 |
ELECTION 1999
VOTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SURVEY RESULTS |
|
ELECTION 1999
VOTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SURVEY RESULTS |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Survey Results Summary
- Survey results summary
- How they rank
- Vote for the Environment survey background
- Party Legistlation History
- Defending community input into planning
- GE spree or GE free?
- Marine pillage or protection?
- Indigenous forest policy
- Access and outdoor recreation
- Major environmental legislation
- Parties and People
- How they voted
- Contacts
Party Questionnaire results page
| Voters have a clear
choice at the election if they care for the environment. The Labour–Alliance–Greens
coalition would give strong support to environmental management, whereas
a National–Act–United coalition would provide weak support for the environment.
NZ First’s position is closer to the Labour–Alliance–Greens than that of
National–ACT–United.
This ranking is based on political party responses to a Vote for the Environment Charter questionnaire. The Charter is a non-partisan document prepared of core national environmental groups setting out critical environmental policies (see back page for details). The survey results indicate that Greens and the Alliance agree with 95% and 92% respectively of the policy positions; Labour with 80% and NZ First with 67%. United however only supported 44%, National 31% and ACT 15%. Critical issues of West Coast native forest protection, marine policy, genetic engineering, Resource Management Act reform and recreation are covered in more detail overleaf. Most of the parties agree on the need to take urgent steps to protect New Zealand from invasive species, there is some measure of agreement on principles, and on the protection of Antarctica, but beyond that, there is little agreement across the spectrum. There is a high degree of compatibility of the positions held in both camps, those in favour of environmental protection, and those against. Labour, the Alliance and the Greens are keen to integrate environmental and economic policies. They agree on policies to control climate destabilisation, major reforms to marine management, on curbs on industry takeover of fisheries management, and with some qualification by Labour, on native forests protection. In contrast, the National–ACT–United camp was broadly cohesive in not accepting the policies put forward in the Environment Charter. When it came to specifics, these parties rated poorly. They agreed with very few of the environmentalists’ "key commitments" and were mostly opposed to native forests protection. This camp opposed or were undecided on the policies for marine protection and protected areas and supported the consolidation of industry control of fisheries management and research, supported the amendments to the Resource Management Act, and scored poorly on the questions that related to public participation and disclosure. |
Vote
for the Environment survey background
| This is the fourth Vote for the
Environment Campaign organised by Environment and Conservation organisations
of NZ (Inc.), Federated Mountain Clubs, Greenpeace and Royal Forest and
Bird Protection Society. The Campaign is promoting adoption of sound environmental
policy by political parties. These policies are detailed in the Vote for
the Environment Charter.
A 172 question survey based on the Charter was sent to political parties. The Alliance, Labour, the Greens, United and NZ First returned completed questionnaires. National did not and was instead ranked on the basis of known policy positions including the Environment 2010 Strategy. ACT advised that it supported the policies on biosecurity and the Treaty of Waitangi but not any others. Some other parties, sent copies of the charter, did not respond to the questionnaire and have not been analysed here for lack of information on their policies. |
Defending community input into planning
 Resource
management is a litmus test issue of parties’ position on the environment.
On paper, Labour, the Alliance, the Greens, NZ first and United say they
oppose the changes in the Resource Management Amendment Bill that restrict
public participation and weaken environmental controls. But only Labour,
the Alliance and the Greens voted against the Bill when it was introduced
into Parliament in July. Along with ACT, both New Zealand First and United
voted with the Government in support of the bill. Currently before the
Transport and Environment Select Committee, the future of the Bill will
depend on outcome of the election. |
 Political
parties’ responses to the GE issue are mixed. All parties, bar ACT, support
some kind of labelling of GE foods. Labour, the Alliance, the Greens, New
Zealand First and United support compulsory "GE-free" labelling. National,
on the other hand, supports a "may contain" labelling regime. ACT opposes
labelling fullstop.
