Victory!

Back in 2017, Greenpeace activists Russel Norman and Sara Howell protested against a foreign seismic survey ship as it explored for oil. The protest violated National's "Anadarko amendment", a law specifically outlawing protest against the oil industry at sea. But today, despite MBIE's efforts to persecute them, they were discharged without conviction:

Two Greenpeace activists who disrupted an oil exploration vessel have been discharged without conviction.

Greenpeace executive director Russel Norman and fellow activist Sara Howell appeared in Napier District Court in July to apply for a discharge without conviction after admitting a charge of interfering with an oil exploration vessel.

[...]

Judge Tompkins said if Norman and Howell were convicted they would receive a more serious penalty than Mulvay [who had been given diversion] "when all three were equally involved in exactly the same sequence of events".

The Judge said the gravity of the offending was low and the effect of convictions for the pair would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence.

But while this is an obvious victory, there's still a lot which needs to be done. Firstly, there's the matter of Thompson & Clark's involvement in the case, where they seem to have spied on Greenpeace for MBIE, acting as a Stasi-for-hire for the government - something which should not be legal in a democracy. Secondly, there's the Anadarko amendment itself. Its still on the books, but now that the case is over the government should repeal it immediately. Laws banning protest have no place in a free and democratic society.

The cost of victory

Only a week ago, the government took a stand against climate change and banned offshore oil exploration - the first step on the long pathway to decarbonising New Zealand. But as the Herald notes, Russel Norman and Sara May Howell are still facing trial at the end of the month for protesting against the very activity the government has banned back in 2017:

Prosecution against two Greenpeace activists who were charged with jumping into the water in front of an oil exploration ship will go ahead despite the Government announcing a ban on offshore oil exploration last week.

Greenpeace executive director and former politician Russel Norman and volunteer Sara May Howell are set to stand trial in the Napier District Court at the end of this month for their roles in a deep-sea oil protest last year.

The pair allegedly jumped into the water in front of oil exploration ship Amazon Warrior, off the Wairarapa coast, forcing it to stop its seismic work on April 10.

They were both charged with interfering in the operation of the 125m ship and pleaded not guilty at a joint appearance last October.

It would obviously be inappropriate for Ministers to direct that the case be dropped. At the same time, its also obviously a pointless prosecution, a mean-spirited act of revenge against those who turned the tide of public opinion and pushed the government into banning this toxic industry (and in the process, probably laying off some MBIE staff). But then, that's exactly what you'd expect from a vindictive organisation which seems totally in thrall to the industry it is supposed to regulate (and their nasty little spies).

The prosecution then is the cost of victory. Hopefully it won't be too high for Norman and Howell. Though with them gearing up to mount a necessity defence against the overwhelming threat of climate change, and effectively putting MBIE and the previous government's policies on trial, they're going to impose some pretty serious political costs on the government too.

Meanwhile, the law they are being prosecuted under - National's "Anadarko amendment" - is still on the books. I'm quite surprised that the government hasn't taken the opportunity to repeal it in their Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. Though I guess that's something we can all demand when it gets to select committee.

Sad but glad

Russel Norman will be leaving Parliament and the Greens to take up a position as head of Greenpeace NZ. We all knew something like this was coming, ever since he resigned as co-leader, but its still sad to see him go. OTOH, he's done his bit, changed New Zealand for the better even from opposition, and decided to move on to contribute in another way. And that's something we should celebrate, not be disappointed by. And the contrast with Labour, whose incumbents hang on grimly because they've got nowhere else to go and nothing else to do, couldn't be clearer.

Another thing we should celebrate is his replacement, Marama Davidson. I was disappointed to see her miss out on Parliament on election night, and glad to see her enter as a mid-term replacement. And there's clearly no shortage of talent in the Green party.

Who is lying here?

New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions have been growing. Yes, they dropped in 2007 due to the recession, but since then they have continued to grow, from 41.27 MTCO₂-e in 2008 to 49.45 MT now - an increase on 20%.

