“A LEAP OF FAITH”, that’s what Greens co-leader Marama Davidson is said to have scribbled on her note-pad. She’s quite right. Entering into negotiations with a Labour Party that doesn’t need you is, indeed, a leap of faith. Davidson and her co-leader, James Shaw, are betting everything on Jacinda Ardern and her colleagues being serious about “rebuilding better” in the wake of Covid. They are hoping that by aligning their party with Labour’s efforts, the progressive alliance required to secure a third term for the centre-left will be ready, three years from now, to advance the Green agenda much further and faster.
It’s called “taking the long view”, and Davidson and Shaw should be applauded for demonstrating such an impressive degree of political maturity. How much easier it would have been to recommend taking up residence on the cross-benches to the Green Party membership. Not only would moving into Opposition absolve the Greens of all responsibility for making this government work, but it would also allow them to declaim without restraint from what they believed to be the moral high ground.
But, it would not be the moral high ground. That title belongs to the place where people with very different ideas and priorities nevertheless agree to make a positive and co-ordinated effort to advance their common objectives. These people are committed to making as much progress as possible in a political environment consistently hostile to making any progress at all. The moral high ground is not the place where increasingly incendiary slogans are shouted, it’s the place where progressives have the best prospect of winning over fundamentally conservative voters to the planet’s cause. Not all conservatives, of course, but enough of them to make a third electoral victory for the centre-left in 2023 a viable project.
At the very heart of this project lies the insight vouchsafed to me by my late uncle, the Revd. Peter Marshall. In the finest liberal Presbyterian tradition, he argued that: “Humankind is neither wholly corrupt, nor wholly unredeemable.” Most people are susceptible to reasoned arguments persuasively presented. Even those who start out holding fast to an unequivocal proposition can be worn down by constant – and principled – presentations.
I’ve seen this happen many times over the years. Throughout the 1970s, a solid majority of New Zealanders subscribed to the notion that sport and politics didn’t mix. At the beginning of 1981 most Kiwis wanted the Springbok Tour to proceed. By 1984, however, public opinion had shifted decisively against any further contact with Apartheid-era South Africa. A similar shift in public opinion occurred in relation to LGBTQ rights. In 1986 over 800,000 people signed a petition asking Parliament to reject the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. Five years later most New Zealanders struggled to recall what all the fuss had been about.
It’s long, slow, patient work, this wearing-away of entrenched opposition, but history is unequivocal in judging it to be the most effective means of bedding-in change. It’s what Jacinda Ardern means when she argues that the only change worth having is “change that sticks”.
If conservative New Zealanders require further convincing about the steps required to fulfil this country’s commitment to fighting climate change, then convince them. That won’t happen if all the Greens do is shout at them, and/or damn them as enemies of the planet. It might happen, however, if someone is willing to make the case for change in the way most likely to make change happen. The ‘someone’ best placed to do that in the newly-elected Parliament is James Shaw. Presumably, that’s why Jacinda Ardern is offering to make him her Minister for Climate Change.
Those members of the Green Party who would rather their parliamentary representatives adopted a purely oppositional stance – from the cross-benches – should consider how that will look to the broader electorate. In the minds of many voters it will lump them in alongside the National Party, which, in an attempt to lure back its lost rural and provincial voters, will very likely take up a position hostile to all meaningful attempts to respond to climate change.
Nothing could assist National more effectively in this reactionary endeavour than a strident and ultra-radical Green Party. Nothing helps the Right’s effort to portray the Greens as a party of dangerous extremists like behaving like a party of dangerous extremists! Moreover, for those rural and provincial voters disposed to support “Jacinda”, the unrelenting negativity of National and the Greens will lead them to conclude that they are merely obverse sides of the same extremist coin. The only winners in this scenario would be Jacinda and Labour: the voices of moderation and reason.
