CATCH-UP ON LOCAL ISSUES

NEW ZEALAND’S LEAKY HOMES CRISIS

The Building Act 1991, passed under Prime Minister Jim Bolger's Fourth National Government, introduced the ‘light-handed regulation’ of residential construction work.

It reduced controls and standards (such as allowing the use of untreated timber and monolithic claddings) under the assumption that building quality would be mostly assured by industry self-regulation and market-driven forces – with the ‘good’ builders driving out the ‘bad’.

From 1995, builders were permitted to construct house framing with untreated, kiln dried timber. In 1998, the requirement for air gaps behind plaster cladding was dropped, so any moisture that got in was trapped, unable to evaporate. Thousands of homes and public buildings like schools were built using the new materials and techniques.

Over time architects felt liberated by the new materials that had become available and provided homeowners with a wider range of designs that included ‘Mediterranean’ and ‘Californian’ styles with flat roofs without eaves. Buildings of this type had previously been uncommon, given New Zealand’s rainy and windy weather.

The quality issues that these trends created were exacerbated by a decline in building apprenticeships and the loosening of local council’s inspection procedures (partly to save money, partly to please the building industry).

It is estimated that over 40,000 homes are affected and the total cost of restoration is put at nearly $12 billion, of which around 9 percent or $1 billion relates to homes built in the Wellington region.

The average cost of restoration is estimated at around $280,000 per home. [Alternative estimates for New Zealand as a whole rise as high as $23 billion for 89,000 buildings].

John Green who is a senior adjudicator at the Building Disputes Tribunal has gone on record as saying that the leaky building crisis is "a major social and economic problem for the community of unparalleled proportion, penetration and destructive effect, that arose in the wake of the government's building control reforms of the early 90s. Quite simply the outcomes and safeguards anticipated by the Building Act of 1991 did not materialise".

It is claimed that no cabinet decisions were ever made on the issue of the legitimacy of untreated timber. The ruling appears to have been made by the New Zealand Standards Authority which is statutorily independent, such that ministers had no influence by way of either regulation or legislation.

According to Maurice Williamson, New Zealand's Building and Construction Minister, who is responsible for solving the problem:

'If I was to ever direct the Standards Authority on anything I'd be in breach of my warrant as a Minister.

The Standards Authority made these determinations in 1995 and it was mainly borer treatment they were concerned about. That's why they went with kiln dried timber. It was a mistake, but it's a bit rich coming and trying to blame a government who were not allowed to have a say in the setting of standards'.

Attempts to solve the problem have stumbled on the allocation of costs. A prior offer by the current government to provide 10 percent of the restoration finance (leaving 26 percent to local councils and 64 percent to home-owners) was rejected by councils and dismissed as inadequate by residents.

The government’s position was attacked in particular on the grounds that it was paying only 10%, and then receiving 12.5% back in goods and services tax, it was actually ‘making money from the crisis’.

In February 2010, Minister Maurice Williamson warned that the size of the issue - at least $11 billion - was so “gi-normous” that even a government with budget surpluses would struggle to cope, noting that:

"A Government that is running deficits - and has a forecast track of deficits for many years out - has to just sit there with its head in its hands, saying, 'Well, I just don't how to do this'."

However, Prime Minister John Key has recently made a "final, take-it-or-leave-it" offer: the Government will foot 25 per cent of the bill, local councils another 25 per cent and home-owners the remaining 50 per cent.

Only an estimated 23,500 leaky homes will be eligible – this is far fewer than the estimated 44,000 leaky homes that exist. This is because some 15,000 leaky homes were built more than 10 years ago and therefore fall outside the time limit on claims.

Official estimates suggest that about 70 per cent of victims will take up the offer – some will prefer to fight for more from councils and other parties through legal actions so that they can pay less than 50 per cent themselves.

Questions remain though as to the impact of the proposed government expenditure on New Zealand’s public finances and international credit rating.

In Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast has said she is delighted the Government had increased its share of the repair costs. "That is a major win for New Zealanders ... this is about getting New Zealanders back into dry homes."

EXAMPLE – BLIGHT IN BERHAMPORE

The Luxford Villas apartment complex in Berhamphore was built between November 1999 and December 2000 (see lower photo).

