National flounders over Three Waters reforms

Clearly the National Party thinks it’s onto a winner with its campaign against the Government's Three Waters legislation. They’ve even been promoting the current leader, Christopher Luxon (who in 2018 appeared to endorse the very same reforms he now opposes) with photo opportunities of him putting up anti Three Waters billboards.

The problem for National and Luxon in particular is that barely a week goes by without another report concerning sewage overflowing onto New Zealand streets or towns having to cope with unsafe tap water.

What Luxon doesn't seem to realise is that Kiwis have been getting very sick and even dying because of their contaminated drinking water. But instead of National providing any real policy ideas about how to actually fix things, Luxon is busy making a fool of himself by splashing out on stupid hoardings for an election that could still be 21 months away. In fact the blue "teams" promise to repeal Three Waters and effectively replace it with nothing is likely to turn away National's potential audience during the campaign proper.

That’s why the Labour Government and their Three Waters legislation will become the default choice for most voters. Not because it’s particularly imaginative or transformative, but because there isn't even a remote sign of the opposition providing any alternative policy to ensure people have adequate and safe water supplies.

Last Friday, RNZ reported:

National pledges to repeal three waters legislation if elected

National is stepping up its campaign against the government's contentious three waters legislation, as people fed up with a Canterbury town's dirty drinking water plead for a quick fix.

The Opposition party has nailed a billboard in the Waimakiriri district advertising its pledge to repeal the laws, under which the government would take control of drinking, waste and storm water services and assets from local councils.

In the neighbouring Selwyn district, water the colour of weak tea still runs from the taps in the town of Springfield.

A father, who did not want to be named, said the water was so discoloured his family had not filled a glass for months.

"You wouldn't boil it and drink it, it still remains tea-coloured. We've been drinking out of plastic bottles for months," he said.

 

Whilst their negative campaign might appeal to some farmers and a few of their drunken Councillor mates, it’s unlikely to elicit much if any significant support from the wider community. This is because the vast majority of Kiwis realise that something needs to be done about our dilapidated water infrastructure.

Why do we need to do this?

1. Drinking Water

35000 NZers get sick from tap water every year

20% of water is lost on its way to houses (leaky pipes)

2016 in Havelock North: 5500 people (39% of residents) became sick with bacteria in tap water
45 were hospitalised
3 died

2/8

— Moira 🇳🇿 (@moirathemaori) April 9, 2022

By claiming that cash strapped Councils will suddenly do their jobs properly if the public campaigns for improved water infrastructure, Luxon has badly misread the room. Not only is he choosing another hill to die on, the optics of Luxon promoting a do nothing strategy while there are reports of unsafe tap water making people unwell is terribly revealing. In fact it's a misstep of monumental proportions.

If Luxon and his advisors cannot even keep up to date with current affairs, particularly when we're talking about the health and wellbeing of the population, how exactly can they be trusted to run the entire country? The obvious answer is that they aren't an effective or trustworthy opposition and wouldn't be an effective or trustworthy government either.

Bill English is incompetent

When John Key handed Bill English the poisoned chalice of a third term, it was pretty clear that the smiling assassin was getting out while the getting was good. After all, English had been largely left out of most of National’s major scandals over the last few years, unlike Key.

There are a few exceptions of course, like when English ripped off Parliamentary expenses by double dipping on his housing allowance.

But perhaps his biggest legacy is English often gifts government funding to unqualified businesses simply because they have ties to the National party. In fact favouritism for government contracts is one of the reasons National’s budgeting fails to reach surplus. English looks set to continue that corrupt practice by cutting funding to Lifeline, and instead gift a few million to an organisation his wife is running.

Reach further back into National's history, and we see a pro war MP arguing hard for New Zealand's tax haven status to be left alone. Begrudgingly the government has fiddled around the edges, while English continues his party's hopeless record on housing. Homeless Kiwis choose to be homeless, according to Bill.

English's argument against a review of the abortion law is similarly pathetic! And let’s not forget that he used his power of financial veto to kill Labour’s increase to paid parental leave... until the 2017 election race tightened and the National party conjured up the money to pay for their lolly scramble that is.

But perhaps the most egregious of English’s faults is that he believes children with disabilities should be segregated from other students in public schools. He also blames young unemployed Kiwis inability to pass drug tests as a reason why large numbers of overseas migrant workers are required. This is entirely untrue, and attests to the fact that National is happy for there to be 90,000 NEETs doing nothing in order to prop up our low waged economy. His refusal to even acknowledge exploited migrant workers is similarly repugnant!

More recently, English made good on his threat to people's retirement security by announcing an increase in the pension age.

And according to English, nobody knew Todd Barclay’s secret recording of a staffer's conversations could be illegal either. How incompetent would you need to be as a politician to not recall the teapot tape scandal? If anything, National’s obfuscation and lack of accountability over this and many other issues, by ignoring the Official Information Act, has become worse since a change in leadership.

The PM also claimed it was too hard to put a charge on water, while the National party secretly investigated ways to tax water. And despite all the evidence to the contrary, English still maintains that Steven Joyce’s imaginary fiscal hole is real. National's credibility looks shot to pieces after that fiasco.

Continuing on from their previous failure, English made further commitments this year to do nothing about mitigating climate change or reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. National even tried to hide an official report into the costly effects of climate change on New Zealand.

But if all that wasn’t bad enough, it appears that Bill English has also managed to cause, through his incompetence, the Auckland petrol crisis.

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

PM's key infrastructure plan didn't include fuel pipeline to Auckland

The fuel pipeline ruptured by a digger was left out of a "national infrastructure plan" overseen by Prime Minister Bill English despite warnings its loss could "cripple" Auckland transport.