Another reason for the Green Party membership to support a collegial “co-operation agreement” with Labour is the likelihood of climate change itself making the most compelling arguments for radical and comprehensive reform. If the rising number and increasing seriousness of extreme weather events are allowed to set the scene for “Middle New Zealand”, then the Greens, in partnership with Labour, can present themselves as the party of solutions – not the pedlars of problems. Sometimes, reality should simply be allowed to speak for itself.
In spite of it being a horrible example of corporate-speak, the expression “direction of travel” may turn out to be the key to Labour-Green relations over the next three years. James Shaw and Marama Davidson – in sharp contrast to Winston Peters and Shane Jones – campaigned in 2020 as Labour’s staunch and reliable ally. They were rewarded with an increased share of the Party Vote. It would be a colossal mistake to execute a 180-degree turn away from that strategy. By marching alongside Labour, the Greens will be marching in step with the majority. And just because that majority rewarded Labour with the ability to govern alone in 2020, doesn’t mean that it will feel obliged to do the same in 2023.
If the Greens spend the next three years proving themselves trustworthy, then the chances of them being entrusted with more power by the electorate in 2023 must, surely, be greater than if they spend all that time attacking Jacinda’s government and shouting themselves hoarse?
…’Nothing could assist National more effectively in this reactionary endeavour than a strident and ultra-radical Green Party. Nothing helps the Right’s effort to portray the Greens as a party of dangerous extremists like behaving like a party of dangerous extremists! Moreover, for those rural and provincial voters disposed to support “Jacinda”, the unrelenting negativity of National and the Greens will lead them to conclude that they are merely obverse sides of the same extremist coin’…
———————————
Agreed. Someone said the art of politics is ‘compromise’. Well, that suits the long game, not the short one that can easily be overturned. All movements come to an age of maturity whereby it loses its more radical edge, the reason for that is the need to appeal to a broader populace. The smart operator is the one who goes the distance and eventually see’s through their objectives. Like abolishing the slave trade for instance,.. it took many wars, much legislation and much changing of attitudes to abolish it. At least legally and in principle. Its the long term impact that matters.
The cross benches would not be wise for the Greens.
WK
The cross benches may not be wise for the Greens, however neither would be being seen as a total doormat. I have found that many political commentators have been very quick to ascribe particular intentions to GP voters since the election. Personally, I think that no deal is preferable to one that limits the GP MPs ability to represent the GPs policies in parliament, without some countervailing benefit. But I also trust the negotiations to proceed in good faith.
Is it still tomorrow, after the final (pre-recount) results are published, that there is an announcement due about the details of any potential agreement? Trotter’s speculation based on four scribbled words is actually one of the more fact grounded speculations I have seen so far.
Knowing the referenda results (& final party numbers) seems crucial to any GP/LP agreement. Particularly for the cannabis referendum, which might be slightly under 50%, so be heading back for redrafting. Lots of focus on ministerial positions, not so much on select committee construction.
The Greens will always get 5% just because they have the name Green. Just saying.
Or could it be the Green ministers are grounded unlike many from National and some from Labour whose arrogance either constantly sees them in trouble or has them sacked.
Remember Smith, Woodhouse and Brownlee are still in parliament with their history, yet just because there attached to National.
“If the Greens spend the next three years proving themselves trustworthy, then the chances of them being entrusted with more power by the electorate in 2023 must, surely, be greater than if they spend all that time attacking Jacinda’s government and shouting themselves hoarse?”
Yes that makes perfect sence, but the current greens executed the three most “trustworthy” examples they had during the last three years didn’t they?
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/89190/green-party-mps-kennedy-graham-and-david-clendon-quit-reportedly-protest-co-leader-tureis
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kevin-hague-quits-greens-for-forest-and-bird/IYPI2IWCG2LYIIPNN3LKNWPQ7Y/
Remember when Green Party MPs Kennedy Graham and David Clendon quit and also Kevin Hague and now Gareth Hughes so senior male MP’s seem to be the vitims from changes inside this almost all young famale party, so dont be surprised to see even more ‘blod letting during this next term of parliament as thhat is a great leap of faith.
