PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘Nick Smith’

Nats promise wholesale ACC privatisation

Posted by Chris Hipkins on October 13th, 2011

Yesterday Nick Smith announced ACC levies were going to be cut. That’s good news. They never should have been hiked up massively in the first place, and Smith’s own press statement highlights just how cynically the National government have manipulated the situation.

There was never a crisis in ACC. It was hit by the global financial downturn and revaluation of existing claims liabilities, leading to deficits. But the problem was not a structural one, and ACC would have returned to surplus even without the levy hike. ACC was already back to a $2.5 billion surplus in 2009/10 before Smith’s levy hike had taken effect.

But don’t get too excited about the levies falling just yet. If National are re-elected, all Kiwis will end up paying more to get less from ACC. Smith has effectively announced the wholesale privatisation of ACC if National gets half a chance. That means money that should go into providing cover for injury victims will go into the profit lines of Aussie insurance companies.

Smith has confirmed that if a National-led government is re-elected, their ACC privatisation agenda will be expanded from only covering workplace injuries to also include injuries sustained in car accidents, around the home, or even on the sports field.

National’s privatisation plans will effectively bring an end to what has been our world-leading system of universal, no-fault, 24/7 cover for accidental injury. Under National, if someone sustains an injury, they can look forward to spending weeks or even months arguing with different insurance providers about who should cover it.

It’s still not clear what problem National are trying to fix here. Independent studies have clearly shown that ACC is among the cheapest providers of accidental injury cover in the world. New Zealand employers already pay on average half of what Australian employers pay, yet National wants to replicate the Australian model.

The choice for New Zealanders is now crystal clear. If they want to keep our system of universal, no-fault, 24/7 cover for accidental injury, then they will need to vote for a change of government.

Tags: , , , , ,
Filed under: ACC, privatisation
26 Comments

More ACC jiggery pokery

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 13th, 2011

Earlier this week the National government was once again caught fudging figures about ACC. When they took office, they manufactured a financial crisis in ACC in order to justify hiking levies and carving it up for privatisation. The cynical nature of their crisis beat-up was highlighted when just a few months out from an election they suddenly decided ACC was in great shape and the levies should be cut again.

Now it’s been revealled that this year’s Budget, the one in which Nick Smith heralded ACC’s dramatic turnaround, over-stated the savings ACC is supposed to be making. Documents obtained by Radio NZ under the OIA show that the Government ignored warnings from the Labour Department before the Budget that Treasury figures on proposed savings from ACC were too optimistic. The Labour Department predicted savings of $400 million over the next three years, but Treasury said $580 million would be saved.

Nick Smith has been all over the place on ACC figures. One minute it’s having a financial crisis the next he is ignoring Labour Department advice in order to make the Government’s financial position look better than it otherwise might. Nick Smith and National simply cannot be believed when it comes to ACC. There was never a crisis. ACC is an excellent scheme and National should stop trying to sabotage it so that they can make bigger profits for the Aussie insurance industry.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: ACC
6 Comments

ACC and hearing loss

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 24th, 2011

When National took office, they manufactured a financial crisis in ACC in order to cut entitlements and prepare it for privatisation. Nick Smith’s hysterical claims about the financial state of ACC have now been widely discredited, and even Smith himself is now trying to back away from them by claiming a miraculous financial turnaround in just 18 months.

Smith and the National government used the financial crisis to make a number of changes to ACC that undermine some of the central principles behind the scheme. The changes that they made to compensation for victims of work-related hearing loss illustrate it well.

Under National, the guidelines ACC works to when considering hearing loss claims have been changed and ACC now discounts a person’s hearing loss as they get older, regardless of whether or not that loss is age-related. They’ve also set up an arbitrary 6% hearing loss threshold before compensation is considered, regardless of where on the hearing spectrum the loss happened. It’s quite possible to have less than 6% hearing loss and still not be able to hear the person standing next to you in a crowded room.

