Voting green
Tue, 14 Oct 2008 1:30 pm – Posted by Helen | 9 Comments
Just three weeks till the election and while the polls are tightening up a bit I probably wouldn’t be a making wildly speculative punt in predicting that they might be rearranging the furniture in the Beehive soon.
That thought has been exercising the minds of environmental types lately, in particular thinking about what a change of government would mean for conservation.
Mostly (but not entirely) the thinking among them is that a centre-Right government wouldn’t be a good thing. Me, I’m prepared to wait and see. In a past life as a press gallery journalist I spent far too much time in daily close proximity to politicians to maintain any delusion that any particular party had a monopoly on good policy in any given area, conservation included.
In the same way that the Left has been presumed to be the natural home for women voters, Maori, ethnic minorities, gays and the poor, so too the Left assumed “ownership” of environmentalism. The old fashion rule had it that you should “Never be seen in blue and green,” but maybe the old rules – both in fashion and politics – don’t hold sway any more.
Obviously the Green Party proposes “green” policies but it has also been very much a “Red-Green” arrangement (would you like anti-smacking legislation with your greens, Sir?) and a Green-National coalition has been unthinkable.
This year our Envirovote election guide outlined what we see as the most important conservation-related issues on which our elected representatives can make a difference – and let the parties’ own answers to those questions speak for themselves. Voters don’t need to be told who to vote for – we hope they make up their own minds, and that conservation is something they think about as an important factor when they cast their vote.
National Party leader John Key told Forest & Bird’s AGM a year ago that Labour would promise much more for the environment, but National would actually deliver more. He might soon get the chance to prove it.
Labour’s track record on conservation in nearly a decade in office certainly hasn’t been bad: some of the many “wins” for conservation under Labour have included establishment of new conservation parks, better protection for seabirds and Hector’s dolphins, and increased funding for conservation, to name just a few.
However, in the last decade we have also seen our rivers and lakes deteriorate due to the impact of dairying, the Department of Conservation still struggling with inadequate funding to do their job, introduced pests running rampant over much of the conservation estate, fish stocks collapsing and painfully slow progress in protecting the marine environment in marine reserves.
What’s the chance of a National-led government doing any better? Certainly there are some concerns about its “Blue-Green” policy – such as proposals that hunters manage conservation land – but there are also some positive signs there.
If a week is a long time in politics, as the old cliché has it, then anything could happen in the next three weeks. We’ll be talking to whoever is in Government – and in Opposition – to advocate for conservation.
I did attend the F &B AGM and listen to the debate on environmental issues and was heartened to hear Mr Mallard tell the audience that hydro dams are way down the list of energy preferences for Labour. In contrast there was no clear direction or strategy signalled by the National Party spokesperson. The Greens did not support large scale hydro but from memory NZ First did.
With the National party wanting to make the RMA process more streamlined and the Green Party wanting to strengthen it there are some clear differences in this possible ‘alliance’.
I do feel that overall conservation has faired reasonably well under this present coalition. We have recently won a Marine Reserve, the Minister of Fisheries has come out in favour of Hector and Maui dolphins in the face of a strong fishing lobby. The government also stepped in to protect our iconic scenery at risk in the tenure review. The St James Station has just been added to our conservation estate.
The key issue for me is how conservation fits with the values of each party, is it a core part of what “they stand for”. Is our conservation estate viewed as a liability or asset and how is it measured? and is conservation something you do last and is it the first to lose out when we need to tighten our collective belts.
The clincher for me is each party’s commitment to the environment and conservation with regard to energy. Do we focus on getting more, with habitat as the loser, or do we focus on using what we have go further combined with smart new technology that has minimal environmental impact.
Concerning political poles. One commentator put this in perspective by making the point that a large proportion of the population is not aligned to Labour or National.
