicating child poverty; addressing the Auckland housing crisis; or making meaningful inroads into New Zealand’s worsening greenhouse gas emissions is not the kind of legacy our esteemed Dear Leader thinks is important enough to warrant his attention (he is a busy man).
On 14 September, John Key surprised many people by “reaching out” to the NZ Labour Party to assist National to include the so-called “red peak” flag in the up-coming referendum. As Radio NZ reported Key’s comments;
“If I drop out one of them, if I drop out one particular flag, there will be a group that will say that was wrong because I was going to vote for that – there will be another group that will say ‘I just didn’t realise this was a process that could be influenced through social campaign’.
If you look at Labour, they’ve been very disingenuous throughout the whole process so if I’ve got to go back to Parliament and change the law to have five, are you really telling me they wouldn’t then run a campaign that said I’m wasting Parliament’s time because I’m now going back to it?
I mean, these people can play games forever.
Well, they would need to go back and change their position on the flag process, instead of lying to the public and saying they’re opposed to this when their policy is actually to change the flag.
If they want to treat the whole process with respect, they’re welcome to come and have a discussion with me, but that is not the way they’ve played this thing.
And if Labour want to publicly come out and support the process and the change, that it’s an appropriate thing to do and argue that it’s an appropriate thing to do… then we might, but that hasn’t been what they’ve done so far.”
There seemed an element of desperation in Key’s plaintive demand for Labour’s support on the issue.
Which is hardly surprising, as support for the “red peak” option had surpassed 50,000 in an on-line petition – a number equivalent to the 50,000 who marched through Auckland in May 2010, opposing National’s proposed mining in protected Schedule 4 DoC conservation land and marine reserves. The sheer number forced National to back down, and on 20 July 2010, then-Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee announced;
“At the time the discussion document was released, I made it clear that it was a discussion. There were no preconceived positions from the Government. We have no intention of mining national parks.”
The question though is, who is playing games here?
Andrew Little explained;
“The Prime Minister can put Red Peak on the ballot paper without any party political support. He does it by Order in Council – he does not need other parties’ support for that.”
A brief explanation on what is an Order In Council;
Order in Council
A type of Legislative Instrument that is made by the Executive Council presided over by the Governor-General. Most Legislative Instruments are made by way of Order in Council. For more information about the Executive Council, see the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website. To find Orders in Council on this website, search or browse under Legislative Instruments.
The Executive Council is the highest formal instrument of government. It is the part of the executive branch of government that carries out formal acts of government.
By convention, the Executive Council comprises all Ministers of the Crown, whether those Ministers are inside or outside Cabinet. The Governor-General presides over, but is not a member of, the Executive Council. When a new Cabinet is sworn in, Ministers are first appointed as Executive Councillors and then receive warrants for their respective Ministerial portfolios.
The principal function of the Executive Council is to advise the Governor-General to make Orders in Council that are required to give effect to the Government’s decisions. Apart from Acts of parliament, Orders in Council are the main method by which the government implements decisions that need legal force. The Executive Council also meets from time to time to carry out formal acts of state.
The Executive Council generally meets every Monday. At the meetings, the Executive Council gives formal advice to the Governor-General to sign Orders in Council (to make, for example, regulations or appointments). The meetings also provide an opportunity for Ministers to brief the Governor-General on significant political and constitutional issues that may have arisen during the week.
So apparently, unless I am missing something else, Andrew Little is 100% correct; “The Prime Minister can put Red Peak on the ballot paper without any party political support. He does it by Order in Council – he does not need other parties’ support for that.”
Which then begs the question; why is John Key trying to strong-arm Labour into supporting the addition of the “red peak” option onto the ballot paper?
Answer: He is attempting to manufacture “cross party support” to extricate his government from a tricky situation. The flag referendum appears to be spiralling out of control with popular support growing for a flag design that is not simply a pathetic branding exercise (ie; silver fern) – but has become popular with a significant portion of the country.
If Key is to bow to popular pressure, he desperately needs Labour to come on-board, to neutralise a guarenteed attack from the Opposition benches. As Key himself said on 15 September;
“And if Labour want to publicly come out and support the process and the change, that it’s an appropriate thing to do and argue that it’s an appropriate thing to do… then we might, but that hasn’t been what they’ve done so far.”
In effect, Key is employing precisely the same tactic Labour employed in 2007, where Helen Clark sought cross-party support to pass the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act (a.k.a the ‘Anti-Smacking Act’).
National’s parliamentary support, fronted by the then-Opposition Leader, John Key, gave a “seal of approval” from the Political Liberal-Right, to an otherwise contentious piece of legislation that was provoking howls of hysterical outrage from certain quarters.
Bringing Key on-board was risky for Labour, as it elevated Key to a near-equal position with then-Prime Minister, Helen Clark. But it was seen as necessary, to attempt to dilute the perception that this was “social engineering” inspired by Labour-Green “extremists”.
Eight years later, and this time John Key needs Labour to stifle a growing disenchantment with his personal vanity-project, which is threatening to take on a life of it’s own.
Key cannot afford to lose control of the flag debate. There is a reason that this is a binding referendum – the framing of the debate; the four choices; and the sequence of questions (#1, which alternative flag do you want, followed by #2, pick one of two flags, an alternative or the current one) – are all under his personal control, via the Executive Council.
Andrew Little is correct, our esteemed Dear Leader could choose to add the “red peak” option by an Order in Council. Key does not require Labour’s assistance, either constitutionally or legally. But he doesn’t want to leave himself open to ridicule from Labour, and the perception that he has “lost control”.
