Media release 5 September 2008

RAM asks CTU for democratic
debate & vote on 'pollution market'

Over the last four years, RAM (Residents Action Movement) has been campaigning for free and frequent public transport in main centres.

"Free and frequent trains and buses, funded by a switch of government money from highways and car tunnels, is a boldly realistic policy in an era of global warming, peak oil and traffic jams," said Roger Fowler, RAM's transport speaker. "This one policy change would do far more to tackle carbon emissions than the entire Emissions Trading Scheme being driven by the Labour, Green and NZ First parties. And it would keep more money in the pockets of workers."

"It is very disappointing to see the Green politicians supporting Labour's drive to pass the ETS legislation," says Elliott Blade, RAM's environmental co-speaker and parliamentary candidate for Maungakiekie. "This law will establish a pollution market in New Zealand where corporations make money out of global warming while life-threatening emissions keep on rising."

Like RAM, the Maori Party has come out strongly against the ETS.

Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell told Parliament on 2 September that, in addition to Treaty of Waitangi concerns over the ETS, the Maori Party opposes the scheme because:

It would not be effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It is "not transparent".
"Polluters do not pay", but instead receive massive subsidies that amount to "corporate welfare".
Therefore the stated aim of economic incentives to cut emissions is "defeated".

"The Maori Party's exposure of the ETS makes them the foremost ecological party in the current Parliament," says Michelle Ducat, environmental co-speaker for RAM. "The mantle of ecological guardian has slipped from the shoulders of the Green Party onto the Maori Party."

Meanwhile the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) has come out with qualified support for the ETS.

On 2 September, CTU economist Peter Conway said that climate change policy should "not rely too substantially on market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading".

However, Mr Conway flagged CTU support for the ETS "compromise" reached between Labour, NZ First and the Greens, including the one-off electricity rebate to all households in 2010 and the one-off cash payment to beneficiaries, seniors and low-wage workers.

While admitting that "this bill is not perfect", Mr Conway claimed "the risks of not taking concrete steps outweigh any disadvantages".

RAM has serious concerns about the CTU's stance on the politics of global warming and how the ETS will impact on workers.

"The CTU is giving shame-faced support to a pollution market which will reward polluters for trading in greenhouse gas emissions. This is not an effective challenge to global warming. The government needs to urgently legislate mandatory targets directing corporate polluters to clean up their act," said Oliver Woods, co-leader of RAM's candidates group and parliamentary candidate for Auckland Central.

"The one-off payments under the new-look ETS will go nowhere near to compensating workers for unfair cost increases heaped on them so that corporations can profit from trading in pollution," noted Grant Brookes, co-leader of RAM's candidates group and parliamentary candidate for Wellington Central. "By backing the ETS, the CTU seems to be acting against the best interests of its own members."

"Already some unionists are questioning whether the CTU's stance has more to do with backing Labour in an election year rather than protecting workers and the environment. The best way for the CTU to answer these questions would be to allow all sides of the debate to be presented to their 350,000 members and ask them to reach a collective decision," said Mr Brookes.

RAM is calling on the CTU to widely circulate the Maori Party's views on the ETS.

"The Maori Party is the only party in Parliament criticising the concept of a pollution market," says Grant Morgan, chair of RAM. "National and Act support a pollution market, merely wanting it to deliver even more corporate welfare to the polluters than the current ETS."

"On behalf of RAM, I have requested the CTU leadership to publicise the Maori Party and RAM's criticisms of the ETS within their affiliate unions so more than one side of the story is heard by workers," said Mr Morgan. "I have also requested the CTU to promote a broad debate inside its affiliated unions in a lead-up to a democratic vote by workers about whether or not they should support a pollution market."

BACKGROUNDERS

These three backgrounders appear below:

Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell's speech to Parliament on the ETS, 2 September 2008.
CTU economist Peter Conway's media release on the ETS, 2 September 2008.
RAM chair Grant Morgan's letter to CTU president Helen Kelly 5 September 2008.

For more information, contact:

Roger Fowler
Transport speaker for RAM - Residents Action Movement
021 2999 491
mangere.east.access()paradise.net.nz

Elliott Blade
RAM's environmental co-speaker and parliamentary candidate for Maungakiekie
027 3121 649
elliottblade()gmail.com

Michelle Ducat
Environmental co-speaker for RAM
027 308 2521
michelle()ducat.co.nz

Oliver Woods
Co-leader of RAM's candidates group and parliamentary candidate for Auckland Central
021 072 4647
oliver.woods()gmail.com

Grant Brookes
Co-leader of RAM's candidates group and parliamentary candidate for Wellington Central
grant_brookes()paradise.net.nz
027 203 3534

Grant Morgan
Chair of RAM
grantmorgan()paradise.net.nz
021 2544 515
---------------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUNDER # 1


Climate Change and Renewable Preferences Bill

Te Ururoa Flavell, Treaty Spokesperson for the Maori Party

Committee Stage; Tuesday 2 September 2008, [SOP 240]: 2a : Act to give effect to Treaty of Watiangi

Madam Speaker, I am rising to talk to our Supplementary Order Paper, to insert a new clause to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi.