The apartments began to leak substantially. The leaks caused extensive rotting and water damage to timber and prejudiced the structural integrity of the balconies of apartments.

The rotting and water damage was first discovered in August 2003. In due course the building owners sued the design and build construction company Arrow for the estimated cost of remedial work.

Luxford's body corporate (management framework) and the unit owners sued Arrow for estimated repair costs of $9 million. In September 2008 Arrow paid $5 million to settle that claim after two mediations.

The complex remains shunned by buyers and renters. A ‘little man’ has gone around sticking metal patches on holes in the walls and several balconies remain boarded off as unsafe. There is no indication that proper remedial work has been undertaken or that the complex has been properly rehabilitated.

The lower floor which formerly housed the ‘Luxford Inn’ public house has been unoccupied for several years and is now in a semi-derelict state.

All in all, the decay of the development has severely blighted Berhampore village centre, prejudicing the efforts of neighboring businesses (like Cafe Italia) to lift the area’s commercial health and upgrade its residential and employment potential.

Attempts by Arrow to invoke indemnity insurance have been ruled invalid partly on the grounds that the building is a “product”, such that a defective products exclusion provision applies.

One problem with the ‘package’ that has been announced by government and endorsed by the Wellington City Council is that it will do nothing to remedy the problems of areas like Berhampore.

Here money has been recovered by the body corporate but legal complications and challenges, linked with tardiness and bloody-mindedness, appear to have stymied progress – leaving an ugly scar on the community that shows every sign of scabbing but no sign of healing.

THE OVERALL SITUATION IN WELLINGTON - $87 MILLION THREAT TO RATES

[From Amanda Fisher, Dominion Post 26th May 2010]

‘Wellington City Council's bill to fix leaky homes has blown out to $87 million – more than three times previous estimates.

And ratepayers, including those still living in rotting homes, may have to pay for it with a rise in their rates.

The city council will vote tonight on whether to support the Government's rescue package – in which the Government and council will each meet 25 per cent of repair costs. There are an estimated 2,115 leaky Wellington homes eligible for the scheme.

Deputy Mayor Ian McKinnon (chairing the Council meeting because Mayor Kerry Prendergast has a potential conflict of interest with a leaky homes investigation into her own apartment – see upper photo) said funding would come from increasing rates or borrowing funds.

The council's liability for leaky homes was previously estimated at $26m. It has so far spent $9.3 million on leaky homes payouts, $2.8m of which was legal costs. Mr McKinnon expected at least 70 per cent of Wellington leaky-home owners would opt into the scheme.

That would amount to a bill of $61m, although that could rise steeply if the other owners successfully sued the council.

"If such people are successful, it would obviously cost the council considerably more."

If all eligible homeowners opted into the scheme, the cost to the council would be $87m. The council had $7.5m set aside in a leaky homes contingency fund.

Building litigation specialist Dan Parker believed more than 30 per cent of owners of leaky homes would want to sue the council.

"I would be very surprised if it was anything like [70 per cent] that would opt for that."

Under the scheme, owners would have to foot half the repair bill themselves, but Mr Parker said he had represented homeowners who had recovered full costs.

Councillor Celia Wade-Brown said the deal was as good as local councils would get.

"This is a way of limiting [council] liability and most importantly ensuring any public money goes to fix the houses, not paying lawyers' bills."

Rates may have to rise several per cent, she said.

Councillor Iona Pannett said it would be difficult to borrow money knowing future ratepayers had to pay it back. "Why should future generations be burdened?"

It was a "devastating call" to potentially deprive communities of new swimming pools or sports fields’.

THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Let’s do some quick ‘back-of-the-envelope’ calculations.

Wellington City Council’s Net Assets / Equity is currently about $5.75 billion.
Annual income for 2010 is projected at around $366 million, of which around 58 percent derives from property rates on businesses and householders. The remainder comes from other income sources that are less reliable and less easy to adjust.

Current borrowings are in the region of $260 million.

The New Zealand Treasury’s prudential guidelines are that:

1. Borrowings should be lower than 10 percent of the value of equity. The current percentage is about 4 percent.
2. Borrowings should be lower than 150 percent of the value of income. The current percentage is about 71 percent.

If you add an $87 million obligation into the pot, the borrowings to equity ratio rises to about 6 percent and the borrowings to income ratio moves up to around 92 percent. Both ratios are still acceptable but both have deteriorated significantly.