The latest version of the plan developed by Treasury was released in 2015 has no mention of the pipeline from the Marsden Point refinery at Ruakaka to Auckland's Wiri terminal.

The pipeline has been shown as a critical link because it is the only way jet fuel gets to Auckland Airport.

That’s the problem with a government that doesn’t do its job properly… critical infrastructure breaks down.

But the weakness in the fuel supply was clearly highlighted in 2009 when the National Party put Treasury to work fulfilling a campaign pledge that it would develop a National Infrastructure Plan when it first came to power.

English announced the plan as Minister of Finance in 2009, saying it would "plan and rank New Zealand's key infrastructure needs so that projects that provide the greatest economic benefit are prioritised".

But when the Northland Regional Council reviewed the preliminary list produced in 2009, it said "the council considers that the nationally significant issue of fuel supply is currently missing" from a Treasury briefing paper calling for submissions.

Incompetent Bill English and the National party are clearly unfit to be in charge of a country as great as Aotearoa. So let’s get out there and change the government.

Winston Peters hijacks National's protest

There was a lot of anticipation surrounding a farmer’s protest in Morrinsville yesterday, a protest over Labour’s proposed levy of 1 to 2 cents per 1000 litres of water used for irrigation.

Federated Farmers and Dairy NZ in particular have been campaigning strongly for the National party this election, and trying to rally the rural troops against any water levy or pollution tax, often by pitting town against country.

You could tell Labour was a bit worried about what a protest of this nature could signify, because a similar protest in 2002 gained the nations attention and solidified many farmers against Helen Clark's government.

New Labour leader Jacinda Ardern even held a meeting in Hamilton to front foot the issue.

On Sunday, the NZ Herald reported:

Jacinda Ardern takes proactive stance on planned Waikato farmer protest

Labour leader Jacinda Ardern has taken a pre-emptive strike against Waikato farmers planning a protest meeting tomorrow, saying Waikato rivers are among the worst polluted.

Ardern has been criticised for policies targeting the primary sector such as water charges to pay for river cleanups and bringing agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Speaking at a campaign rally in Hamilton, Ardern was unrepentant, saying New Zealand had to ensure its environment was as clean and green as it claimed.

Back in the day when farmers could work their way into farm ownership, National MP Bill English campaigned for the agriculture sector by sitting on a tractor outside Parliament buildings and displaying a sign that read; ‘The mad cow shouldn’t have signed’.

The offensive message was in relation to Labour agreeing to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, which in hindsight and considering the devastation climate change is causing around the world, looks even more unbecoming today.

National's recent attempt to reignite their negative fart tax campaign is similarly repugnant. All it tells us is that English is pining for the past.

Fast forward to 2017 and the tractor Myrtle he posed on is still the centre of attention. But it didn’t take long for the wheels to fall off National’s much vaunted Morrinsville protest.

The first signs of a malfunction occurred when farmers held up more signs clearly designed to cause offence. Verbal arguments ensued between National and NZ First supporters.

Then, after Bob Appleton drove Myrtle the tractor at a group of NZ First supporters, catching one on the foot, the unthinkable happened... Winston Peters grabbed the loud hailer and stole National’s fart tax thunder.

ELECTION'17NEWS:@winstonpeters Hijacks Farmer Morrinsville Protest & NZF Waikato candidate StuHusband has foot run over by TractorMyrtle😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/Fp63yV0BmJ

— NZ ELECTION2017 NEWS (@nzgeoffbooth) September 18, 2017

Some news agencies put the protest numbers at 500 to 600 people, most of them close to retirement. Others who attended said there were around 200 to 300 people, many of them NZ First supporters.

This is extraordinary being that the event received widespread advertisement on both our main broadcasting networks as well as a number of widely read publications.

The main reason National's protest failed to fire is because English overcooked the issue.

On Sunday, Scoop reported:

Q+A: Bill English

I mean, there is one answer – slaughter the dairy herd. I suppose that would help. Then next thing they’ll be talking about how to depopulate cities because they cause pollution. Well, that doesn’t make sense.

Because of his apocalyptic statement the Prime Minister continues to be the butt of many a fine joke. In fact he’s looking decidedly isolated because of National’s pro-pollution position.

One of the reasons for a low turnout at National’s protest is because the Labour party has always held rural communities and the industries that make them tick in high regard. It’s arguable that Labour under Helen Clark did more for farmers than the National party ever has, particularly in regards to tax reform and trade agreements.

English looks terribly foolish by trying to convince farmers that their businesses won't be viable if Jacinda Ardern and Labour win the election. Over-inflating the proposed levy and running negative attack adds about a fart tax simply doesn’t wash in a world where information on the actual numbers and Labour's policy is freely available online.

Who exactly is National trying to convince with such adverts anyway?

After nine long years of stagnation many rural communities will be looking for better environmental and economic solutions. In the last few days it’s become even more apparent that only a change of government will provide them.

Chinese spy in New Zealand Government?

You’ve really got to wonder how much influence the Chinese government is exerting on the National party these days?

Last month it was revealed that the Minister of Housing, Nick Smith, had demolished state houses then sold the public land they were on to a private Chinese owned company. The New Zealand government then helped pay to build privately owned houses to accommodate Chinese government workers from China Southern Airlines.

Then on Tuesday a documentary by Bryan Bruce called Who owns New Zealand now showed that our housing crisis has partly been driven by Chinese government backed speculation in our property market. Bruce also revealed how the National led government was hiding statistics on the exact number of properties being sold to foreign speculators.