One of the core principles of the ACC system is that it’s comprehensive, no-fault coverage. Hearing loss is now the only injury/accident where the victim has to meet an injury severity threshold before they’re covered. I’m pleased the Human Rights Commission has agreed to hear the case. The only fair way to deal with hearing loss cases is to deal with each one individually, based on its own merits. That’s how ACC should work.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: ACC, health
4 Comments

Nats plan more radical ACC reforms?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 5th, 2011

Nick Smith’s argument in favour of privatising the ACC Work account has already been blown out of the water by the private insurance industry themselves, who openly admit that they can’t offer cover as cheaply as ACC can. This from the Dom Post story:

Vero’s executive general manager of new ventures Nigel Edmiston said his company – which is owned by the Australian SunCorp Group – had done some planning on entering the workplace insurance market but that the Government’s proposal “wasn’t particularly attractive”…

Edmiston said that private insurers would not be able to compete with ACC’s pricing and would prefer it was excised completely from the market.

“[ACC] have a huge market share, they have all the infrastructure and systems, they’ve got no set up costs, they don’t pay tax and they don’t pay dividends and they don’t need capital.”

He said at the outset private insurers would need to provide 80 cents in capital expenses for every dollar gained in premiums on such a product.

In other words, Edmiston is confirming what we’ve said all along. ACC is incredibly efficient and cheap, and it ensures that all of the money collected actually goes into helping those with injuries, rather than into the profit lines of the Aussie insurance industry.

The only way the private insurance industry could compete would be if ACC was excluded, in other words, the cheapest provider was arbitarily shut out of the market. How exactly would that be competition?

This all begs the question, however, of just how enduring Nick Smith’s commitment to his current proposal is. If National win the next election, don’t be surprised to see a more radical proposal for ACC reform suddenly emerge as National claims it has won a ‘mandate’ to do whatever it likes in dismantling our world-leading ACC scheme.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: ACC, privatisation, public services
18 Comments

Smith to announce ACC privatisation

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 29th, 2011

On Wednesday this week, Nick Smith is going to announce what amounts to the effective privatisation of a large part of ACC. You won’t hear the word privatisation uttered from his lips, he’ll use all sorts of other words like ‘competition’ and ‘market discipline’, but the effect will be the same. Accident cover for those injured at work will now be provided by the private, for-profit insurance industry. That’s privatisation.

What concerns me about this most is that the National government haven’t even attempted to produce a robust case to show that it’s a good idea. This is a purely ideological decision, based on National’s blinkered belief that the market will always deliver the most efficient outcome. But consider these facts:

  • An independent review by Pricewaterhouse (Australia) found that our ACC scheme has the lowest administration costs of any comparable scheme anywhere in the world.
  • Information provided to the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee showed that the cost per-worker of work-related accident cover in New Zealand is, on average, about half what it costs in Australia (is this what National meant by catching the Aussies?).
  • Under the current system, if someone is injured at work and has to stay home, the first week of income compensation has to be provided by the employer. Following the Christchurch earthquake, the government waived that requirement and ACC covered the lot. They couldn’t have done that if work-related injury cover had been provided by private insurers.
  • If a private insurer offering ACC cover collapses, it’s the taxpayer who will have to pick up the tab for any outstanding claims liabilities. So the private insurance companies have an effective fail-safe guarantee. We’ve already seen one ‘accredited employer’ collapse resulting in ACC having to pick up the bill, that will only get worse under Nick Smith’s privatisation plan.
  • When HIH, a private Australian accident insurance company collapsed in the early 2000s, the Aussie govt had to pick up a $500 million tab. HIH had been offering accident cover under National’s previous attempt to privatise ACC, which was reversed by the incoming Labour government following the 1999 general election.

There are only two ways that private insurance companies will be able to turn a profit from offering work-related accident cover in New Zealand. Either they will have to reduce entitlements, or they will have to increase the cost of that cover. In other words, we’ll all end up paying more to get less.

Since National became the government, Nick Smith has gone to some lengths to manufacture a crisis in ACC in order to justify his privatisation plans. As I outline a last week, ACC is in pretty good shape and Smith’s scaremongering is pretty transparent. His moves to massively hike up levies in 2009 were designed to erode public support. If ever we needed proof of how cynical a move that was, we got it a few weeks ago when he started talking about levy cuts just six months out from a general election.