Both ACT and National are opposed to any moratorium on GE field testing. The position of National’s other potential coalition partners is varied. NZ First supports a five year moratorium on testing while a public inquiry takes place. United is undecided on the issue. However, its voting record suggests it would be likely to support National’s stance. Labour’s voting record on the GE issues is somewhat equivocal. If elected, it says it will establish a Royal Commission into genetic modification and impose a ban on any commercial planting of GM crops until the Commission has reported. The ban, however, would not extend to GM field trials. Both the Greens and the Alliance are supporting a comprehensive ban on field testing and commercial releases of GE crops while a public review is undertaken. |
 Problems
of overfishing, adverse impacts of fishing, marine pollution, marine reform
and the establishment of more marine protected areas will be tackled by
the Greens, Labour and the Alliance. New Zealand First is closer to them
than to United, National and ACT who are prepared to commit to few of the
policy proposals.
In government, National has promoted the interests of the commercial fishers over the environment and with ACT, NZ First and United and Labour’s Jim Sutton and Damian O’Connor have cooperatively allowed industry take over of fisheries management via devolution and "direct purchase" of fisheries services by industry. There are signs that the Sutton-O’Connor anti-environmental agenda may be controlled in future, if the forests policy is a guide. Labour agrees with reform but not to a new Ministry of Marine Environmental Management. It rejects fisheries devolution in favour of "a cooperative partnership between all stakeholders and the Crown." |
 Forest
policy is one of the distinguishing issues between Labour and National
and their respective coalition partners. There is a clear demarcation between
the two major parties on the future of Timberlands West Coast and its much
publicised beech logging plans. Labour, with the Alliance and the Greens,
is committed to protecting from logging the 130,000 hectares of West Coast
rainforest currently managed by Timberlands. On the other side of the spectrum,
National, ACT, New Zealand First and United would all give Timberlands’
beech logging the go ahead.
The same split between the parties occurs on the issue of the Forest Amendment Bill. National, ACT, NZ First and United all support changes in the Bill which would remove the ban on the export of native logs and woodchips. Labour, the Alliance and the Greens oppose the amendments. All three parties voted against the Forest Amendment Bill when it was introduced into Parliament in July this year. |
| In this area there are differences
between the two potential governments. ACT, in its responses, indicates
a strong preference for commercialisation of facilities and corresponding
withdrawal from the public networks. Public ownership and access could
also be under threat.
In the past National has sought to detract from the Queen’s chain. More recently the Minister of Conservation was pretty up-front on rejecting Business Round Table suggestions for the Conservation Estate. National has tended to underfund recreational facilities though this has improved in the last 3 years. Labour has a detailed policy on maintaining the estate and access. It is committed to funding a network of basic huts and tracks. The Greens and the Alliance are both supportive of this approach although the Alliance could, in the name of opening parks to people, lack an appreciation of potential impacts. |
Major environmental legislation
| Of the top ten pieces of environmental
legislation that have come before Parliament in the last three years, only
the Alliance and the Greens have consistently voted in favour of the environment.
ACT has been consistent in voting against the environment. ACT’s adherence
to this position has remained firm even on issues such as the Energy Efficiency
Bill which have been supported by all other parties.
National has been the architect of several major bills that significantly undermine environmental protection, namely the Forest Amendment Bill, the Resource Management Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Amendment Bill. United and New Zealand First have voted almost consistently with the Government on every key issue. NZ First has bucked this trend only on the GMO issue where it voted against the Government in support of the Genetic Modification Amendment Bill and the Food Engineering Moratorium and Commission of Inquiry Bill. The environmental record of the Labour Party has generally been good, but with some exceptions. Labour has taken a ‘green’ stance on electricity industry reform, the Resource Management and Forest Amendment Bills. Its record on fisheries, however, is less ‘green.’ Labour supported National’s Fisheries Amendment Bill which devolves control of fish stock monitoring to the industry. Labour’s position on the GMO issue has also been mixed. While it supported the Genetic Modification Information Amendment Bill and the Genetic Modification Protection Amendment Bill, it voted against Alliance MP Phillida Bunkle’s private members bill calling for a moratorium on testing and a Commission of Inquiry. |
Mrs Shipley has taken a hardline approach to the environment during her term as Prime Minister. Her involvement in the Timberlands saga, with her office staff assisting the SOE’s anti-environment campaign, signals her attitude. Initiatives to improve environmental management have not had her backing through Cabinet process, and some anti-environmental policies her whole hearted support, including amendments to the Resource Management Act. Despite producing a number of laudable discussion documents the Shipley-led government has taken little action. Biodiversity, climate change and hazardous waste treatment are languishing with decisions yet to be made. Shipley, and a core of National Ministers, remain committed to less government and an ever expanding role for the market. Funding and support for new green initiatives does not fit this picture so has not been forthcoming. The transfer of control to industry, of which fisheries management reform is one example, is likely to continue.