But if that wasn’t bad enough, now we learn that a government MP, Jian Yang, was a card-carrying member of the Chinese Communist Party and taught spies at a Chinese military intelligence academy before moving to New Zealand to join the National party.

Yesterday, Newsroom reported:

National MP trained by Chinese spies

A National Party MP who studied at an elite Chinese spy school before moving to New Zealand has attracted the interest of our Security Intelligence Service.

The list MP Jian Yang did not mention in his work or political CVs a decade he spent in the People's Liberation Army-Air Force Engineering College or the Luoyang language institute run by China's equivalent of the United States National Security Agency.

That agency, the Third Department, conducts spying activities for China.

Clearly there’s a huge conflict of interest here, with the former teacher of Chinese spies having access to some of New Zealand’s most top-secret and highly sensitive information.

Perhaps this is why National is against taxing bottled water? After all, most of the consents for one of our most precious resources are in order to ship it off to China.

Newsroom has been told that to have taught at the Air Force Engineering College, Yang would have almost certainly been an officer in Chinese military intelligence and a member of the Communist Party, as other students and staff have been.

Surely that would preclude him from being an MP in New Zealand then?

Yang studied and then taught there before moving to Australia where he attended the Australian National University in Canberra. He migrated to this country to teach international relations in the politics department at the University of Auckland.

He was hand-picked by National Party president Peter Goodfellow to become an MP on its list in 2011, wooed directly by the former Prime Minister John Key and has been a key fundraiser for National among the Chinese community in Auckland.

So the National party actually headhunted Yang, a person who worked at a foreign spying academy, to be one of their MPs. Could you imagine the media frenzy if the Labour party had done something as unbelievably stupid as that?

As an MP he variously served on Parliament's Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (from 2014 until last year), Commerce, Transport and Industrial Relations and Health and Science select committees and is prominent in New Zealand's interactions with the Chinese community and diplomatic and consular missions in Wellington and Auckland. He remains a Parliamentary Private Secretary for ethnic affairs.

It’s becoming pretty evident that the National party is in the pocket of the Chinese government. Even if you're a Chinese national, you'll likely realise that such things are entirely unconstitutional.

Bill English should do the right thing and stand Jian Yang down while an investigation is undertaken. The Prime Minister must somehow confirm to voters that National policy hasn't been influenced by another sovereign state. If the National party doesn't do that before the election, then it's time to change the government.

Farmers shouldn’t fear the Greens

The Green party often comes up with policy solutions that the two main parties end up adopting. In fact they’ve been a very politically influential party on the cross-benches, helping government’s develop and implement good social and environmental ideas into workable solutions.

Their Clean water, great farming (PDF) policy is no different, and will likely be embraced by the next National (to a degree) or Labour led government, even if the Green’s aren’t a part of it. In this way the Green's have been the most effective opposition party in New Zealand's short political history.

On Saturday, Stuff reported:

Greens to tax pollution to help fund sustainable farming

The Greens are promising a tax on pollution, set to raise $135 million to be reinvested back into sustainable farming.

Green Party leader James Shaw said the policy would introduce a nitrate pollution levy charged on dairy farmers who "continued to pollute our soils and waters".

"There's no point spending money cleaning up rivers if you don't look at what's making them dirty in the first place," Shaw said on Saturday.

Shaw said the revenue from the levy on nitrate pollution from agriculture would raise about $136.5m a year, starting with intensive dairying, and would fund a package of "game-changing support measures" farmers could use to reduce their impact on the environment.

This is a fantastic and practical policy that will actually help farmers pay for things like riparian planting and other measures to reduce nitrates entering our waterways.

By rolling the policy out over a number of years the government could boost farmers who are already working towards sustainable farming practices.

In fact the farmers who are reducing their pollution levels now will be rewarded under the Greens’ scheme.

The levy would initially be set at $2 per kilogram of nitrate that was lost to land and water per hectare of farm, per year. Initially, the levy would apply only to dairy farms but a "fair pollution levy" would be extended to all forms of agriculture and horticulture over time.

"Dairy intensification over the last three decades is directly linked to rapidly declining water quality," Shaw said.

In other measures, the Greens would extend the Sustainable Farming Fund with an extra $20m a year and invest $210m over three years to create a Transformational Farming Partnership Fund, to focus on issues such as farming for clean water and adapting to climate change.

The party also promised to increase funding to the Landcare Trust to $16m over three years, reward tree planting by farmers and landowners, allow accelerated depreciation on dairy farm equipment to help farmers free up capital, and support organic farming through a new national certification scheme with new funding of $5m a year.

As well as being good for the environment, this policy looks set to help add value to our dairying sector. The world is crying out for organic products, which gain a premium price wherever they're sold.

Of course the largest lobbying group for farmers has opposed any type of restriction on nitrates from entering our waterways.

On Saturday, Radio NZ reported:

Farmers reject Greens' farming-pollution policy

Federated Farmers has slammed a Green Party plan to put a levy on nitrate pollution from dairy farming, saying it would actually cost the environment.

Federated Farmers vice president Andrew Hoggard said the idea was "unfair", "full of holes" and likely to actually cost the environment.

"They also come from other types of farming and they also come from urban sewage treatment plants. So if we're going to be fair about this than you've got to tax all of those, not just tax one sector of society.

I don’t see a problem with starting at the top first. Intensive dairying is by far the worst polluter, and should help pay to clean up the environmental damage they're causing.

It seems as though Hoggard didn’t actually read the policy release properly, because the levy would eventually be extended to all forms of agriculture and horticulture.