ACC isn’t perfect, but the comprehensive, no-fault, 24/7, universal cover it currently offers is the right approach for us to take. We should be focused on how we can improve what we have now, not how we can create more profit-making opportunities for National’s mates in the private insurance industry.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: ACC, privatisation
23 Comments

Nick Smith’s ACC beat-up

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 21st, 2011

Just before the Budget Nick Smith announced what he claimed was a major turn-around in ACC’s financial fortunes. Having beaten up ACC’s supposed financial ‘crisis’ since he became the Minister, Smith is suddenly crowing about its financial performance and mooting the concept of levy reductions (could it be an election year…?)

ACC was never in crisis. In fact, ACC was in much better shape when Labour left office in 2008 than it was when National got booted out in 1999. Back then, only 36% of the work account was fully-funded, in other words ACC had an outstanding claims liability for work-related injuries of 64%. By the time Labour left office, that had fallen to 45%.

In 2008, the year the “crisis” was supposed to have happened, ACC collected $3.65 billion in levy revenue and paid out $2.73 billion on claims. The remainder went towards reducing some of that outstanding claims liability.

Looking at the big picture, when National left office in 1999, ACC had $2.5 billion of investments. By the time they came back in 2008, ACC had investments in excess of $12 billion. It’s yet another example of how the Labour Party focused on saving and building up assets for the future, while National’s only plan is to cut stuff.

Nick Smith manufactured a crisis in ACC to soften the public up for changes he knew wouldn’t be popular. He then hiked ACC levies and cut entitlements. Under National, Kiwis pay more for ACC and get less in return. That situation is only going to get worse if they decide to press ahead with their plans to introduce competition (read privatisation) into the ACC work account.

I think ACC is a fantastic system. Undoubtedly there are improvements that can be made, and I’ll talk more about some of those in coming months, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should be proud of our ACC system and National should keep their hands off it.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: ACC
3 Comments

Quake will cost ACC $200 million

Posted by Chris Hipkins on April 24th, 2011

The Sunday Star Times has reported today that ACC expects the cost of compensation and treatment for those injured in the Christchurch Earthquake to be about $200 million. So far ACC has received 7666 claims, making the February quake the biggest single mass injury event in ACC’s 37-year history.

ACC’s head of injury prevention and insurance products, Peter Wood, said that although the long-term costs to the corporation would be high, they were manageable.

“Obviously additional claims from the Christchurch earthquake will increase costs and ACC funding requirements,” he said.

“However, the overall size of ACC allows for these increased costs to be absorbed with the current levies or funding structure without significant increases being required.”

The costs had to be seen in the context of ACC’s $16 billion in reserves and claims costs each year of more than $3b.

“It is therefore unlikely that the long-term cost of these claims will have an impact on ACC levy rates in the future.”

This highlights once again how crazy the National Party are to try and privatise parts of ACC. As a single, nationalised scheme, ACC is able to absorb the impact of a big event like the Christchurch earthquake without too many problems.

I blogged a couple of weeks ago about the impending collapse of AMI Insurance and how National’s ACC privatisation plans could lead to a similar outcome. I’m not at all surprised that Nick Smith is delaying announcing their preferred options. Carving off a big chunk of ACC and handing it to the private insurance industry right at the time you’re having to bail out one of the big players isn’t a good look in anyone’s book.

Then there is the issue of Nick Smith’s (sensible) move to ensure that victims of the earthquake received cover for the first week of injury if they weren’t able to work. Normally that cost would either have to be met by the employer for a work-related injury, or the individual themselves. Had the government already privatised the ACC work account, they wouldn’t have been able to do this as they would have effectively been instructing a private insurance company to provide cover over and above what the victim was entitled to.