We believe that an explicit reference to the Treaty of Waitangi added to the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill will ensure that the Emissions Trading Scheme will be implemented and operated in accordance with the rights guaranteed to Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi.

Madam Speaker, nearly thirty Maori entities made submissions on this Bill - rünanga, trusts, corporations, and representative bodies including the Federation of Maori Authorities. Many of these submitters raised concerns in their hearings before the Finance and Expenditure select committee that the Bill as introduced, conflicted with the principles and provisions of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and breached the Treaty of Waitangi.

And in particular, that it breached Article 2 of the Treaty by posing an encumbrance over Maori land that fails to uphold the Crown's guarantee to protect rangatiratanga. For this reason, Maori submitters have argued that the Bill effects an alienation of Maori land, and their rights and authority over their lands.

Submitters have also argued that under the Bill, the Crown has assumed to itself the ownership, allocation and management of the carbon allocation resource. They have argued that instead of wholesale ownership and control, that the Crown is meant to consult with its Treaty partner, to protect the rangatiratanga of Maori, and compensate if they cannot do that.

As a remedy, submitters asked the Committee to add a Treaty clause to the Bill to ensure that the implementation and operation of the emissions trading scheme shall not be inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi. This request was ignored as many other requests to honour and uphold the Treaty have been similarly and routinely ignored.

The Maori Party, however, refuses to ignore the rights of our people to have the guarantee of rangatiratanga upheld, and so we submit an amendment to have a Treaty clause added to this Bill. We seek to include the words, that this Act should give effect to Treaty of Waitangi.

'To give effect' to the Treaty creates more positive and substantive obligations on all bodies covered by the Act to give effect to the Treaty principles, and so carries a higher likelihood that the Courts will be called on to interpret its application in the sector.

If identifiable Maori rights and interests protected by the Treaty are to be affected by proposed legislation, the question may arise whether there should, as a matter of policy, be some specific recognition or protection of those rights and interests by the inclusion of an appropriate provision in the legislation.

In any event there will be a question of the effect of the proposed legislation on those rights and interests, whether or not such a provision is included. For examples of what the identifiable Maori rights and interests protected by the Treaty that stand to be threatened by this Bill, we only need to turn to the example of Ngai Tahu.

The first day of spring was significant for more than one reason. For on the first day of spring this year a late Waitangi Tribunal claim was filed in response to a large iwi, concerned about what it called a "significant threat" to its 1998 settlement.

According to the kaiwhakahaere of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, Mark Solomon, the emissions trading scheme will undermine their settlement and unwind the very purpose of the settlement that they set out to achieve over the lives of many generations.

This condemnation of the Government's flagship policy came from none other than Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu who boldly stood up, and told the nation, that this legislation before the House now, would "literally wipe tens of millions of dollars off the value of the forestry assets they received as part of our settlement".

This was an urgent call from Ngai Tahu, because they were concerned that every effort must be made to safeguard the future of Ngai Tahu whanui. In effect their view is that the Crown continues to threaten the integrity of the Ngai Tahu settlement. And it is an affront on this iwi, that the Minister will stand in the house today, and refute the analysis that they have been forced to present. This will not have been an easy decision for Ngai Tahu to take.

Mark Solomon has put the case - that this Emissions Trading Scheme, represents a significant threat to both the integrity and finality of their settlement. The very least the Government should do is to listen to their concerns, and ask why. This is not the first time this concern has come before Government.

Indeed one of their own departments alerted them to the threat that this scheme could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to iwi. A Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry report obtained by media last month suggested the scheme could leave the Crown open to substantial claims because the value of land handed to iwi under Treaty of Waitangi settlements could substantially decrease.

So it is appropriate that Ngai Tahu have some concerns because the ETS basically jeopardises their settlement, and in their view this amounts to another confiscation. For an iwi that have already signed up to agreements many years ago, they will have to carry the burden of ETS into the future.

The problem is that when the door is closed on settlements, we are leaving it for the iwi to carry the burden. That is, with the passing of this Bill, they have no opportunity to revisit the ramifications of such a Bill our earlier settlements. This is what we have seen in the settlement process time and time again it creates a new grievance. The Crown believes mistakenly that one issue has been settled and they can turn their back on that iwi.