Today in Question Time, Green co-leader Dr Russel Norman asked the Prime Minister about that record of emissions growth. His answer? "His facts are incorrect" and to claim that the numbers were "misinformation".

The problem? Those numbers come from the inventory the government provides to the UNFCCC. So, the Prime Minister is basically claiming that the numbers of his own Ministry for the Environment are false. And if he's right, MfE has been lying to the UNFCCC and is in breach of its international obligations.

So who is lying here? The Prime Minister, or the internationally-scrutinised Ministry for the Environment? I think we all know the answer here. But it highlights yet again the Prime Minister's reflexive response of claiming that politically inconvenient facts are false and to accuse people of lying when they cite his own government's numbers at him. This is not the tactic of an honest man; instead it is the tactic of a deeply dishonest one.

A stitch-up on spying

Last week I started asking some questions about the statutory Intelligence and Security Committee, and why we don't have one at the moment. Legally, the Prime Minister must nominate one "as soon as practicable after the commencement of each Parliament", but it's been five months. During which, no-one is keeping an eye on our spies.

In addition to a couple of OIA requests, yesterday I asked Andrew Little outright whether he'd nominated anyone yet. He replied promptly: David Shearer. Which has caused a bit of a ruckus:

The Government has sewn up a deal with Labour to ensure no minor parties are on the parliamentary committee overseeing a major review of the intelligence services.

The move left the Green Party fuming. Co-leader Dr Russel Norman said that an illegal spying scandal occurred under the watches of both major parties.

And he telephoned Labour leader Andrew Little to blast him, after he learned of the snub yesterday afternoon.

"I think it's a bad call," he said.

"It means it's the old boys' club - Labour and National - both of whom have been responsible for illegal spying.

"The Greens were the only ones on [the committee] with clean hands . . . the spy agencies will be extremely happy. The duopoly of illegal spying will be maintained without any independent oversight."

And he has a point. If we want robust oversight of our spies, we don't want the oversight committee to include only representatives of the establishment. While their ability to speak out is necessarily constrained (its the nuclear option; use it wisely), minor party representatives provide an alternate viewpoint and a far better check and balance than those responsible for the jailing of Ahmed Zaoui and illegal GCSB spying. That's why it's been so useful to have not just Norman, but Tariana Turia and Peter Dunne on the committee over the years.

It speaks volumes about Labour's commitment to "reform" that they're part of this stitch up. And it is not going to increase public confidence in the spies.

It is open to the government to fix this - there's no reason why Key couldn't nominate Norman. But he has apparently already chosen Chris Finlayson and Amy Adams, ensuring a majority (just in case Labour aren't willing to do whatever they're told behind closed doors). Our democracy will be poorer for it.

In the long term, I think this shows the desperate need for reform of intelligence oversight. The ISC needs to be expanded, and made responsible to Parliament, not the Prime Minister. And it needs to be given proper oversight powers, rather than drip-fed only what the spies want it to know. In a democracy, the spies are meant to work for us and obey the law. The current "oversight" arrangements give no guarantee that that is happening.

Bugger

Russel Norman has announced he will not be contesting the Green Party's co-leadership in May. Bugger. He's been great as co-leader, and he and Metiria have doubled the party's vote while making it clear that they lead the opposition on policy. And yet its also perfectly understandable too - Norman has just had a significant change in his family, the sort of thing which would make anyone reconsider their commitments. And he's clearly decided that his family is more important than politics, and all power to him for doing so.

(Meanwhile, the Greens are disproving Enoch Powell's famous line that all political careers end in failure. Both Norman and Fitzsimons have departed at the time of their choosing, not because they lost an election or were rolled. Its possibly a strength of the co-leadership model that you can leave while also feeling that the party is still in safe hands, but also another sign that the Greens aren't just about seizing and grimly holding onto power at all costs like other parties)

The Greens are a democratic party, so there will be a leadership election. Kevin Hague is an obvious strong contender, but he'll have to win the endorsement of the membership (and do it every year, at that). Hopefully there'll be some competition - because as we've seen with Labour, coronations simply breed arrogance.