ACC is a good scheme. Sure there are some areas that we’d all like to see improved, but National’s plan to farm it out to the private insurance industry is just nuts. They should go back to the drawing board and leave ACC alone.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: ACC, privatisation
42 Comments

Reducing emissions just a “fad”

Posted by Brendon Burns on February 16th, 2011

Oh dear, Finance Minister Bill English rather gave the game away on Morning Report this morning when quizzed about the buying the Beamers  Pressed by Geoff Robinson about buying BMWs over say, Aus-assembled Fords or Holdens, Mr English said:”I think it shows that being driven by a fad, which at the time was to have lower carbon emissions….turned out more expensive than they expected” http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport

A fad? Little wonder Colin James wrote last month that Change Minister Nick Smith is not getting the traction he needs in Cabinet to put the environment at least alongside the economy in priorities. “ Most ministers think: the environment or the economy. Smith, though abundantly intelligent and energetic, is not one of the inner cabinet core, where economic growth is king.” http://www.colinjames.co.nz/Dominion/Dominion_2011/Dominion_11Jan24.htm

Bill English’s slip today is another illustration of that.  What he and the inner Cabinet don’t  get is that pushing economic growth at the expense of the environment puts at risk our very economic base. We trade on our ‘clean, green’ reputation – continuing to treat that like a fad exposes us to our trade competitors.

And BTW, English also said this today on Morning Report that he didn’t think a Government “in the current recession” would chose to buy anything more than plain, vanilla cars. Is that a technical slip?

Tags: ,
Filed under: climate change, economy, environment
8 Comments

Why did taxpayer subsidise Nick Smith $209,000?

Posted by Trevor Mallard on June 9th, 2010

Stuff reports that Nick Smith has folded and settled one of his defamation cases.

But for me the most interesting point is:

Dr Smith would not say today how much the case had been settled for. But he confirmed that taxpayers had contributed $209,000 toward his legal bills and he was grateful for the financial support from Parliamentary Services.

I presume it was a Labour speaker who changed the rules and allowed that support.  I was very surprised when I found that was the case. I don’t think it was a good decision.

MPs can speak out in Parliament and thereby avoid being sued.

When non Ministers speak outside Parliament we do so with the same risks as others. Smith was not  a Minister when he mouthed off on this occasion.

Ministers have another role and are often targets of vexatious litigation. The support they get from Crown Law (sometimes contracted out) is appropriate.

Having personal liability is not easy. It has cost me tens of thousands over the last 15 years.

I just don’t understand why Smith has special needs in this area.

Tags:
Filed under: democracy, law and order, national, parliament
58 Comments

Reforming Paradise

Posted by Brendon Burns on June 3rd, 2010

The chairman of the Government-supported Land and Water Forum acknowledged yesterday that the legislation axing Environment Canterbury has severely tested the Forum.

Former diplomat Alastair Bisley needed all his diplomatic skills at the Environmental Defence Society’s annual conference in Auckland  – Reform in Paradise -where he reported on progress with the Land and Water Forum.

The Forum was initiated two years ago as a way to bring diverse parties – farmers, fishers, Fonterra, iwi, irrigators an others – together to try and improve freshwater quality.

Nick Smith won Cabinet funding for it as a vehicle to progress his much-professed ambitions to improve water quality. Then he shat on it with the ECAN legislation.

Yesterday also, even one of the Creech review team admitted he had sympathy for ECAN and acknowledged the lack of national water standards from the Government. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3769946/Govt-reviewer-admits-sympathy-for-ECan

Bisley indicated the Land and Water Forum was briefed about the abolition of Environment Canterbury’s councillors; what clearly came as a nasty surpise was handing the new ECAN commissioners powers to amend or rescind Water Conservation Orders protecting Canterbury rivers like the Rakaia and Rangitata. Five parties to the Land and Water Forum went publicly ballistic.

Alastair Bisley could only say that what tests you makes you stronger. My own question to him was how he could reconcile the Forum’s wish to improve water quality when John Key has stated publicly that he wants new water in place in Canterbury in the next year – an impossible timeframe to achieve any environmental improvements.

Alastair pointed to new water storage taking pressure off aquifers. Correct, but not a solution to increased effluent and nitrates which a new rush of water will also create and further degrade water quality.