That is a false assumption to make with the changing demographics over the next 3 years and increasing Green party membership . With the Green party picking up membership from all age groups as the center parties refuse to move from the softly softly as more and more people become buried under the neo liberal landslide that has totally destroyed our public services .
Yes. Plus legalising recreational marijuana issues helped them this time, just as Covid did Labour.
Wait til they give 12 year old the vote, then they’ll be 10%
BG – “ Give me the child until he is seven, and I will show you the man”
Never too soon to start …
Someone then needs to have a quiet word to Ricardo March about the virtues of message discipline, breathing through your nose for 12 months and generally not being an idiot who seems to think provoking a culture war with 94% of the population is a good idea.
Didn’t take him long to learn the entitled jerk script. Same old. Same old. And not even elected.
Applewood: “Didn’t take him long to learn the entitled jerk script. Same old. Same old. And not even elected.”
Yeah, I noticed this as well. He comes across as a pompous, whiny little jerk.
Advice to March: when you’re in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Swear an oath of allegiance to the head of state, no matter how you may feel about it privately. AND keep quiet about your opinions. The rest of us ain’t interested.
He should count himself fortunate that this isn’t Australia, where he wouldn’t be allowed to stand for parliament in the first place.
I’m coming round to the view that this would be a Good Thing in NZ as well, given how we’ve been harangued and beaten about the ears, by various (migrant) MPs, for our perceived shortcomings. Not to mention had policy – which has the effect of legislation – imposed upon us without it having even been through the select committee process. So: not democracy. Those of you in doubt, go look at the provisions of the National Policy Statement – Urban Development, foisted on us by Hipkins and Genter, and gazetted under the aegis of the RMA.
Ricardo got up to Parliament and he was shocked at the number of pictures of white men there, and I gather he said so.
Note to Jacinda: Remove all pictures of white men from sight. What were they doing there anyway ? Talking of cultural insensitivity !
Who is the 6% Sanctuary?
Myself, I haven’t seen anything about March for a week now. And what I heard then seemed reasonable to me:
“It’s ultimately about making sure that I’m fighting every step of the way for good outcomes for our communities out there because … often we leave it at the fact we represent our communities without fighting for our communities.”
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/428749/fighting-every-step-of-the-way-new-green-mp
All Labour has to do is take the farmer off national with the help of the Green Party.
( Is that guffaws and snorts of indignation I hear or are the bulls lose in the top paddock again? )
Then? Re nationalise our assets and stuff and things and initialise a commission of inquiry into private/ political financial relationships spanning the last one hundred years.
If they don’t, or we don’t insist they do? Then it’ll be the same as it ever was.
Well I once imagined that when we got MMP, decision making would move out of party caucus and onto the floor of parliament.At least to some extent.
In that context I don’t quite see that not being in formal coalition has to mean being in diametric opposition on all issues that come up. I don’t see why they could not support and contribute to legislation they believe in just as they would if part of the government.
Are they really loosing anything by retaining independence ? It seems like no one expects parliament to be anything but a pantomime , and all the real decisions made in private. No doubt this is to a large degree the case, but I don’t think it should be the case, and would be much less the case if the Greens retain their independence.
D J S
D J S
Ditto David. I recall explaining to my aged parent, that MMP would put an end to the confrontational adversarial ugliness of FPTP politics. How wrong I was. I seem to recall that in their earliest origins in England, party groupings were formed among politicians in Parliament, post-election, based on common interests. Whether there was much issue-based fluidity of movement, I don’t know, but lobbying and corruption have always occurred – depending, I daresay, on the definition of corruption.
I remember long ago getting my farther’s ear for a minute on MMP back when Social Credit were the only people pushing for it under Bruce Beetham. He was listening carefully until it suddenly dawned on him that “you mean those Values people would get into parliament!”. That was the end of that discussion. At the time the Values party was advocating the nationalisation of all productive farm land. A move that would have rendered his existence pointless.
I had always imagined that the Westminster system began as a representative selection of respected individuals heading off to Westminster to work out how issues should be dealt with. And that the advent of political parties came later and subverted the originally very good plan taking the decision making process out of Westminster and into party forums in private.