Furthermore, urban sewage plants treat their waste in a process that reduces environmental impacts. Invariably, people pay for that waste through their rates, so what is Hoggard talking about? It’s the leaching of nitrates directly into waterways that needs to be addressed.

Mr Hoggard said DairyNZ and others already offered research and expertise, and no government fund would be able to give better advice.

The levy isn’t just about advice… it’s about remedial measures to actually reduce pollution.

"Farmers are actually doing a hell of a lot in this space already, we're already doing quite a bit of work on this and if we're just going to be taxed for it, it's going to take away money which we would otherwise have spent on the environment and quite frankly I think they'd probably end up spending most of the revenue they get on policing it."

He said by his calculations it would cost his farm $12,000 a year, which could be spent on solutions.

What is Hoggard talking about? The money raised will go towards solutions, like making our waterways swimmable again by giving farmers a financial incentive to reduce pollution.

The problem for National is small farm holders will actually benefit from this policy. Most farmers will have additional funds available and any development to reduce pollution they undertake will likely increase their properties value.

A majority of farmers, especially those who adopt the scheme early, will reap the rewards of becoming more eco friendly businesses.

Most farmers have nothing to fear from the Greens' clean water policy. It’s large-scale intensive dairying that is being targeted with this great Green party initiative.

National would tax water as well

Politics is a strange beast… it requires people to attack others over what they believe, usually because they think it's the best course of action to promote their party. Often those beliefs are founded on a real desire to make people’s lives better, and sometimes those beliefs are founded on a sense of entitlement.

That seems to be the case with the water debate, where the National party has openly criticised the Labour party for proposing a small charge of 2 cents per 1000 litres for irrigation. National has made their attacks public because much of their support comes from the farming community, one of the largest users of water for irrigation in the country.

However National's position on taxing water is entirely false.

Today, Politik reported:

National working behind closed doors on its own water pricing plans

The Government has had its officials working behind closed doors for some time now on proposals to put a price on water.

This is despite its loud opposition to Labour’s proposals to do exactly that.

The Ministry for Environment's Technical Advisory Group's (TAG) investigation into how to allocate water is supposed to complete the latest phase of its work in November – safely after the election.

The group is chaired by former Labour Minister, David Caygill, who didn’t want to comment last night on the progress the group is making.

And Environment Minister Nick Smith has not responded to a number of requests for comment.

Typical response by National politicians when the questions are hard is to ignore them.

But in March Prime Minister Bill English referred to the possibility of putting a price on bottled water for export to the group.

Since then nothing has been heard from them.

But their terms of reference specifically ask them to consider “pricing mechanisms to improve efficiency” in the allocation of water more generally.

However English has been sceptical about this arguing that it would be too hard because of the likelihood of Maori claims once a price was out on water thereby implying ownership.

There’s no question that the National party, if re-elected, will put a price on water for irrigation. Of course their announcement of a water tax would be well managed as to not incite the farmers against them.

The problem for the National party is that they’ve been caught out attacking a policy they're developing in secret themselves. While they criticise Labour for proposing a small fee for using a common resource, who knows how much the National party would charge? They will effectively have carte blanche for putting a tax on water if re-elected.

Combine this prospect with the fact that National have been highly secretive about developing a tax on water and they could be losing core supporters over such duplicitousness.

Farmers and other large users of our water resources clearly want a firm policy and what they can expect from each political party… not back room deals that will likely result in businesses paying far more than what the Labour party is currently proposing.

A vote for National is a vote for a tax on water; they’re just not being honest about it.

Standing Up For Our Rivers

On 2 August 2017 Greenpeace activists stopped the laying of pipes for Central Plains Water, an enormous multi-million dollar irrigation scheme in Canterbury. See more here

New Zealand should value its water

The Green party has hit another home run with the announcement of an insightful addition to their already comprehensive water policy at a well-attended campaign launch yesterday. Not only does it recognise that there should be a value placed on water, it also acknowledges and takes steps to address our often contaminated drinking water supplies in New Zealand.

The Greens are onto a winner here, clearly recognising that the public, 87 percent in fact, don’t want to see millions of litres of our most pristine water exported for free. That public opinion hasn’t stopped the National party and Federated Farmers from making shit up in order to criticise the Greens though.

Today, Newshub reported:

Greens' water tax would ironically hit renewable energy - English

Mr English says the policy would ironically put a tax on hydro electricity.

"They're meant to be in favour of renewable energies and want to subsidise it, and this would go and put a whole lot of tax on it."

Of course Bill English is talking shit again. There’s in fact nothing about taxing water used in hydro dams in the Greens’ most excellent water policy. In fact they say quit the opposite... that because water used for hydroelectricity has a public good and environmental benefit, it shouldn't be taxed.

Check it out for yourself here.

You would think the National party and their farming fan boys would have done a better job at arguing against the Greens’ water policy. After all they had enough indications that it was going to be announced.

Federated Farmers says the tax will ultimately end up in the too-hard basket.

"Regional councils, they want the money if there's any charging for water. Iwi, the Government, they'd like to have a crack at it," said board member Chris Allen.

"It would be quite an interesting discussion as to where the money would end up, but I don't think anyone who thinks they're going to get it will end up with it. I think we should just stay away from it."

Which is pretty much the dumbest argument so far. Saying it’s a ‘can of worms’ that everybody wants so nobody should get any is plain idiotic! It’s about as stupid as saying there’s no polluted waterways in Canterbury.

Federated Farmers coming out against charging bottling companies 10 cents a litre is a public relations disaster for dairying. It will do their argument for why they shouldn’t be fairly charged for using a resource to make large amounts of money that much harder.