Have to say that it was galling to watch John Key coming in earlier at the EDS conference by video link and saying no less than 5 times that the government attached great importance to getting the balance right between economic and environmental growth. Sorry but that is fundamentally contradicted by his agenda for rapid new water to provide election year lines and photo ops around ‘step change’ growth which will again come at the environment’s expense. And all of that puts our whole economic base at risk, as several speakers said yesterday.

Prof Caroline Saunders from Lincoln Unversity said she was astonished at the state of Canterbury rivers when she came here 14 years ago – from the less than pristine Newcastle-on-Tyne.  That was before the Canty dairy boom really kicked in.  Caroline affirmed our prosperity rested on marketing and delivering on our environmental sustaintainability.  Marks and Spencers sustainability head said the recent reporting in Britain questioning our ‘clean, green’ image was a ‘warning shot’ across our economic bows.  It’s almost unbelievable that this Government continues to think it can get more economic cake by flicking crumbs to environmental outcomes. More reforming Paradise than reform of it.

Tags: ,
Filed under: agriculture, economy, environment, local government, water
7 Comments

Key drops conflict standards

Posted by Trevor Mallard on May 19th, 2010

Interesting question yesterday from Pete  – Key shot through before it had to be answered and left the Dipton double dipper to defend his old brat pack mate.

The Cabinet Manual is a set of rules designed to keep us open, transparent and free from corruption.

Key appears to want us to trust ministers to do the right thing. Bolger, Shipley and Clark ran much tighter ships.

Appearance of conflict of interest is a problem as well as actual conflict.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour-Dunedin North) to the Prime Minister: During Cabinet or Cabinet committee consideration of the policy and legislation concerning Environment Canterbury did his Minister for the Environment declare any conflict of interest regarding his family; if so, what did he declare?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister is satisfied that Ministers are aware of the guidance in the Cabinet Manual about conflicts of interest and he would expect them to declare an interest in an issue where a conflict actually exists. No Ministers declared a conflict during Cabinet or Cabinet committee consideration of the legislation concerning Environment Canterbury.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why did he allow Dr Smith to stay in the room when the Government’s approach to Environment Canterbury was being discussed, given that his brother was charged by Environment Canterbury on 21 counts arising from a police-accompanied inspection of his premises last June?

(more…)

Tags: , , , , ,
Filed under: Attorney-General, democracy, politics
6 Comments

Rubbing it in

Posted by Brendon Burns on April 28th, 2010

On Friday at 5pm, the doors will close at the regional council, Environment Canterbury – ECan – for elected councillors.  You’d think they’d be allowed to exit with some dignity, perhaps shouted a drink to thank them for their work, whatever your views of them, prior to the Government-appointed Commissioners taking over on Monday.

But  no.  As they exit the building, 50 metres away, the National Party will be preparing to host, I kid not,  The Jenny Shipley lecture as a party fundraiser. And the topic for those faithfull shelling out their ten bucks?

“Canterbury Water – A Collaborative Approach.”   Chch Mayor Bob Parker, well-known for his collaborative approach to ECan, ” will provide some historical context to the debate on Canterbury water.”  Another collaborator, Nick Smith will present the Government’s view.   

What goes round, comes round.

Tags:
Filed under: environment, local government, water
31 Comments

ACC surgery declines

Posted by Grant Robertson on April 7th, 2010

Even as a relatively new MP I get a feeling when a pattern is developing in dealing with government agencies.  Four cases coming to the electorate office on one topic in a short space of time is a sign. That is definitely the case with ACC declining surgery on the grounds  of a “pre-existing condition”.  One of the cases has had a run in the media, but the others are just the same.  In all cases the patient’s doctors argue that surgery is required as a result of the accident, but ACC has denied the surgery.

Jim Anderton raised this in Parliament last week, and at the time I thought he had got an unequivocal answer from Nick Smith that there had been no change in policy.  Reading the transcript again I am not so sure.  Smith talks about no change in the “legislative cover.“  But this does not eliminate a policy change, and I think that is what we are seeing.