100% Pure with a 5% chance of infection...

How awful are National's "bottom lines" for our lakes, rivers, and streams? The Greens' Russel Norman dug up something this morning which I think speaks for itself:



[Original on p. 31 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014]

Yes, National is happy with rivers and streams which have a "moderate" risk of making us ill just by touching them. So much for "100% Pure"...

Arseholes before the world

Yesterday the Greens' Russel Norman used Parliament's motion of consolation on Typhoon Haiyan to give its victims a voice. It didn't go down well in the House, where Norman was heckled by climate change deniers Tau Henare, Jami Lee-Ross and Shane Jones. Writing from Warsaw, Adopt-a-Negotiator fellow David Tong blogs his embarrassment:

The worst typhoon ever recorded hit last weekend. It killed over 10,000 people. 478,000 people have been displaced. Real, human, people, with families and children and lives and loves. Philippine lead negotiator Yeb Saño is one such real person, and he pledged to fast until a deal was done for all our futures. And my elected leaders laughed. No one here in Warsaw is laughing. In fact, 30 or more people are joining Yeb in his fast.

You might have seen that one of the other Adopt a Negotiator Fellows this year is Carlie Labaria. She is here with us in Warsaw. But she is from the Philippines. She is another of those real people hit by Haiyan, and she is kind, funny, and very smart. It’s a privilege to work with her. When she spoke yesterday on behalf of youth to the United Nations, people didn’t laugh. When she pled for dignity, people didn’t laugh.

Members of my government accused an opposition Member of Parliament of being “political” for linking climate change to Haiyan. But the link is clear. While it is impossible to conclusively say that climate change caused a single weather event, we can be confident that climate change makes typhoons and “hellstorms” more likely. As my fellow Trackers have stressed already, climate change fuelled Haiyan. Sea surface temperatures around the Philippines were as much as two degrees above normal. This is not the old normal. It is the new abnormal.

That’s the science. That’s not up for debate here in Warsaw. And that is why it is not political to stand with the Philippines, but an act of basic human respect.

But its not just embarrassing and indecent, its also stupid. Our government's laughter at the Philippines' suffering, and their refusal to consider doing anything about it, will not have gone unnoticed. And that means our negotiators, in Warsaw and possibly elsewhere on other issues, will find it that much harder to convince people to support their positions. After all, no-one wants to deal with arseholes - and our Parliamentary knuckle-draggers have just done their very best to paint us as such to the world.

Meanwhile, Yeb Saño, the Filipino negotiator Norman was quoting, has expressed his appreciation for Norman's stance. So this really is about National wanting to pretend sympathy, while not listening to the wishes of actual victims.

The Greens should support leakers, not oppose them

Yesterday, in the wake of Peter Dunne's resignation over the Kitteridge leak, Winston Peters immediately called for him to be prosecuted. That's expected - Peters is a xenophobic authoritarian happy to cloak himself in ridiculous claims of "national security" to persecute his political opponents. What was unexpected was seeing this call echoed by the Greens:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said the inquiry into the leak to Fairfax Media does not confirm whether Mr Dunne in fact did it, and police need to investigate and force Mr Dunne to release the emails.

"Clearly (inquiry head) David Henry didn't have sufficient powers to make Peter Dunne release the emails. If the police are investigating a Crimes Act offence, then they do have the powers to get Peter Dunne to release the emails."

Dr Norman said it needs to be seen whether Mr Dunne has breached the Crimes Act.

Firstly, the idea that this leak breached the Crimes Act is utterly ridiculous. Both the offences of espionage (which peters accused Dunne of in Parliament on Thursday) and wrongful communication of official information require that the information in question "be likely to prejudice seriously the security or defence of New Zealand". John Key was quite clear in his press conference that that was not the case, and there is no possible way in which the leak of material exposing GCSB wrongdoing could be seen in that light. So, the idea that an offence has been commited is pure bullshit, and the Greens should not be trading in it.