The Greens have effectively split their water levy policy into two areas, one that is concerned with the extracting of millions of litres of pristine water for free and one that will put a small tax on other industries. Both of these will help fund the upgrade of drinking water systems throughout New Zealand, which is something the National led government has totally failed to achieve.

Another good reason for putting a small charge on water is it will mean business owners will learn to value it more. At the moment they can take and use as much water as they want and this invariably means water is wasted. It also means more contaminants leach into our waterways.

A small tax on water will mean industries use less because they’ll only use what they really require. That alone is a good reason to support the Greens and their well thought out and received water policy.

Help Greenpeace save our rivers

Our rivers are sick. Intensive dairying means we have too many cows which is leading to pollution of our rivers and lakes.

We urgently need your help to get this video on national TV to expose what is really going on. With your donation we will be able to reach thousands of people with our video, exposing the government's inaction in protecting our beautiful waterways.

7 out of 10 monitored lakes and rivers in New Zealand are already so polluted that they are unsafe to swim in. This is a national disgrace.

Chip in now to get this new video on air and expose what our government is doing to our rivers and lakes through their investment in irrigation schemes to drive more intensive dairying. More cows means more pollution.

Help Greenpeace save our rivers by making a donation here.

Sucking New Zealand dry

It seems totally insane to allow companies to bottle one of our most precious resources, water, and sell it overseas at a huge markup without any proper recompense for New Zealand.

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

NZ Pure Blue wants to send millions of litres of Waikato water offshore

NZ Pure Blue Springs Limited wants to take from Putaruru's Blue Spring in the Waihou River more than the amount of water currently being pulled from the Waikato for bottling.

In its resource consent application to Waikato Regional Council, it has asked to extract 6.9 million litres a day.

Not only are these companies making huge profits at our expense, the National party for some weird reason doesn’t want to properly tax them.

That’s one of the strangest things about the bottled water debate… the current government doesn’t want to make money from it. Isn’t the National party full of capitalists or something?

The combined daily limit of water extraction allocated by the Regional Council to all bottling operations in the region is 5.3million litres. Coca-Cola Amatil is the largest consent holder of water from the Waihou River taking up to a maximum of 200,000 litres a day.

NZ Pure Blue plans to set-up a bottling plant at an existing industrial site in Putaruru and create the "largest production bottling plant in the southern hemisphere, exporting 100% of its products".

So Kiwi’s wont even be able to buy our own water from Putaruru's Blue Spring. Unbelievable!

NZ Pure Blue said it had consulted with the Raukawa Iwi and discussed potential mitigation measures, as well as gained support of the South Waikato District Council.

A council spokesperson confirmed it would be getting some form of payment from the company for its support, saying it had indicated it would provide an amount of funding in trust to benefit the Putaruru community.

NZ Pure Blue is paying the South Waikato District Council a bribe in other words. I very much doubt they have consulted with the Iwi that their plans will affect either.

Many of the water bodies these companies want to suck dry are tourist attractions, which makes the decision to not properly charge them for our resource depletion, which also comes at the expense of other industries, entirely insane!

When will the government and Council's do the right thing when it comes to our environment and those wanting to exploit it?

Your decisions affect our future

These Kiwi Conservation Club kids have a message for the Government: “we need clean water, and so does nature. Your decisions affect our future.” If you agree with them, share this video. Clean rivers and lakes is about more than swimmability, and the time to act is now.

Clean water is a simple issue

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

People need to understand that clean water is a complex issue, says Bill English

The prime minister says people have "high expectations" for clean waterways, but need to understand the complexity of the problem.

Bill English made the comments during a visit to meet constituents in Manawatu.

English said there was "quite high community expectations" for standards of waterways, but there were difficult long-term issues to be dealt with.

I really don’t accept Bill English's excuses. The issue of polluted waterways isn’t really that complex at all. If you pollute waterways they will be polluted. Simple!

The problems arise because there are so many polluters making vast amounts of money from environmental degradation and no real foresight or proper financial investment by the government. Certainly not enough to undo any of the damage the many decades of polluting our waterways has caused.

English said people also needed to be aware of the "size and complexity" of the task.

It’s about as complex as having less cows shitting in the water. Of course initiatives like proper fencing away from waterways can actually save farmers some cash. The loss of a cow worth $1500 in a waterway is equivalent to the cost of fencing approximately 650 metres of stream for instance.

However apart from a bit of farmer’s initiative and a small amount of token government and council funding, riparian planting isn’t anywhere near what it needs to be. So how complex exactly is planting some trees Bill English?

It is a topical issue for Manawatu, with Horizons Regional Council recently found to not be enforcing water quality regulations properly.

But English played down the recent Environment Court case. "I'm not surprised that regional councils run into some roadblocks. There are others round the country and most of them have found this pretty challenging."

English said he still had faith in councils to do their jobs. "It is important [regional councils] get the support."

The government throwing their hands up in the air and going "the issue is too complex" is just a cop-out. National passing the financial buck onto council's simply isn't going to work.

Unfortunately National has no intention of properly funding councils so they're able to address our polluted waterways. Likewise, councils have little interest in protecting the environment or enforcing the law because most councillors have vested interests in farming.

The sad truth of the matter is that while National is in power we will see little if any real change in terms of our polluted waterways. That’s because they’re the farmer’s party and won’t do anything to upset their core constituency.

So it’s not really a complex issue at all. If you want cleaner waterways that you can swim in without fear of getting sick, that you can go fishing in and actually catch some fish and that doesn’t scare our tourists away with green sludge and bad smells…don’t vote for National. It’s as simple as that.

