Time for a change?

Well, well, well, as I predicted in my pre-election blog (OK, so it was hardly long odds or a wild bet) we have a new government. The question is now, what’s in it for conservation?

At the moment, we’re waiting to see who gets the ministerial posts of most interest to us here at Forest & Bird: Conservation, Environment, Climate Change (if they have a specific minister with responsibility for climate change this time round), Energy, Agriculture, Land Information and Fisheries.

The Cabinet is tipped to be announced as early as next week – as soon as we know we’ll be lining up for a bit of a chat on certain relevant issues with all of them. Will be interesting to see who gets what – and what kind of take they have on conservation-related issues. Will let you know how it goes.

Meanwhile to those ministers who got the boot, it may be some comfort to you as you exit the (low emission, yeah right!) Crown limo for the last time to know that we have, now and then, been grateful for some of the things you did:

Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton – thanks for at least trying to bring a more precautionary approach to legislation on fisheries management, even if you did get thwarted by certain minor parties who received donations from the fishing industry. Your regulations protecting albatrosses from fisheries by-catch get a round of applause as well.
Conservation Ministers Steve Chadwick and Chris Carter – good work on establishing a whole lot more high country parks. Nice to know our high country lakes won’t be surrounded by McMansions.
Good on ya also to Steve and Jim for also putting in place decent protection for endangered Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins.
Land Information Minister David Parker – had the smarts to figure out that tenure review was going badly wrong for our South Island high country, and actually did something about it.

Things they could have done better on: improving nationwide quality of water in our rivers and lakes; protecting NZ sea lions from being killed in the squid fishery; increasing pest control in our forests; reversing the decline of native biodiversity, dissuading State-owned power companies from proposing environmentally damaging hydro schemes … we could go on …
But hey, that leaves plenty for National to get working on!

christopher pearson

November 14, 2008 at 2:06 PM

I wish I was as relaxed as you over the results of the election. One of the major areas I have concerns is precisely in the area of tenure review which you refer to, mostly in the negative. the high country parks which you trumpet as advances under this government are just packaging land that comes from the horse trading surrounding a tenure review. Well, without the option of intense development of the free-hold portions of the leases as an exchange for government control and public access of the rest. It is very clear form National’s policy that they see a very different system that involves very limited public ownership much less concern for conservation values. I just feel that if Forest and Bird had taken a more cooperative role in the tenure review process that we had during the mid decade and not worried quite so much about hypothetical mac-mansions we might have progressed further than we did. This may be one of the great missed opportunities for conservation in New Zealand

Helen47

November 16, 2008 at 4:37 PM

I agree that we should not be complacent about the outcomes of the so-called tenure review process – and the changes that were made by (Labour)government in the Cabinet Minute – can I recommend Ann Brower’s book Who Owns the High Country? (Craig Potton publishers). As she says the recognition that there were too many losses during the tenure review were simply NOT fixed by the Cabinet Minute – a decree (which is not however in the legislation) which while perhaps well-meaning also leaves room for even lakeside properties to not be necessarily be recognised as having “highly significant” values (a very high and subjective hurdle) which cannot be “protected satisfactorily” (sez who?), with the land not being able to pass into private hands unless it is “demonstrably in the public interest” (which means precisely what?). All it takes is the in-coming government to once again change rules or interpretations and the Southern Man rides again???? with the $$$$. I also consider that another HUGE hurdles is DoC’s absolute lack of expertise in recognising landscape values – and amenity and recreational values for that matter! Take a look at http://www.StopTenureReview.co.nz. Ms Brower also has some interesting angles on F&B’s involvement. She encourages all activists to be staunch, reflective and vigilant. Don’t fear power – speak the truth as it always the antidote to power. How about it F&B?

November 17, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Well I certainty agree with you about not being complacent. As someone who was very active in the Tenure review process in Otago during the 1990’s I feel we are entering a very dangerous time and have a great deal to loose.