But there are other potential problems.

Depending of course on when the Leaky Buildings money is called, any borrowings will affect the percentages allowed for borrowings with different terms. If the bulk of the call is within the next three years, the ceiling for 1-3 year loans (set at no more than 60 percent of the total) may be hit.

And things could be even worse if more homeowners forego the government's offer and then successfully sue the Council.

And of course, if you are looking for money, the low interest rates that are currently being enjoyed cannot last. The average for current borrowings is 5.6 percent per annum, forecast to rise to 6.7 percent. But the latter may be very optimistic, given turbulence in the world’s financial markets and WCC’s declining financial ratios.

What are the alternatives?

• Raise rates by say 6 percent?
• Introduce drastic expenditure cuts (e.g. swimming pools and libraries)?
• Sell WCC’s shares in Wellington Airport?
• ?

It would be nice to let the electorate know what is intended – particularly when a ‘major financing review’ is timed for October (conveniently after the Local Council Elections early in that month).

WHAT'S FIRST - GLITZ OR WHANAUTANGA?


There are a growing number of decisions by Wellington City Council that expose a rift between encouraging outside visitors to the benefit of the businesses and meeting the needs of local residents in a caring and cost-effective way.

Take the brand shift from the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary to ‘Zealandia’ as a case in point. What started as a wholly laudable attempt to create an urban refuge for native wildlife, to the benefit of both birds and residents has become transformed into an ‘attraction’ to lure high-spending outside visitors - accompanied by a $10 million interest free loan funded by ratepayers and a rise in fees from $28 for adults, $14 for children and $70 for family passes.

And the ongoing shift in the rates burden from commercial to residential rate payers makes it much more difficult to justify for shifting spending away from community facilities to ‘attractions’. In the coming year, homeowners are likely to see a 6.5% real increase in their rates while rates in the commercial sector will be close to zero.

Equity alone suggests that gold-plating costs should lie primarily with those that they benefit in the business sector - and that greater care in spending is due to homeowners who are being co-opted as funders and guarantors.

Not only that, the market for ‘attractions’ is limited and often a matter of beggar-thy-neighbour politics that only benefits a limited number of local businessmen. Wellington steals the Wearable Arts Show from Nelson; Auckland tries to steal the Rugby Sevens from Wellington. And so it goes on, there is no overall gain – just a reallocation of spending.

As for international visitors, there is increasing evidence that events like the South African Soccer World Cup and the forthcoming London Olympics put frightening amounts of public money at risk for very uncertain and sporadic returns. In fact one recent study has cast doubt on the possibility of any net benefits from these kinds of shenanigans in most cases, particularly in a world economy with tightening travel budgets.

So let our outside visitors share what we can reasonably afford to provide for our residents – investments that reflect community values and that meet local needs and aspirations. After all, this is probably what most outside visitors are seeking – the possibility of sharing something local, real and thoroughly Kiwi – which of course also includes Zealandia’s native birds.

Also give residents a break from funding big ticket ‘attractions’. It is time in the current economic climate to close off the wish-list for the while in favour of making sure that our local communities can work together and thrive. Let’s park any talk of a $26 million Marine Education Centre or the current Mayor's favourite an Ice Rink, until we can properly fund libraries and integrated public transport.

And please, we don’t need a statue or work of art in every nook on the Waterfront when communities like Berhampore are desperate for Council assistance in tidying up leaky and derelict buildings that tear the heart out of local enterprise and community self-confidence.




THE LOCAL LEHMAN COLLAPSE?

Wellington City may be on the edge of its own little Lehman Brothers collapse. Let’s hope not – but the string of bad news and bad mouthing concerning the property empire of Terry Serepisos is starting to cast some deep shadows.

This involves a fascinating saga of sorcerer apprenticeship, overreach, and greed by a purported soccer club magnate.

And at a wider level, it raises some interesting issues about three particularly Kiwi characteristics: the perception of ‘integrity’; backing off from hard questions and confrontation; and what Simon Upton calls the ‘cosy intimacy of a small society in which a small leadership group share out the jobs’.