Reaction to Greens Clean rivers policy

The Green party has managed to gain a fair amount of traction in the media with the announcement of their Clean rivers policy (PDF), which looks set to be a clear winner compared to other party policy on water quality management.

Unfortunately the ideological divide between those for and against cleaning up New Zealand's waterways is enormous with very little common ground between the two opposing teams. It's little wonder then that the articles about the issue are at polar opposites as well.

Last Sunday, the Green party website reported:

Green Party launches key election priority, rivers clean enough for swimming

The key policy points in the Green Party's plan for clean rivers are:

1. Establish a protected rivers network

The Green Party will establish a protected rivers network to permanently safeguard our most precious rivers similar to the permanent protection given to national parks. The protected rivers network will stop the destruction of rivers from irrigation, dams and pollution, while retaining the full right of all New Zealanders to use the rivers for food gathering and recreation. Iwi and hapu will be involved in the protection plan process at each step, in recognition of their kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga.

2. Set robust standards that ensure rivers are clean enough for swimming

The Green Party will overhaul and strengthen National's weak National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, implement a strong National Environmental Standard for water quality and implement a National Environmental Standard for water flows in rivers, all of which will be geared to make our rivers clean and healthy enough for swimming.

3. Keep our wild rivers wild by not building any new dams on them

"All of our rivers and lakes should be clean enough to swim in," said Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman.

"The Green Party has a vision for New Zealand where families can head down to their local swimming hole or beach and jump right in the water without worrying about getting sick. That is why the Green Party's top environmental election priority is to make New Zealand rivers and beaches clean enough for swimming.

Although the Green's are definitely selling it with a large amount of the feel good factor, I cannot really fault this policy. In fact if the government were interested in doing the right thing, they would likely implement a similar policy to the one the Green's are proposing.

The only other option to ensuring people don't get sick from swimming in polluted waterways would be to erect thousands of 'No Swimming' signs throughout New Zealand. If National were honest they would also put a disclaimer saying 'because of farm run-off' on the signs as well.

Sadly many on the right wing of the political spectrum have a hard time even acknowledging the problem exists. Invariably their response to the Greens' Clean rivers policy has been anything but honest.

A good example of this was National MP Amy Adams' angry response that was full of inaccuracies:

Greens continue to twist facts in pursuit of their anti-jobs agenda

Environment Minister Amy Adams says the Greens announcement today is just the latest step in their anti-jobs, anti-growth, stop everything manifesto.

I'm going to stop Amy Adams right there. The Greens' policy is clearly not anti-jobs. In fact two of the requirements to cleaning up our waterways are very labour intensive. Riparian planting and fencing off waterways to an adequate degree would employ many thousands of people, which makes Amy Adams' claim that the Clean rivers policy is anti-jobs entirely wrong!

The only real question is who will pay for such endeavours. My first instinct is to say the farmers should pay. However many farms are struggling because of debt. Being that they are such an integral part of our economy, the last thing we want is for farms to have to close because of prohibitive legislation. When a farm cannot afford to undertake to riparian plant and fence off waterways a policy incentive needs to be devised to pass the cost onto the banks.

The other issue here is just how intensive should farming be allowed to get? I would personally say that we're at saturation point already and no new stock should be added. It could be that some farms will need to sell a few cows when they can no longer graze next to waterways with a subsequent loss of farmhands, but this will be very insignificant compared to the overall employment gains attained.

“Improving the quality of our freshwater is important to us all but the Greens approach is costly and impractical.  Approaching improvement through blanket bans and requirements for every drainage ditch across New Zealand to be maintained at a swimming pool standard just shows that the Greens have once again confirmed they are the anti-growth Party, by pursuing polices that would hurt households and damage the creation of new jobs across regional New Zealand for little real gain,” Ms Adams says.

I'm going to stop Amy Adam's again. The Greens aren't proposing that every drainage ditch is maintained at swimming pool standards. Clearly they aren't saying that chlorine should be added for one thing. The policy is concerned with cleaning up our waterways, not drainage ditches that are required for a farm to be able to mitigate farm run-off. The National government needs to stop thinking that the rivers are drainage ditches; which is basically what Amy Adam's is doing.

“The Greens need to explain where they will find the billions of dollars of costs and lost revenue it could take to make every single centimetre of New Zealand’s 425,000 kilometres of rivers and streams suitable for swimming. They clearly haven't thought through the consequences.  Once more we see that they are happy to spend the taxes generated by productive New Zealand but they take every opportunity to impose more costs on households and the businesses who are at the heart of our economy.

It would be good if the Green's did provide a budget for the Clean rivers policy. However one area where they've already explained where additional money will come from is by adding value to dairy products. New Zealand is simply too far away from many of our markets to be shipping bulk items all the time. Diversifying the product line will not only put us in a better position to compete, it will ensure the dairy industry sees growth in a more competitive market.

This isn't just about making money though; it’s also about protecting the assets we already have in New Zealand. Along with our degrading water quality, unfortunately our tourism sector has seen some decline in recent years. Ensuring our clean and green 100% pure image is protected will require more than just lip service from the current government Minister's.

“The Government’s approach to raising freshwater standards is much more pragmatic. Our clear, robust national standards for rivers and lakes will make a significant improvement to the way freshwater is managed.

Actually the government's national standards will do little to nothing to ensure cleaner waterways. They amount to nothing really changing with the standards only requiring that rivers have to be clean enough for wading or boating. That's not the New Zealand we should be aspiring to become again.