Secondly, such prosecutions are highly dubious in a democracy. Quite apart from philosophical objections (like treason, they get the relationship between citizen and state exactly backwards and are a relic of feudalism), leaks are the lifeblood of democracy. And the more sensitive and embarrassing the leak, the greater the public interest in protecting the leaker. If Dunne leaked this report, he should be viewed as a hero, not a criminal (I take the government's assertion that the report would be published anyway with a grain of salt, given that they broke their word that they would publish the Inspector-General's report into the same wrongdoing). A party like the Greens, committed to democracy and freedom, should be encouraging such leaks, not calling for them to be punished - especially given the shit we're learning about what the GCSB's foreign masters have been getting up to.

Russel Norman has sought to justify his position on the grounds that such leaks undermine the idea of Parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies. Firstly, this wasn't an ISC document, so that's just a non-sequitur. But more importantly, Parliament pays the bills, so it has an absolute right to scrutinise what is done with our money, no matter how secret and sensitive. And I regard it as not just a right, but a duty of politicians on the ISC to inform the public of wrongdoing. If Norman seriously believes what he's said, then he is not doing his job properly, and should resign immediately so that his place can be taken by someone less credulous and authoritarian.

Calls for leakers to be prosecuted should be seen in the same light as calling environmentalists treasonous economic saboteurs: the last refuge of scoundrels. I expect the Greens to support democratic values and be above such things.

The Greens and America

Over the weekend, Wikileaks released 1500 New Zealand-related US diplomatic cables. People have been browsing through them since, and Stuff this morning reports on an interesting one: 09WELLINGTON223: Engaging an MP critic of Afghan combat ops. The critic in question is Green MP Kennedy Graham. The US charge d'affaires David Keegan invited him to lunch, with the explicit purpose of "establish[ing] the beginnings of a warm and respectful relationship with Graham" so as to blunt the Greens' attitude to America's wars. This is apparently part of an ongoing program, which has also included co-leaders Russel Norman (who was given a trip to the US to examine their climate change policy) and Metiria Turei. From the cable, Keegan thought his lobbying of Graham was successful, based on Graham's admission that he "does not always subscribe to the majority view of his party's caucus" and his differences in tone when criticising US policy. I'm not so sure. From the cable:

[Graham] steadfastly, yet evenly, re-asserted that OEF [the US occupation of Afghanistan] presently operates under an imprecise mandate and that only an explicit UN resolution can provide correction. The former NZ and UN diplomat Graham, predictably, proved his internationalist credentials and demonstrated that he is likely to become one of the NZ Parliament's strongest advocates of multilateralism. He underscored his OEF position by arguing that strengthening the rule of international law, through national action as provided for and in the UN Charter, is the most effective way of promoting international and national security for all nations and their peoples.

Those views - a strong commitment to human rights and international law - are the real problem for the US given its recent behaviour and desire to make everyone complicit in their crimes. And there is not the slightest indication that they have changed. And while the US may consider it a victory to swap Keith Locke for Graham, I'm not so sure about that either.

Meanwhile, Russel Norman's response to the story leaves a lot to be desired - first "object[ing] to the US cables being handled as if they were truth" (when fellow Green MP Gareth Hughes is doing exactly that) and denying that the US has seduced them. That may be so, but at the same time, the US operates those visitor programs for a purpose, and they expect, on average, to get something out of them. Norman may not like people being reminded of that fact, but it is the truth. And if he didn't want it to sully his reputation as a critic of US policy, then perhaps he shouldn't have gone.

Just embarrassing

John Key is in China at the moment, and while over there, he's taken the opportunity to apologise for Russel Norman protesting about Tibet:

Mr Key said he mentioned the topic later in the meeting and while he did not apologise for New Zealanders' right to protest, he expressed regret that Mr Xi was not able to enter the building unimpeded.