In the exchange with Jim Anderton, Nick Smith does acknowledge that more cases are going to appeal, but he also says ” it is critical that these decisions are made on medical and not cost grounds.”  That is something we can all agree on, but when doctors are saying that the surgery is required as a result of the accident, but ACC is finding ways around this, that is not meeting the Minister’s test.

The view of all those involved in the cases is that they feel as people who have paid their taxes and ACC levies over the years, they thought the system would be there for them when they needed it.  They are feeling cheated, and they have every right to do so.   I am supporting them to appeal the decisions, but that is wasting a lot of  time for all concerned.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: ACC
39 Comments

MPs should pay for their own court cases

Posted by Trevor Mallard on April 7th, 2010

The Herald reports that undisclosed amounts have been paid to cover at least part of Nick Smith’s $270,000 costs in one of his defamation cases to date.

It also reports the Gerry Brownlee made application for taxpayers funds to cover his costs, including the amount to be paid to the pensioner he assaulted and pushed down stairs at a national party conference.

Just to make it absolutely clear, I paid all costs (about $10k from memory) in the case where Tau Henare and I fought in the lobby of the house.

And in the Tuku Morgan defamation action, the amount of which has been knocked down from over $1m to $700k, about which I will be a bit circumspect because it is still live, I received about $15k of support from colleagues and one other generous individual (who also gave me excellent  non legal advice) towards expenses of about $50k. I also received substantial voluntary legal and factual research support the value of which was certainly over $100k.

In the Crosby Textor case I received pro bono support from a local QC.

That is the deal. MPs don’t represent the crown, they aren’t part of the government, and should take at least the same care as any other person when speaking out on an issue. Ministers are in my opinion in another category and hardly a week would go by without a threatening letter being received by a Minister, mainly from nutters who can be ignored, but often there needs to be legal advice sought and sometimes cases defended.

I’m sure I will get a call from Margaret on this but I just do not understand why the taxpayer is funding Nick Smith, and I’m very pleased that the National party rather than the taxpayer ended up paying for Brownlee’s assault.

The Herald cartoon below is a bit unfair as I assume there is no suggestion that the taxpayer is in any way indemnifying Smith.

Cartoon103

Tags: , ,
Filed under: national
44 Comments

ECANed

Posted by Brendon Burns on March 31st, 2010

About an hour ago, the last speech was given and Environment Canterbury was consigned to the dustbin. In 30 hours flat, Cantabrians lost their right to vote for a council making major decisions about their lives. This is the first such axing of a council  in our history – the Rodney district council asked for a review ten years ago.

Make no mistake, for all the posturing and Nick Smith’s third speech crocodile condolences to staff and councillors, we will not see ECAN return, certainly not under this government. And Jo Goodhew, MP for Rangitata and Junior Govt Whip, did not deny repeated claims in the House that it was her approach to Timaru mayor Janie Annear that triggered the Mayoral Forum criticism of ECAN. That came  right on the eve of the vote which bowled former Labour MP Sir Kerry Burke as ECAN chair in favour of Alec Neill.  Not that it did him much good – six months as chair and his Government’s rejection of his compromise that councillors work alongside commissioners. We put up amendments to this effect-  and many others – but to no avail.

With ECAN gone, the Government can get on with the business of rapidly allocating new water.  Sad thing is, that will put at real risk the Canterbury Water Management Strategy which gave us a once-in-a-lifetime chance of getting a win/win. Trouble is, although the strategy is attached as a schedule to the axe-ECAN bill,  its first priority of environmental balance and first phase water quality restoration before new allocation, is not the Government’s agenda.

Tags:
Filed under: local government, water
27 Comments

First Auckland, now Canterbury

Posted by Brendon Burns on March 30th, 2010

Rodney Hide has clearly won the upper hand again today with the complete rogering of Environment Canterbury, the regional council.  It is to be replaced in coming weeks by 5-7 commissioners headed by the steely veteran Dame Margaret Bazley.

Whereas the rush-job Creech review – chaired by ex Nat deputy Wyatt – suggested only taking water managment off the councillors, today’s announcement will see an end to any democratic decision-making at ECAN for the next 3 and a half years. All the councillors have been sacked, even the new chair, little known former National backbench MP Alec Neill.