“Rather than stopping water use, National’s plan is about ensuring it is used responsibly in a way that provides for the needs of our people now, and into the future.”

Oh dear! Amy Adam’s provides a whopping lie to finish her inaccurate and rather deluded article off with. Clearly the Green's are proposing to "stop all water use". It's difficult to see these two sides meeting on common ground being that National is making all sorts of false claims.

Despite the so-called Environment Minister's manic attack on the Green's, many right wing blogs have chosen not to back up Amy Adams' assertions. But what is perhaps even more telling is that only a week earlier, the often right wing Gareth Morgan had utterly slammed National's pathetic water quality policy, writing:

National Minister Muddying the Waters

The Government’s recently announced approach to fresh water is indeed a step forward and Ministers are to be congratulated for that. But don’t be fooled by Environment Minister Amy Adam’s effusion – we still don’t have a water management policy that will stop New Zealand’s rivers, lakes and estuaries deteriorating further, and we certainly don’t have a policy that will deliver swimmable water.

It's well worth reading the rest of Morgan's analysis to see exactly why the government's "plan" to improve water quality will do nothing of the sort.

To give this post some balance, here's another negative response by Irrigation New Zealand to the Greens' Clean rivers policy announcement.

On Sunday, One News reported:

Greens' water policy "unrealistic, prohibitively expensive"

The policy was unveiled next to the Waikato river which was churned full of muddy water as a result of heavy rain.

The party says its three point policy - to be rolled out over the course of their election campaign - would see protection plans put in place for rivers, water quality improved and the construction of any new dams stopped.

But Irrigation New Zealand (IRZ) does not agree that dams and irrigation destroy rivers or add to pollution if they are designed and constructed properly.

"The reality is that New Zealand needs large scale water storage. This is essential for town and city drinking water supplies, as well as to produce fresh food," says Andrew Curtis, chief executive of INZ.

"Without water storage we would have to explore other expensive options to cope with future population growth. These might include implementing intense food price hikes; importing foreign fresh produce and building desalination plants.

"The reality is that it is unrealistic and prohibitively expensive to have swimmable rivers everywhere - particularly in towns and cities where water quality is by far the worst," Mr Curtis said.

The problem for Irrigation New Zealand is that most irrigation systems aren't designed properly and that's why there is such a large amount of run-off into waterways. There is no doubt that the systems farmer's employ can be improved greatly.

One News also reported on a Breakfast program interview with Russel Norman:

Russel Norman: It's difficult to know water policy cost

When asked multiple times on TV ONE's Breakfast programme today about how much the party's plan will cost and where the money will come from to fund it, Green Party co-leader Russel Norman would not say.

[...]

When told that the party would have to crunch the figures eventually, Mr Norman said: "It's very difficult for the Government to estimate the cost because it's a very large issue, likewise it's difficult for us. We don't have the resources the Government has to estimate."

The problem here for the Green's is that pretty much any costing will be attacked as unaffordable. To provide an estimate now would simply give the government and those who want to keep the status quo ammunition to say that cleaning up our waterways is unaffordable and therefore unachievable.

However one would need to factor in the lost revenue from other industry that relies on clean water. That's where the Greens' policy wins hands down on the economic front, because with both sides of the ledger being accounted for keeping our water polluted just doesn't stack up.

On Monday, the Irrigation New Zealand press release was also reported by Scoop:

Green’s Water Policy Unrealistic

INZ agrees with the Green’s proposed collaborative approach to setting water policy, but INZ says that New Zealand must realise the complexity of its water issues.

“The government’s NPS is actually one of the toughest pieces of environmental legislation anywhere in the developed world and people need to understand the legislation in detail,” says Mr Curtis.

“The NPS policy states that river water quality in New Zealand cannot get worse and it provides a minimum level for rivers in a poor state to reach.

“The reality is that it is unrealistic and prohibitively expensive to have swimmable rivers everywhere – particularly in towns and cities where water quality is by far the worst.”

However, these sentiments weren't shared by one of New Zealand's most respected scientists, Mike Joy, with the Manawatu Standard reporting:

Joy embraces Greens' water plans

Professor Mike Joy has welcomed the Green Party's plan to make all of New Zealand's rivers and lakes safe to swim in.

The party announced the move yesterday, calling it its No 1 environmental policy for the election campaign.

Joy, a freshwater ecologist at Massey University, called the approach "really sensible".

"I like the sound of it," he said. "They've obviously thought long and hard about it."

Joy has long been outspoken about the state of New Zealand's freshwater habitats and the approach politicians have taken to the issue. He said the Green Party's announcement went a long way beyond what the Government was promising through the recently approved national policy statement on freshwater.

Of course the farmers had to put their two cents in as well:

Federated Farmers environment spokesman Ian McKenzie said the one-size-fits-all approach the Greens had taken would be unable to be implemented nationally because of the cost, he said.

"This Green Party policy intent shows a lack of integrity. It cannot be implemented fairly without a huge cost to society and will likely only end up being implemented in rural areas instead of all waterways."

That's amusing, being that the Green's haven't yet provided any costing's for them to be attacked as being prohibitive. Obviously the policy will be unfair to those who are polluting more, which is exactly as it should be. McKenzie's other assumptions simply aren't worth responding to.

Also on Monday, No Right Turn reported:

Election 2014: A clear choice on clean rivers

National is already attacking the policy as "irresponsible", "costly", and "impractical". I'd say the same about theirs. Dirty rivers cost us money. There's the obvious threats to tourism and to the dairy industry itself, both of which are marketed on our national reputation as "100% pure". But beyond that, we're also paying directly in pollution subsidies and decontamination and health costs, and indirectly in forgone recreation and industrial opportunities. These are real costs, and they should not be ignored. But the only side of the balance sheet National sees is the one which benefits their donors and cronies in Federated Farmers. To them, environmental costs just don't exist.