This is just embarrassing. We should not be apologising for having human rights. We certainly shouldn't be apologising to dictators for holding them to account on their shitty human rights record. But for Key, everything comes second to trade - even our freedom of speech.

Kowtowing to China

On Friday, Chinese security goons attacked and assaulted a New Zealand MP in the heart of our democracy. In these circumstances, where they have clearly broken the law and infringed upon the right to free speech (not to mention parliamentary privilege), you'd expect the Chinese government to say they're sorry. Instead, John Key is calling them to apologise.

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully was critical of Dr Norman's action and last night told The New Zealand Herald that Mr Key had telephoned the most senior minister in the visiting Chinese delegation to apologise on Friday night.

He "conveyed his regret that there had been this encounter and expressed the hope that it had not unduly affected what has been a very positive visit," Mr McCully said.

"I understand that the fact that the Prime Minister picked up the phone was appreciated."

A spokesman for Mr Key, who is in South Africa, confirmed that Mr Key had made the call.

"He apologised for the incident," the spokesman said, but Mr Key had not spoken to the vice-president directly because of translation problems.

The craven, snivelling little rat. But I guess he doesn't want "little things" like democracy and freedom of speech to get in the way of farmers selling milk to China, right?

As for McCully's idea that

"Of course we have freedom of speech in New Zealand, but that doesn't mean we have to use that freedom of speech to cause offence to people, particularly to overseas visitors"

Freedom of speech means precisely the right to cause offence. If it does not, then it is no freedom at all. And if we must tiptoe around the sensitivities of murderous dictatorships in the name of trade, then we might as well live under one already.

Chinese bodyguards attack NZ MP in Parliament grounds

From Stuff:

Green MP Russel Norman had a Tibetan flag torn from his hands by a member of Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping's entourage when he arrived at Parliament today.

Dr Norman said he believed it was one of the vice president's security guards.

Arriving in a convoy or around six vehicles with a police escort, the guards initially tried to shield the flag with their bodies and umbrellas before it was torn from Dr Norman's hand with a member of the vice president's entourage standing on it as the VIP was rushed through the front entrance of Parliament.

This is absolutely outrageous - not just that it is a blatant suppression of freedom of speech by an undemocratic visitor, but that they feel they can do it to an MP in the heart of our democracy. Protests are just something the Chinese have to put up with when they visit New Zealand - and if they don't want to, then they shouldn't come here.

Those bodyguards almost certainly have diplomatic immunity, so they can't be prosecuted for assault, or for contempt of Parliament (which they have shown in abundance). But we can at the least declare them persona non grata and eject them. They've committed a crime in this country and they need to go, now.

But I expect John Key is "relaxed" about the whole thing, right?

A giant effluent pond

Over on Frogblog, Green co-leader Russel Norman blogs about his trip to Lake Ellesmere, which he described as having the consistency of "toxic pea soup". This is what he found:

There were signs by the boatramp that said not to touch the water, as it’s a health hazard due to toxic algae. That made us extra careful not to fall in. Monique and I did manage to splash ourselves while Jolyon avoided all contact, showing what a pro he is.

Currently the Canterbury Regional Council says that groundwater levels in the Central Plains are at an all time low, and flows in the Selwyn and other rivers such as the Irwell and the Boggy that feed the lake are at minimum or lower. Irrigation is sucking the rivers and groundwater dry. This, combined with big inflows of nutrients and warm weather, has led to the toxic algal blooms.

And the reason for that irrigation and nutrient loading? Dairy farming. The quest for "white gold" has turned Lake Ellesmere into a giant dairy effluent pond. It has also polluted the drinking water supply of local communities, who are having to invest in expensive water treatment facilities. Another example of how dairy farming externalises its costs onto the rest of us.