Word was from sources close to Nick Smith that the Government wouldn’t go this far as Rodney had already cost the Government big-time with the similar Auckland rort of democratic decision-making.

Today’s announcement violates that fundamental principle upheld by the Right that there should be no taxation (rates) without representation. It axes a democratically-elected body without any public input for the first time at least in recent history. It forces through this bill under urgency from later this afo with no chance for Cantabrians or anyone else to comment. And while it gives the locally-driven Canterbury Water Management Strategy some status there is no legal requirement to adopt its principles . This takes place in a context where the PM has said he wants new water schemes built next year in Canterbury. Nick Smith confirmed today there is no no accompanying legislation to today’s bill to reinforce requirements to improve water quality and  environmental outcomes from that new round of water allocation.

Whatever their views on the performance of ECAN on water,  many Cantabrians believe that decisions on our water deserve to be made locally and accountably, not by Cabinet appointees .

Tags: ,
Filed under: local government, water
18 Comments

Manufacturing consents

Posted by Brendon Burns on February 4th, 2010

More developments on the Mackenzie Basin factory farming proposal.

Environment Canterbury was today hearing whether the the three-linked companies water consents can be heard separately to the board of inquiry, annouced by Nick Smith (over the companies’ discharge consents.) http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/3291974/Factory-farm-consent-process-to-begin

Pretty difficult to consider the issues separately. To create the effluent for 1.7m litres of discharge daily you are going to need, er,a shit load of water.

Whether separated or called-in, the factory farming consents should not be heard along with the dozens of other applications for water in the Mackenzie and Waitaki catchments, mostly lodged by local farmers – (unlike the Canterbury and Tauranga based frontmen for the 17,000 cow operations above Lake Ohau); most are not for industrial-scale dairying (although that seems a likely outcome for one water application at Simon’s Hill on the road between Tekapo and Twizel.)

Personally  I think local farmers should be able to access some water to grow a bit of feed in what is the tough country of the Mackenzie Basin – without turning the whole of the magnificent, if barren landscape into an ersatz Waikato.

Meanwhile, a hat tip to solid blogging from Claire Browning at Pundit on this issue, most recently noting that the Waitaki District Council gave the consents for land use for the cubicle dairy farms without any public notification, because it seems it considered only the impacts on people (in a remote-ish setting) rather what such intensive farming would do to the environment.

http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/cubicle-dairy-farming-were-the-secret-consents-unlawful

Also worth reading is a recent Time magazine article Save the Planet: Eat More Beef.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1953692,00.html

No, I’m not advocating eating more beef;  what the article  promotes is  having American cows grass-fed, rather than the current practice of almost all beef (and much dairy) being stall-fed with grain. The article suggests a reversal of this could capture the entire world’s greenhouse gas emissions (scale sounds rather far-fetched) as cows on pasture would trample decaying matter into the soil and keep carbon there. (Note, Fonterra, the maths only work so long as fertilisers aren’t used. And note also, because we don’t currently factory farm, we already have these kind of savings in our emissions profile.)

But hey,  as we begin debating efforts to start serious-level cubicle cow production in this country, the Americans start trying to bring it to an end.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: agriculture, climate change, conservation, environment, water
4 Comments

Mixed signals on Mackenzie factory farms

Posted by Brendon Burns on January 20th, 2010

Could it be that Cabinet divisions are going to stop it responding as it should to factory farming consents in the MacKenzie country?

The NZ Herald reports that Key said after yesterday’s Cabinet that there were ‘mixed opinions’ about intervening in the proposals to house and feed housing 18,000 cows in sheds above Lake Ohau for most of the year.

He would say no more, unsurprisingly. Just recall that a month ago he was  upfront in Parliament about sharing the concerns about environmental impacts, animal welfare issues and of course, Fonterra’s concerns about what such factory farming would do to our multi-billion grass-fed export industry.

You’d think Nick Smith was onto this one with bells on, given those signals.