I think all political parties should be outlawed , but that would just send them underground and into more secrecy. The next best thing would be to select parliament by a totally random process like a jury is selected from all citizens.
D J S
David – What you’re saying about the origins of the Westminster system upon which we’re based ( and not such a bad system either) more or less tallies with my memory, derived firstly from a children’s history of Britain, which I’m not sure if I still have – and not inclined to search for, just in case I haven’t.But it was a natural sort of evolution.
I voted Values, am fairly relaxed about outlawing political parties, but government by a random selection of citizens could have some wonderful outcomes – or be terrifying ! Interesting.
The greens must get dog control out and impound all stray Chihuahuas. Stay on message, you will not solve climate change by igniting wildfires.
You’re not allowed to critique non-white persons. That’s racism. Plus he’s singing from Mama’s song sheet.
That is a false assumption to make with the changing demographics over the next 3 years and increasing Green party membership . With the Green party picking up membership from all age groups as the center parties refuse to move from the softly softly as more and more people become buried under the neo liberal landslide that has totally destroyed our public services .
The Problem is this, Chris: maintaining an industrial economy is not compatible with ‘saving the planet’.
You can either have an industrial economy or a planet to live on, not both.
And at every step along the way to our [now diabolical] predicament maintaining the industrial economy has been placed ahead of the environment.
Right now, the top priority of the Labour government is maintaining some kind of semblance of ‘normality’, even though normality is actually a gross aberration.
The really interesting thing is this: gross aberration has been normalised; the extremists are not those who want to ‘save the planet’ but those who want to destroy it via business-as-usual.
Of course, conservative voters would NEVER see themselves as extremists because their extreme position [of destroying the future, of destroying their progeny’s future] has been normalised by the system. Destroying the future is promoted every second of the day by the mainstream media and by the political system. This has been the case for decades. Car companies have now joined the oil companies in their reports of having known for decades that their products were (are) globally destructive being highlighted:
‘The Car Giants That Knew About Climate Change 50 Years Ago
General Motors and Ford have known about the effect burning fossil fuels has on climate for 50 years, a report from E&E News has revealed. And not just this: the two companies spent money on studying this effect and trying to understand the link between fossil fuels and climate change. But the report revealed that they failed to do anything about it. E&E News’ Maxine Joselow reports that the investigation into the two biggest carmaking companies in the United States revealed that their own scientists had told them about the industry’s role in boosting carbon dioxide emissions that had a heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere, eventually warming the whole planet.
Emissions from the transport industry are indeed one of the leading causes of what was a few decades ago called global warming and is now called anthropogenic climate change. GM researchers informed the executive suite of the company about these findings, but the latter did not act on this knowledge, Joselow writes, quoting the lead researchers at GM who unveiled the link between carbon dioxide emissions from exhaust fumes and the greenhouse effect.
What’s more, GM did not try to hush it up. On the contrary: the company made the conclusions of Ruth Reck and her colleagues public.
“The impact of the so-called carbon dioxide ‘greenhouse effect’ on the earth’s climate may be more complicated than previously thought, two General Motors Research Laboratories (GMR) climatologists reported to the American Geophysical Union today,” the company said in 1979, as cited by the E&E News report.’
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Car-Giants-That-Knew-About-Climate-Change-50-Years-Ago.html
So, the ice gets thinner and then disappears forever
https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
raising sea levels spectacularly fast and destroying the climate stability of the Halocene.
And politicians sit on their hands and pretend it’s not happening.
Afewknowthetruth 100% – Stunning depiction you portray of human stupidity in the face of knowing from science what we are doinfg to our planet and our future generations.
Awesome efort thank you for your contrabution.
These transport industries also must come clean about the massive emissions from vehile tyres and the black carbon dust that hits the roads to wind up being washed off roads into drains and into our coastal inlets and into the sea and being carried through global coastal sea currents carrying that massive tyre daust depositions as “micro-plastics” directly to the ice caps and the black carbon dust melting the ice caps faster than thought.