For those who are concerned about the potential changes by National to the Resource Management Act etc, you should read the 12 pages on the RMA on National’s website - scary. While a regulatory Environmental Protection Agency a la USA might sound OK - this would be from the debris of the gutted Ministry for the Environment - and let’s face it - if they had been given some political backing the Ministry could have been NZ’s own EPA!!! and we might not have had the Mapua debacle or the mish-mash of plans nationwide (?)> .
I find it hard to believe that either of the major parties are serious about the environment, other than what they need to do to promote the perception of ‘green-ness’ among the voting public.
However, striking a balance between having the economy that people want and the need to maintain New Zealand’s environment is very difficult - for instance, how do we provide energy without dirty fossil fuels, river-ruining hydro, bird-thwacking wind turbines and the unmentionable nuclear power? And how do we have efficient, effective and economically sustainable farms without the associated land use and pollutant issues?
It is a balance and I think we have to make a call over who we think is going to provide that, rather than being overly zealous for the economy or for the environment.
Here in Manawatu we had a good session regards the EnviroVote Guide. A mature member of the green-tinged audience boldly suggested that Forest & Bird, *the* Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, Inc. 1923, had in 2008 missed the most important question of all about the environment in Aotearoa NZ; and while some in the audience cast gazes of disbelief he proceeded to suggest the most important question was ‘how committed are you to your 20 answers?’. And who could question that?
The Green Party announcement this week that they will again support Labour hardly bowled me over in surprise. Every election they do this - totally give away all their negotiating power ahead of coalition talks. It’s like playing nice in a pool of sharks and expecting them to reciprocate. (We do like sharks though at Forest & Bird, just not the human variety).
A wee correction: The Green Party has not announced we will support Labour. We announced that we would prefer to work with Labour than National, and we will not assist in forming a National Government. We compared their policies, and found Labour is closer to where the Greens see NZ needs to head, including on conservation and the environment. National would be disastrous. F&B members I have been speaking to appreciate the honesty and transperancy of the Green approach in this regard, and our integrity generally.
While Labour is preferred, it would need to form a Government that would go in the right direction in order to get Green support. If they don’t, the Greens will return to sit on the cross-benches and keep doing the independent and vocal work to represent the values and objectives of Forest and Bird and other environment groups in Parliament. Guess which Party asked the ONLY questions on Hector’s dolphins in Parliament this term?
I’m proud to be active with Forest and Bird, AND a Green Party candidate - hand in glove for me.
Quentin Duthie
Green candidate for Tukituki
Wellington F&B Branch committee
Helen may be right that no party has a monopoly on good conservation policy – but the Green Party certainly has a great deal more than either Labour or National.
Take the proposed dam on the pristine Mokihinui River. Labour and National propose to let the RMA and the Environment Court decide. The Greens oppose the project and MP Metiria Turei gave evidence before the resource consent hearing in Westport this month on alternatives for electricity generation.
The Greens have been honest about their choice of coalition partners, sure. But that doesn’t mean they are ineffective. Thanks to the Greens we now have funding for Environment Centres, legal aid for environmental groups (which National has said in the past it would get rid of), funding for groups to carry out conservation work on public land
.
Consider that in the last term in Parliament only five private Member’s Bills have been passed by Parliament – all put forward by Green Party MPs.
It’s really not that difficult – for a vote for the environment, vote
Green.
Yes, the Green Party certainly does have some great policies on conservation and the environment. Just somewhat unfortunate that these policies don’t seem to apply at the level of individual MP’s and candidates: two of their number recently indulged in short-duration holidays overseas (Thailand and Vanuatu). So much for integrity and taking action on climate change! If all that separates Labour and the Greens is ‘policy’, then there isn’t as much difference as I’d hoped. What’s policy worth without individual commitment?
Oh well, I guess voting Green with a capital G probably won’t have got anyone much direct result for the next 3 years then, given the election result. However, going on the Greens’ track record of getting busy with private members bill and so on, they could still be quite an effective voice for the environemnt from the opposition benches?