Instead he’s being coy and cautious. When the approach from ECAN for a possible call-in the factory farms effluent consents was made public, his response was to suggest sending an EPA official.  Good to see Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is now backing a call-in. Smith’s response was to sniffily say she has overlooked that this would cause a disconnect with the water-take consents already heard.

For goodness sake, he’s the lead Minister here. Does not the share the concern the Prime Minister voiced last year, or does he think as Trevor suggested earlier that Smith may have felt  Key was out of line with those  comments. Certainly Key’s comments reflect a Cabinet which has gone from publicly critical to silently cool.

If that leads to a good outcome for the Mackenzie basin’s iconic landscape and pure lakes, so be it. But don’t hold your breath.

Tags:
Filed under: agriculture, conservation, environment, water
5 Comments

Govt call-in of factory farming consents

Posted by Brendon Burns on January 7th, 2010

The scale of response to proposals for factory farming in the fragile Mackenzie Basin may see decisions on resource consents go back to Environment Minister Nick Smith for a decision.

I am visiting the Mackenzie Basin today to have a look at the proposals. Before driving down I went into Environment Canterbury to have a look at the resource consents.  While doing so I discovered a December 23 letter from Ecan’s chief executive Dr Bryan Jenkins  to Nick Smith. It covers the current resource consent hearings for three corporate dairy farm operations involving 8000 hectares of land housing 17,000 cows.

Jenkins notes the huge debate about factory farming. Of 3000 submissions on the resource consents, indications are 75 percent are against the housing of cows a la Americana feedlot style.  

Under questioning in the House last month, Agriculture Minister  David Carter said he was seeking  urgent advice on the animal welfare issues raised.

Fonterra and others said housing cattle put at risk  New Zealand’s reputation for pasture fed meat and dairy products.

Jenkins says Ecan’s legal advice is that it can’t consider animal welfare issues as part of a resource consent hearing. But he has asked if  Smith is considering a call-in under Section 142 of the Resource Management Act, which allows the Minister to use call in powers if matters are arousing widespread public concern regarding likely effects on the environment. This is a process where the decision goes back to Government.

I think Smith should give serious consideration to using his call in powers, given all the issues of animal welfare and damage to NZ’s reputation.

He only has a a week to act as the time-frame for a call-in expires for two of the  three corporate dairy applications next week.

Tags: ,
Filed under: agriculture, conservation, environment, local government, water
27 Comments

Dog fight

Posted by Trevor Mallard on December 3rd, 2009

It is always interesting to watch the right brawling. Here we have a climate change denier questioning the Minister of do not very much.

18894 (2009). Hon Rodney Hide to the Minister for Climate Change Issues

Will he ask NIWA to release the full data on which NIWAs official time series of the mean annual temperature over New Zealand from 1853 to 2008 is based, together with full documentation of any adjustments that have been made to the data to produce the result; if not, why not?

18893 (2009). Hon Rodney Hide to the Minister for Climate Change Issues

Has he received my open letter dated 27 November 2009 and will he be replying; if so, when?

18892 (2009). Hon Rodney Hide to the Minister for Climate Change Issues

Has he read the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition paper of 25 November 2009 “Are we feeling warmer yet” tabled in Parliament on 26 November 2009; if so, what are his conclusions; if not, why not?

18891 (2009). Hon Rodney Hide to the Minister for Climate Change Issues

What is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimate of the world’s temperature change over the past one hundred years, and how does this change compare to NIWA’s estimate of the change in temperature in New Zealand over the past one hundred years?

18890 (2009). Hon Rodney Hide to the Minister for Climate Change Issues

Has he read the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition paper of 25 November 2009 “Are we feeling warmer yet” tabled in Parliament on 26 November 2009; if so, what are his conclusions; if not, why not?

18889 (2009). Hon Rodney Hide to the Minister for Climate Change Issues

Does he accept as true the graph in Figure 7 on NIWA’s website that shows mean annual temperature over New Zealand from 1853 to 2008 inclusive with a plotted linear trend of 0.92°C/100 years; if so, why

Hat tip Whaleoil – who has a different take.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: act party, climate change, coalition management, environment, national, politics
11 Comments

« Older Entries