“That is the elephant in the room”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8524923/Microplastis-shed-tyres-reaching-Artic-hasten-melting-ice-caps.html
Thank you CLEANGREEN.
I couldn’t list all the aspects of our predicament here; it would take about an hour to list them and would fill the blog.
The culture of denial-of-reality is apparently impenetrable, and every day I turn on Breakfast (just to see what they’re talking about and maybe get SOME news of significance) I get a barrage of trivia, interspersed with adverts for stuff I don’t need and will never buy.
I will concede that John Campbell has managed to highlight a few social issues over recent months, ‘as the ship goes down’, and today the interviewee was allowed to say “The National Government cut benefits in 1991 and the problems we see now have been festering for decades …getting worse in fact. (She was talking about poverty and child-and-mother abuse.
I’m not holding my breath for positive change on anything of significance, or even leadership, from the government…other than leading in completely the wrong direction, as usual.
I’m just waiting for ‘economists’ and central bankers to run out of excuses for why their policies are failing at a faster rate than ever, and anticipating the inevitable collapse of the global economic system. And preparing as fast as I can.
Yes Afewknowthetruth an d we need to include the tyre dust microplastics pollution that will destroy our plant faster than known before.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8524923/Microplastis-shed-tyres-reaching-Artic-hasten-melting-ice-caps.html
MailOnline Australia – news, sport, celebrity, science and health stories
Latest HeadlinesFacebookYouTubeGoogleeBayLogin
Privacy Policy
Thursday, Oct 29th 2020 9AM 17°C 12PM 18°C 5-Day Forecast
Microplastic particles shed by car wheels and brake pads are being transported through the atmosphere to the Arctic and could hasten melting of the ice caps
About 138,000 tons of microplastics from tyres enter the oceans each year
About 47,000 tons of plastics find their way to remote snow and ice regions
When it hits snow covered areas it acts to absorb sunlight and warm the area
By RYAN MORRISON FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 19:07 AEDT, 15 July 2020 | UPDATED: 22:44 AEDT, 15 July 2020
Wear and tear from tyres and brake pads is contributing to the melting of the ice caps thanks to tiny particles of plastic spreading around the world, study finds.
Researchers from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research and the University of Vienna studied levels of road microplastics and the way they spread from cities.
They founds 138,000 tons of tiny plastic particles from road traffic entering the atmosphere ends up in the ocean, but 47,000 tons falls on snow and ice.
These tiny pieces of plastic act to darken snow covered surfaces in places like the Arctic and lead to more sun light being absorbed and the ice and snow melting.
These tiny pieces of plastic act to darken snow covered surfaces in places like the Arctic and lead to more sun light being absorbed and the ice and snow melting +3
These tiny pieces of plastic act to darken snow covered surfaces in places like the Arctic and lead to more sun light being absorbed and the ice and snow melting
Researchers from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research and the University of Vienna studied levels of road microplastics and the way they spread from cities +3
Researchers from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research and the University of Vienna studied levels of road microplastics and the way they spread from cities
Tyres are made from a range of materials including plastics and over time they are worn down and the plastic particles are pushed out into the atmosphere.
It’s thought up to six million tons of particles are shed from vehicles alone – with most falling close to roadsides rather than going into the atmosphere.
Some are then washed up in rain and go into the sea via river systems, but researchers found thousands of tons of tiny pieces are being blown further.
As the global production rate of new plastic products continues to increase, ever greater quantities evade waste collection and recycling and enter the environment.
However, the ecological and environmental consequences of rising plastic pollution are poorly understood, according to the Norwegian team behind the study.
Tiny microplastic particles can be absorbed through plant…
Microplastics are contaminating the fruit and vegetables we…
Microplastic pollution has been found in the digestive tract…
Plastic rain: Millions of microplastic particles are…
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
‘We also know too little about how microplastic particles travel from where they are produced to all ends of the world,’ they explained.