When John Key stated on 15 September;
“I’m more than happy to meet with him but only on the condition it’s not about a yes or no vote. A yes or no vote doesn’t work. It doesn’t deliver what New Zealanders want.”
– he was not talking about “what New Zealanders want”.
He was talking about what he, John Key, wants. And he needs Labour to do it.
The question is: why should Labour help Key?
This next bit comes courtesy from Paula Bennett, currently Minister for Social Housing.
Radio NZ reported on 15 September,
But the Productivity Commission is unable to offer specific solutions as to how the government should deal with the group that is most difficult to look after.
Every year, the country spends $34 billion on social services, more than 10 percent of the GDP.
Read today’s final report into social services by the Productivity Commission (PDF, 4.3MB)
The commission recommends a move away from the current top-down approach, with more responsibility given to providers.
But it could not decide how to deal with the people with the most complex needs, instead suggesting that the government look at two possible solutions.
One option would be a standalone agency which oversees a client’s case across a number of agencies.
The second would be to fund District Health Boards (DHBs) to be responsible for the country’s most disadvantaged people.
It also recommends establishing a Ministerial Committee of Social Services, rather than an Office of Social Services, which had been recommended in its draft report. The ministerial committee would be responsible for reform of the sector.
The commission has defined social services as those including health care, social care, education and training, employment services and community services.
It has looked at agencies and services including Housing New Zealand, Work and Income, Whanau Ora, services for people with disabilities, and home care for the elderly.
“But we’ve never thought that money was the problem as such. If it needs more money, we will.”
The usual lie from a National Minister, considering the severe funding cutbacks to community organisations such as Women’s Refuge, Rape Crisis, community health organisations, Relationship Aotearoa, and many others.
But the following words to gush from her mouth simply beggared belief;
“What we’ve been really big on is the data analytics, that makes sure that we’re targetting the right services to the right kids and more importantly getting actual results for them.”
Bennett was adamant that National has been “really big on is the data analytics, that makes sure that” they are “targetting the right services to the right kids and more importantly getting actual results for them”
Let’s take a moment to step back in time.
Specifically, set temporal co-ordinates of your Toyota Tardis to 16 August 2012. This NZ Herald story, from that year, tells the story;
The question here is; How can Bennett “target the right services to the right kids and more importantly get actual results for them” – when three years ago she stated categorically that finding the “data analytics” was not a priority?
What “data analytics” is she talking about?
The fiasco surrounding the private company running Mt Eden and Wiri prisons got more bizarre on 15 September when it was revealed that Serco had been let off $375,000 in fines for serious contract breaches.
Fines for breaching the contract between Serco and the Crown are one of the few sanctions that the government can levy on the company for not upholding contractual obligations.
A 15 September report from Radio NZ revealed;
The story then explained why the heading – “$270k in fines’ – was an under-estimation;
Under questioning from Green Party corrections spokesperson David Clendon this afternoon, Corrections Minister Sam Lotu-liga spelt out the sum of Serco’s cancelled fines.
“Mr Speaker, since Serco took over management of Mt Eden Prison in 2011, I’m advised that Corrections has issued a total of 55 performance notices to Serco – seven have been withdrawn,” Mr Lotu-liga said.
“And the total amount of the withdrawals is $275,000.”
But it seems there are more fines that Serco has had cancelled and Mr Clendon asked the minister about one of them.
“Does the minister approve of Corrections’ decision to excuse the $100,000 fine that was imposed when Serco failed to take back razors that had been issued to prisoners, to inmates, if so why?” Mr Clendon asked.
Mr Lotu-liga responded that that was not one of the seven withdrawn fines he was referring too.
The chronically inept and terminally-tragic Corrections Minister, Sam Lotu-liga, was either unaware of the $100,000 fine – or was wilfully engaged in a cover-up.
However, whether the actual figure of $275,000 or $375,000 is actually irrelevant.
What is truly astounding is that someone within either the Minister’s office or the Corrections Dept had made the decision to scrub $375,000 in fines for serious contract breaches.
The obvious questions which beg to be asked and answered are;
- Who made the decision to dismiss $375,000 in fines issued to Serco?
- Why was the decision made to dismiss the fines?
- Does the same principle of waiving fines extend to every citizen in New Zealand who has exceeded the speed limit; parked illegally; or committed some other offence which resulted in a monetary penalty?
- What the hell is going on?!
The next time our esteemed Dear Leader or some other National minister utter the phrase, “One law for all” – they should be immediatly reminded that obviously “One Law for All” does not extend to companies like Serco.
15 September – one hell of a day for National. It got about as crazy as crazy can be in this country.
Or is there more to come?
Wikipedia: Bright Foods
NZ Companies Office: Synlait Milk Limited
China Daily: China’s Bright Dairy invests in NZ’s Synlait
NZ Herald: Chinese investment set to boom
Radio NZ: Red Peak – Politicians fling flag barbs
Ministry for the Environment: New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2013
Radio NZ: A flutter of hope for Red Peak?
Fairfax media: Thousands march against mining
Te Ara – The NZ Enclyclopedia: Cross-party negotiation on legislation
Radio NZ: Major social service changes recommended
Dominion Post: Women’s Refuge cuts may lead to waiting lists
Scoop media: Relationships Aotearoa – our story
Radio NZ: Serco let off $270k in fines – Minister
Previous related blogposts
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 Septembr 2015.
= fs =