|
 Under
Clark’s leadership, Labour has taken some strong policy positions on key
environmental issues. She has promised to halt logging of West Coast beech
forests by Timberlands, promote marine conservation and increase funding
for conservation initiatives. As a former Minister of Conservation, her
credentials suggest environment will have a high profile. Launching Labour’s
conservation and environment policy, Clark said the environment should
not be considered a marginal issue, but is a priority alongside economic
growth and social justice.
However, there are some MPs within Labour who are less than sympathetic to environmental initiatives, including Jim Sutton and Damian O’Connor. They did not, however, win caucus backing for their support for Timberlands logging. Balancing job creation and protection of natural resources will prove a challenge to the party.
|
 The
maverick on the political scene is NZ First leader Winston Peters. His
environmental credentials are very weak, he barely makes any comments on
the environment, his party does not have a environment policy and he has
been a vocal supporter of Timberland’s logging of West Coast native forests.
NZ First scored highly on its environmental policy at the last election
under Deborah Morris’ guidance, but despite being deputy Minister for the
Environment, the policy commitments were not delivered on. A question hangs
over NZ First MPs and candidates position on the environment, some of whom
have been harshly critical of marine reserves and Resource Management Act.
(For information about how the parties answered the VfE Questionnaire click here) |
| Legislation | A | L | G | NZF | U | N | ACT |
| Electricity Industry Reform 1998 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N |
| Forests Amendment Bill 1999 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N |
| Resource Management Bill 1999 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N |
| Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill 1998 | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N |
| Energy Efficiency Bill 1998 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Food (Genetic Modification Information) Amendment Bill 1997 | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N |
| Food (Genetic Modification Protection) Amendment Bill 1998 | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N |
| Food Engineering Moratorium and Commission of Inquiry 1999 | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | N |
| Resource Management (Costs) Bill 1999 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Green Bills | |
| Brown Bills |
More information on the Vote
for the Environment Charter, Campaign and details of results is available
from the campaign constituent organisations:
|
National’s
potential coalition partner ACT promises to take anti-environmental to
greater extremes. Richard Prebble’s catch-cry of ‘cutting redtape and compliance
costs’ will lead to weakened environmental legislation. Changes to the
Resource Management Act have been given a top priority by the party, and
logging of West Coast forests is supported. Prebble has been a strong advocate
for privatisation, with Timberlands (including indigenous forests) and
baby ECNZ’s likely to be sold.
The
Alliance has taken a strong position on the environment, with support from
its environmentally sympathetic leader Jim Anderton. The loss of the Greens
has weakened Alliance’s ability to generate policy, with neither a conservation
nor an environmental policy released at the time of writing. And limited
effort goes into publicising the position they take. However, two prominent
Alliance MPs, Sandra Lee and Phillada Bunkle, are well equipped as Conservation
and Environment spokespeople to push issues. Alliance’s high profile campaign
on genetic engineering has successfully has raised awareness of concerns
and won begrudging support from major parties. The Resource Management
Act Costs Bill was another important initiative.
Jeanette
Fitzsimmons has worked hard over the last three years. Together with fellow
Green MP Rod Donald she has been very successful in the last 12 months
in raising the public profile of green issues in political forums. Often
the lone voice of environmental reason on Select Committees, the Greens
have been effective at raising Parliament’s environmental consciousness.
The introduction of the Energy Efficiency Bill was an important achievement.
If successful, the Greens will keep the Labour/ Alliance coalition honest.