Nikolaos Evangeliou and colleagues looked into road microplastics that are produced from tyre wear and brake wear and compared them to simulations of atmospheric transport to determine the dispersion of these pollutants.
The majority of traffic-induced microplastics comes from densely populated regions like the US, Northern Europe and the heavily urbanised areas of Southeast Asia.
They looked at the density of roads around the world and used that to work out how microplastics from tyres spread around the world and where they are deposited.
These tiny pieces of plastic act to darken snow covered surfaces in places like the Arctic and lead to more sun light being absorbed and the ice and snow melting +3
These tiny pieces of plastic act to darken snow covered surfaces in places like the Arctic and lead to more sun light being absorbed and the ice and snow melting
They found that microplastics that are 2.5 micrometers and smaller in size were transported through the atmosphere and into the ocean or on to the ice.
They estimate that 138,000 tons per year of road microplastics end up in the world’s oceans and about 47,000 tonnes on tons snow- and ice-covered surfaces.
It has long been known they enter river systems from multiple sources including industrial effluent, storm water drains and domestic wastewater.
However, although around 90 per cent of microplastic contamination in the oceans is thought to originate from land, not much is known about their movements.
Most rivers examined had around 517,000 plastic particles per square metre, according to researchers from the University of Manchester who carried out the detailed study.
Following a period of major flooding, the researchers re-sampled at all of the sites.
They found levels of contamination had fallen at the majority of them, and the flooding had removed about 70 per cent of the microplastics stored on the river beds.
This demonstrates that flood events can transfer large quantities of microplastics from urban river to the oceans.
AFKTT and Cleangreen
This leaves us still with what to do about it.
If we start with what the ‘normalised’ extremists want, then Chris’s option is one reading of what is possible, as opposed to doing what is necessary.
Parliament has been normalised for over 300 years, and the more we debate tactics for what is possible for the left can the more we ignore the reality of what is necessary.
It doesnt help citing ‘wins’ from the past like the ‘Tour’, ‘women’s rights’ or ‘LGBTQ rights’ among others. They are real but also cosmetic concessions that keep the delusion of parliamentary possibility alive.
Even on their own terms these ‘wins’ can be reversed changes at the top. Apartheid was defeated, but the the black ruling class was not. Africa is a cauldron of the circulation of black elites.
“Women’s Rights”? Some women were allowed to become honorary men by by capitalism but the vast majority of women globally are still subject to abortion, infanticide, trafficking, rape and myriad oppressions including the reversal of their historic gains.
“LGBTQ” rights? Not if the TQs turn on the LGBs and demand the right to usurp nature and change “gender” and become ‘men’ or ‘women’ eliminating for example the very category ‘woman’.
The irony is that the ‘tacticians’ are arguing such fragile wins that can easily become losses if left to the state elites , when they are today part of a long run strategic defeat. Extinction.
Because while none of the ‘wins’ originated in parliament, they were legitimated by parliaments that could easily de-legitimate them depending on which male elite was in state power, if not stopped by mass mobilizations outside parliament.
The ‘tacticians’ who present the Greens as the long term bet on stopping climate catastrophe are complicit in the long term diversion of working people from independent class struggle into the talkshop of bourgeois parliament.
Climate change will not be stopped by diverting or delegating our intelligence and rage to some tactical advances in parliament over so many years. This lulls us into a false sense that our leaders know best while it is us who know what is necessary and what we have to do now.
The threat of climate catastrophe demands a massive social movement that makes the necessary changes as part of a global revolution to end capitalism, its institutions and its apologists.
Capitalism is a 500 year long run attack on nature. This means that in the the long run we will all be dead.
The tacticians who can see no further than ideological normalisation of our fate – extinction.
But when the choice is between revolution or extinction, I know which I support and fight for, with by whatever means are necessary, the end capitalism and Humanity’s survival.
Cleangreen I’ve been telling people about tyre pollution since you first wrote about it here. One knew.
Well said Chris.