But for us, the concept of settlement is to bring the iwi together with the Crown, to work together constructively. Ngai Tahu want to do that with the Crown and that is absolutely appropriate. We understand their concern, that with the passing of this Bill, we are creating another new grievance. It is a view that others hold.

Tangata whenua have continually maintained that the provisions of the Bill relating to pre-1990 forested Maori land are contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi. We say that the Emissions Trading Scheme undermines the principles of both Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

The Preamble to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 clearly aligns it to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi providing for, among other things, the "development, and utilization of that land for the benefit of its owners, their whanau, and their hapu".

This right is clearly extinguished when a significant cost is imposed for Maori owners to change their land use from forestry when benefit to owners would be achieved by making such a change.

We have also received advice from Maori just this morning, who have let us know that when the first cases go to the Maori Land Court (which they inevitably will when the Ministry for the Environment, Chief Executive tries to have memorials registered on pre-1990 forested Maori land titles) they will then be turning to Labour, the Greens and NZ First to say, that this is what happens when important legislation is dealt with in such a shonky, back room way.

Madam Speaker, Ngai Tahu's concerns for their land and forestry assets are not the only reason why the Maori Party opposes the ETS.

The Maori Party accepts that any Emissions Reduction Programme will result in changes to land values, and will enable the government, business and the public to account for the environmental costs on business, including forestry. So that is not the reason why we oppose the Bill. The primary reasons why the Maori Party opposes the Bill, is that:

* it is not effective in reducing emissions;
* it is not transparent;
* and polluters do not pay, they receive massive subsidies in the form of corporate welfare, so the whole point of economic incentives to cut emissions is defeated.

Our SOP is a best shot at pulling all concerns Maori hold, onto the agenda. It is a short statement, but the ramifications are far reaching.

BACKGROUNDER # 2


CTU MEDIA RELEASE

2 September 2008

ETS bill a good compromise - CTU

The CTU welcomes the progress being made in Parliament on the emissions trading scheme.

Peter Conway, CTU Economist said today that unions have been focused on a range of issues including adequate protection for industry and jobs, transitional support for those affected, assistance and compensation for those on low incomes, the involvement of workers in energy efficiency programmes and developing the right set of skills for workers in a more sustainable economy.

"In addition, the CTU has argued that climate change policy should be broad-based and not rely too substantially on market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading. Community and work-based education campaigns and other energy conservation measures as well as adequate, stringently enforced regulations are needed to work alongside emissions trading."

"The CTU also recognises that although New Zealand can do little on its own about global emissions, we should 'do our bit' and also note that our export trade could be adversely affected if we are seen by the rest of the world to be slow to take action on reduction of emissions."

The compromise worked out between the Government and other parties in Parliament incorporates major issues of concern to unions, Peter Conway said. "This includes the one-off electricity rebate to all households in 2010, the one-off cash payment to families who are in receipt of benefits, superannuation and Working for Families tax credits in 2010, the $1 billion dollar energy efficiency fund, and the contestable innovation fund of 150,000 units a year."

"The National Party in Government signed up to the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. Ten years down the track it is time for New Zealand to make a decent start on action. This Bill is not perfect and there will continue to be debate about climate change but the risks of not taking concrete steps outweigh any disadvantages," Peter Conway said.

BACKGROUNDER # 3


RAM chair Grant Morgan's email to CTU president Helen Kelly
5 September 2008

HELEN KELLY
President
Council of Trade Unions

Hello Helen,

The Residents Action Movement, better known as RAM, notes the CTU's qualified support for the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

RAM believes that the ETS, which should be more accurately named a "pollution market", will be very bad for workers and very bad for the environment.

While Green MPs are supporting what the CTU calls a "compromise" with Labour and NZ First, the Maori Party has come out strongly against the whole concept of an ETS.

On behalf of RAM, I request that:

1. The CTU publicise the Maori Party and RAM's criticisms of the ETS within all affiliated unions so more than one side of the story is heard by workers.

2. The CTU sponsor a democratic, inclusive and informed debate within all affiliated unions about whether or not workers should support a pollution market. (RAM is ready and willing to engage in this debate.)

3. After all protagonists in the debate have had a fair chance to put their cases before all the rank-and-file, the CTU oversee a collective vote within all affiliated unions.

Helen, I would appreciate you putting these three RAM requests before the next meeting of the CTU National Affiliates Council, and letting me know the outcome.

A RAM media release dealing with these questions is being issued. FYI, it is reprinted in full below.

Solidarity,

Grant Morgan

Chair of RAM - Residents Action Movement

021 2544 515
grantmorgan()paradise.net.nz
PO Box 13-157 Auckland
www.ram.org.nz

END