The solutions to this are known and simple: reduce irrigation, so the lake can fill again and there is less runoff. And restrict nutrient loading by farmers so it doesn't overload the ecosystem. The farmers will scream, but its basically them or us - because what is happening to Lake Ellesmere today will happen to Christchurch's drinking water tomorrow. But these necessary measures seem to be the exact opposite of what National is planning...

The Manawatu sewer

Green co-leader Russel Norman took a kayak trip down the Manawatu River on Saturday. he reported it as smelling like burnt sheep and faeces. Two of the culprits are obvious: New Zealand Pharmaceuticals, which has resource consent to dump 240 cubic metres a day of chemical waste into the river, and Palmerston North City Council, which has permission to dump 42,000 cubic metres of treated sewage. But they're not the only problem. In addition to the easily identifiable point sources (which also include the Tui brewery in Mangitinoka - yes, students, you're pissing in our river), there's also a large amount of farm runoff, which loads the river with cowshit and fertiliser. As a result, it is officially one of the most polluted rivers in the western world.

The reason this has happened is that we have had a regional council which has ignored the problem, or seen the degraded state of the river as an excuse to allow more pollution (on the basis that "it can't do any more harm") rather than clean it up. The people of Palmerston North have made it very clear that we will no longer tolerate this, and change seems to be coming. But it is happening at a glacial pace, and it is unlikely to satisfy voters, who want a river they can swim in and eat out of again. And with local body elections this year, things could get interesting.

(Unfortunately, not everyone seems to be onboard with cleaning up the river. Palmerston North mayor Jono Naylor excused the city's pouring of treated sewage into the river by saying that its only between 0.3% and 1.5% of the total flow. "Palmerston North: our river is only 1.5% sewage" makes a great slogan for the city, doesn't it?)

The policies needed to control water pollution are well known: tight control of point sources, requiring them to pre-process their waste to render it harmless, plus controls on farms to reduce overstocking and overuse of fertiliser. The council seems to slowly be moving towards this. But it needs to move faster, and if it doesn't, we should de-elect them and get people who will.

Against industrial dairying

The Greens' Russel Norman this morning highlighted a move by dairy farmers to establish industrial dairying in the Mackenzie Basin, complete with factory farms consisting of indoor "cow-cubicles", in which cows will be imprisoned for 24 hours a day for eight months of the year. It's cruel, and its environmentally destructive; as I pointed out back in September when I first blogged about this, this will fundamentally change one of our most striking natural landscapes, compete with electricity generators for water, and pollute some of our most pristine waterways. As Norman points out, those 18,000 cows will be the equivalent of a city of 270,000 people pumping its shit straight into the Waitaki river. The result will be algal blooms, unsafe drinking water, and a general degradation of as-yet unpolluted rivers and lakes.

We must stop this. People go to the Mackenzie Country to see Aoraki / Mount Cook, not a factory farm. They go to look at the perfectly blue Lake Takapo, not a dairy effluent pond. They go to fish and swim and kayak in clean rivers, not open sewers. If we allow this project to proceed, then we can kiss all of that goodbye.

These are our rivers and our lakes. They belong to all of us. We should not let dirty greedy farmers ruin them for their own private profit. The Greens will have a submission guide up on their website later today; I urge everyone to submit on these resource consent applications, so that hopefully they will be defeated.

Norman's opening speech

Green co-leader Russel Norman was sworn in as an MP today, and will give his opening speech at 17:30 this afternoon. You can watch it live here.

Ward steps aside

Former Green MP Mike Ward has stepped aside, allowing Nandor Tanczos to resign in favour of Green co-leader Russel Norman. It's a good move for the party, allowing Norman to get some Parliamentary experience and build his profile ahead of the election. But it will also be a shame to see Nandor go.

The question now is what will happen to Nandor's Waste Minimisation Bill. While its currently waiting for its second reading, it has no real chance of passing before the election. It will presumably be taken over by another Green MP, but if the government wants to see it become law, they will need to adopt it themselves, rather than leaving it to languish in the Member's section of the Order Paper. Though fortunately they have plenty of time before they have to make that decision.