The greens can make a positive contribution inside or outside the tent. It’s how the two dance together .. tango or foxtrot, it’s not binary
From my point of view, a gonzo argumentation, Chris Trotter. A bit like the charming of a snake-oil salesman selling useless cures… sorry, to say that.
A Leap of Faith, yes… does it work like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvDX30jwHYA
I’m inclined just by the spirit of this post without reading it to disagree vehemently. Talking is more important than this navigating your way up the lower intestine. Always three years off salvation with 8 years to do anything about species extinction in a 100 years, and, more importantly, the scouring of my old age.
But can anyone imagine the Greens knowing how to talk?
A convincing argument Chris.
Covid has changed everything
Both Labour and the Greens are only one arrow away from getting it in the ankle in a way that could undercut their support, giving the National opposition ammunition to attack them both.
That is their response to the ongoing covid pandemic.
The Labour Government are under constant pressure from the business community who want to open up the borders to allow them to properly exploit migrant labour. But which carries the risk of reintroducing covid back into the country.
The Greens may have to act as the political counter pressure to this.
The case in point is Sealords migrant labour import, with the government’s blessing.
If we ever needed a Green opposition it was over this issue.
if there are not enough New Zealanders to do this work, which is Sealords’ (and other employers’) argument for migrant labour), then give the fisheries a break until we can train up New Zealanders to more sustainably harvest this resource.
According to Mathew Hooton it is the government’s success in beating covid that gave them their unprecedented majority, in parliament.
Ardern declared 2020 the Covid election and it was. Labour’s 950,000 supporters from 2017 remained loyal not because of progress on housing or child poverty, but because of the Prime Minister’s leadership through the pandemic. Roughly 250,000 previously blue voters joined them, with many believing Ardern had literally saved their lives.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/matthew-hooton-jacinda-arderns-line-on-the-greens-and-the-cabinet-minister-she-must-remove/F7PER26YFZWQTKO3AO5765ZOBU/
If Hooton is right any stumble by the government that sees them drop the ball over covid will also see that majority removed. The benefactors will be those who warned against government inaction or actions which saw covid returned to our shores.
I detect rising public anger, even outrage, that after all the sacrifice that has been made, and just as we were about to reap the reward of a covid free summer, the government is bowing to Sealord’s demand for migrant Labour putting this nation’s covid free status in jeopardy.
The Green Party need to give voice to this public anger.
Protecting the seabed and foreshore from wanton exploitation, and protecting our covid free status is an issue where environmental protection and public health coalesce, with the Maori concept of kaitiakitanga
The fishing resource is under extreme threat from industrial scale over fishing.
Rather than importing migrant workers under dodgy conditions of employment to continue the rape of our fisheries.
The Green Party should be holding the government to account, and demand that our fisheries be given a break and a needed chance to recover, at least until local seafarers can be trained up to harvest this resource sustainably.
The protection of the seabed and foreshore and our covid free status both need a political champion in parliament.
The Green Party, in alliance with the Maori Party, need to be that champion.
The political demand the Green opposition need to raise in parliament;
1/ ‘Stop the importation of migrant fishery workers for Sealords,
2/ Give the fisheries a break from industrial harvesting,
3/ Protect our covid free status.
Pat
Kai Tahu surely need to train their Rangitahi to work the Kai Tahu/ Sealords fleet.
Or is just money for the big wigs.
Pat – I hope you’re right, and that people are outraged about the importation of those poor exploited foreign fishermen to boost the profits of Sealord. It is something more akin to the philosophy of the Nats or Act, than a government purporting to represent the interests of all of the people.
Conventional wisdom says that appropriate COVID testing offers protection to the local populace. But a risk, combined with factors of over-fishing, muddies the waters, and these are, as you say, issues which the Greens and the Maori Party should be raising in Parliament.
I am currently pretty cynical about the Greens commitment to the environment and pinning my hope on Maori. Making this a Treaty issue and maybe getting an urgent Tribunal hearing could be the best way forward for any long-term solutions, which is how the government should be thinking, and has to show that they are.
Comments are closed.