Helen

Author

November 18, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Hmm yes, well I guess it depends whether you see the glass as being half full or half empty. Sure there is still plenty to achieve (and not just in the high country) but eight new high country parks since 2001 ain’t to be sniffed at, and credit where it is due. While staunch, vigilant etc etc may be useful attributes, so are inclusiveness and the ability to reach out to other groups who may or may not share your views.

robyn du chateau

November 18, 2008 at 10:18 AM

This is not exactly in line with the last few comments but wanted to draw people’s attention to some very disturbing treatment of subjects in the DOMPOST that feed into conservation. Last week there was a terrible article on no need for insulation in old houses and claiming the original research was faulty and people do not need warm, insulated homes to survive ,let alone destroy the environment by using up electricity by heating the garden.

Secondly a terrible article against climate change by of all people an engineer not even a climate change scientist and lastly today a tiny wee bit in world section regarding the devasting Queensland floods – about the same amount of words AS given to dancers being flogged in Somali. Am I getting paranoid or is there a campaign, run by Act, TO NOT TAKE OUR ENVIRONMENT SERIOUSLY IN OUR RIGHT WING CAPITAL NEWSPAPER?

November 18, 2008 at 11:26 AM

I used to work for the Dompost and I can assure you there is no right-wing conspiracy headquartered there. In fact, to give credit to its editor Tim Pankhurst, I have not been able to discern what his voting preferences might be – which I think is a good thing.

Don Muraco

November 19, 2008 at 10:05 AM

I don’t think you’ll find the National-Act support was all that strong in any Fairfax newsroom. Still, there’s no doubt environmentally at least, the National crowd could hardly do a worse job than Labour, which has overseen the industrialised world’s second-to-worst growth in emissions in the current decade.

Here’s the UN’s full list:

Sweden -61.8%
Norway -31.8%
Estonia -23.4%
Monaco -21.4%
Finland -9.2%
France -6.3%
Belgium -5.3%
Hungary -4.6%
Slovakia -4.5%
Poland -4.3%
Denmark -3.4%
Netherlands -3.2%
United Kingdom -2.6%
Germany -2.0%
European Community -0.9%
Portugal 0.9%
Japan 0.9%
United States 0.9%
Italy 2.7%
Ireland 3.0%
Liechtenstein 3.9%
Iceland 5.3%
Bulgaria 6.2%
Greece 7.0%
Australia 8.2%
Czech Republic 8.6%
Switzerland 8.8%
Canada 11.0%
New Zealand 12.0%
Spain 18.0%
Turkey 33.3%

November 23, 2008 at 8:43 PM

It is good to hear that the act/ national followers are not too dominant in new zealand’s newsroom. Why oh why do the papers allow guys like Bryan Leyland (Dompost nov 10) to write attacking global warming. Given, as Ralph Chapman of victoria university enviromental studies points out,the overwhelming case for responsible action to deal with climate change, the papers decision to publish their stuff is stupid. Mr Leyland suggests that the sun, not greenhouse gases drive our climate but backs up his argument with no research only quoting a contrarian website. It is vital we cut our emissions and soon.

November 24, 2008 at 7:59 AM

I would agree that more media space is given over to those arguing against the existence of climate change than is warranted by the scientific credibility of that view, but I don’t think the publication and broadcasting of that view is largely driven by political agendas in newsrooms!
While there might be SOME media outlets who wuld support that view for political reasons, more likely motivating factors are:
– active PR activity from lobbyists on that side of the debate.
– the liking of the media for “conflict” between two sides of an argument in a story.
– most journalists not having any scientific training which allows them to weigh up the scientific arguments accurately.

Time for a change?

9 Comments

Leave your reply.

Leave a Reply

Your email is safe with us.

Recent Posts

Time for a change?

You also might be interested in

Here’s to saving the Mackenzie

Controlling predators over 800,000 hectares, or just over 10% of public conservation land

The problem with sharks

9 Comments

Leave your reply.

Leave a Reply

Your email is safe with us.

Recent Posts