Nobody seemed to be very interested in cleaning up our waterways on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, Green MP Eugenie Sage reported on a new development:

Government drops recreational river reporting

The Environment Minister's answers to parliamentary questions from the Green Party have since confirmed the Government is dropping its annual reporting on how many monitored river swimming sites are safe for swimming. Last year 61 percent of monitored recreational sites on rivers were not clean enough to swim in.

"New Zealanders want clean rivers that they can swim in. National has thrown in the towel on ensuring rivers are clean and safe for swimming in. Now National is trying to cover up the state of our rivers by stopping these longstanding annual reports on the state of our rivers," Green Party water spokesperson Eugenie Sage said today.

"Abandoning annual reports on recreational water quality and replacing these with general water quality reports every three years is seeking to hide the facts about the continuing decline in the state of our rivers.

Also on Wednesday, the Otago Daily Times waded into the water quality debate:

It is an unashamedly emotive policy delivery, designed to appeal to the hearts and minds of New Zealanders who, for generations, have enjoyed a variety of water-related recreational pursuits.

While the policy clearly tugs at the heartstrings, the statistics are nonetheless concerning.

The figures Dr Norman quotes are from the Ministry for the Environment, which found last year 61% of monitored rivers were so polluted they were unsafe for swimming.

Its 2012 report showed 52% of sites were unsafe.

A water quality report at the end of last year by Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright painted a bleak picture, particularly in Canterbury and Southland, with accumulated phosphorus and excess nitrogen in waterways as a result of land use changes from forestry to sheep farming then dairying.

Dr Wright at the time acknowledged the importance of the farming sector, but said New Zealand faced a classic ''economy versus environment dilemma''.

If you're interested in cleaning up our waterways, these are all great articles to read in full. However Murray Rodgers on behalf of the Coalition for Clean Water wrote the most comprehensive article, with Stuff reporting yesterday:

Greens' policy on waterways worthy

At last we have a politician advocating a sensible policy on our aspirations for water in New Zealand. Russel Norman, co-leader of the Green Party, has said that the Greens' policy is to clean up our waterways to the extent that all rivers and streams are swimmable.

The objections have begun to flow from the rural leadership and government ministers, bemoaning the high cost of such a policy.

The more pertinent issue is the cost awaiting us as a nation if we don't do it.

Their positions reflect their short- term view of the world and ignorance of the critical importance to New Zealand of widening our economic base.

The argument is not simply between growth or no growth in the rural sector. It is between undisciplined growth and sustainable growth. To continue to seek economic growth that is unsustainable is not only incredibly short-sighted and selfish, it is just plain stupid.

I have to agree with Murray Rodgers here. New Zealand must move towards a sustainable future for all our industries. To not do this is simply crazy!

We need a comprehensive financial strategy linked into the delivery of sustainability targets to ensure farmer behaviours are adjusted across the region to the extent needed - zone by zone, catchment by catchment, farm by farm.

We need to define a tougher penalty structure that is rigorously applied so that it is clear in the minds of reluctant compliers what the costs of non- compliance are. The gentle approach of education and persuasion is doing part of the job but it is far too slow and incomplete for what is needed.

Clearly the softly does it approach to farmers that continue to pollute waterways isn't working. In fact the majority of farmers recently polled didn't even think water quality was a concern at all in New Zealand. That just goes to show that their awareness and environmentally destructive practices must be improved through a harsher penalty system.

Associated with this is the question of whether a levy should be imposed on volume water use to help fund such transition costs as well as restoration of past damage. The Water Rights Trust (WRT) has highlighted the need for such a levy for many years and, again, the issue has been sidelined.

There's one solution to who exactly will pay for our waterways to be cleaned up. But the more pressing concern is that they don't become polluted in the first place. Only the Greens' policy initiative looks set to address the real pressing issues concerned with water management. That's another good reason you should give them your party vote at the upcoming September election.

Clean water rules now

Claim on water could halt asset sales

Today, Radio Waatea reported:

Prime Minister John Key believes his government has done enough to address water ownership issues to fend off next week's Waitangi Tribunal challenge.

The New Zealand Maori Council and a number of hapu with claims to specific lakes, springs and rivers will be arguing that their rights need to be quantified before the government can sell off the state owned power generators that use water for free.

Mr Key says none of the arguments against asset sales stand up to scrutiny, including those made by the Maori Council.

"We don't think there is any basis to that claim because the government has been addressing the issue of water and the Maori interest in water through a number of other different mechanisms, whether it is the Land and Water Forum or the like. So realistically, we don't think the mixed ownership model will alter that and I think a lot of iwi leaders agree with us. They are very unlikely I think to join the Maori Council if it went to court," Mr Key says.

Key has changed his tune, previously stating that nobody owned the water and therefore it could be used for free. Now he thinks that the issue has already been resolved and that there is a question about whether it's going to court... What a plonker!

The hearing is set down for next week and will look at how the Crown gave itself exclusive rights to use water, contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi in that Maori ownership, control and tino rangatiratanga over the rivers has been taken from them without any recompense.

No wonder Key is contradicting himself all over the place...Maori have a proprietary interest in New Zealands water and it cannot simply be sold to foreigners by the government of the day. Key is worried about the case because it could put a halt to Nationals economically unsound privatisation of the publics assets.