THE SEREPISOS PHENOMENA

Last year it seems Terry Serepisos contacted the NZ National Business Review – compilers of the NBR Rich List – to tell them he was worth millions more than the publication had thought, and that his ranking in the list should be elevated. In what NBR's editor Nevil Gibson described as a "very unusual" move, Serepisos then produced letters saying he was worth $140 millon.

Terry is the ‘Boss’ in the NZ version of the Reality TV show ‘The Apprentice’, playing ther role made famous by Donald Trump. This allows him to harangue the poor unfortunates who aspire to his fortune and lifestyle. However, he has admitted to the Dominion Post that he was "not immune to the global crisis; people owe me a lot of money".

But fellow in-your-face and catty property developer Bob Jones comments:

"He made imprudent decisions, simple as that... bleating about the recession, I'm tired of it”.

Jones also accused Serepisos of being thirsty for publicity and willing to attend frivolous events – "like hairdresser openings" – in a bid to get his face in newspaper society pages.

"He's a harmless little fellow, he likes getting into the paper and there is nothing wrong with that." "I saw him at a function, you can't talk to Terry, he has got no conversation."

And I have to add that Terry has also taken on the role of a Russian oligarch in funding the Wellington Phoenix Soccer Club – and given us a great season.

So there we have it – an inveterate self-publicist, celebutante and member of the Lambton glitterati with all the charisma of a boiled egg – but to be absolutely fair, someone who loves soccer.

BAD DEBTS AND A BAD TASTE

Well first of all, the ‘goss’!

Dave Burgess of The Dominion Post has been doing a great job in investigative journalism pointing out that, in the case of Terry Serpisos:

• Numerous suppliers and sub-contractors are complaining about unpaid bills amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars
• Terry owes/ owed $116,000 in unpaid rates in neighbouring Lower Hut
• Tycoon Terry owes over $2 million to Wellington City Council in unpaid rates
• Terry is a personal friend of the Mayor Kerry Prendergast and her property developer husband Rex Nicholls
• Terry has sold his spare Ferrari.

All this has not gone totally unnoticed, even among the extraordinarily tolerant, reasonable and non-confrontational NZ public.

I regularly call in across the road to visit my local ‘Deli’ (corner store) here in Island Bay and chat to my friend ‘Alan’.

Alan is from Gujerat and works literally ‘all hours’. His wife is also up at 6.00 a.m. most mornings stacking supermarket shelves. Those two are so admirable as to almost defy hyperbole. They have their reward emerging in the ‘next life’ as their children go on to Victoria University to join New Zealand’s mainstream.

Alan is certainly not a guaranteed Labour voter – he is scathing about the young hoodies who come into his shop with their baggy pants hanging down to the back of their knees, and then complain about not being able to get a job.

But he is incensed that people like Terry Serepisos should get special treatment on the delayed payment of property rates. He sees it illustrating a ‘one law for the rich – one law for the poor’ system.

And the current Wellington City Council is on the back foot about all this and an email has been intercepted from Council Chief Executive, saying:

"I want to stress that Mr Serepisos has not and is not receiving favourable treatment from the council.

"Nor has the mayor been personally involved in any financial dealings between the council and Mr Serepisos or any other ratepayer."

Mr Poole said in his email that councils could not disclose or discuss information about ratepayers.

"This means I cannot publicly talk about our dealings with Mr Serepisos."

He was dealing with the matter behind closed doors with council chief financial officer Peter Garty.

Dave Burgess noted today that:

‘It is understood Mr Serepisos was given until last Friday to pay up. However, the deadline was not met by the property mogul who has now missed several similar council deadlines. A council spokesman said privacy concerns prevented it from commenting on individual ratepayer's debt.

But The Dominion Post has learnt the council is weighing up whether to demand payment directly from banks – including ASB – that hold mortgages over Mr Serepisos's properties.

The Ratings Act allows the council to take overdue rates straight from mortgages. Last year it took $1.32m directly from the mortgages of 571 homeowners – at an average of $2,311.

So let’s not weigh up – let’s weigh in and get the money back.

Is there a feeling that Serepisos is ‘too big to fail’?

Surely, all the evidence and experience of the ongoing world financial crisis shows that this kind of reasoning leads to further financial abuses. If we have to suffer a bit here in Wellington for the mistakes of our petty tycoons who we have encouraged by our reticence and good manners, best to take it on the chin and preserve our long-term independence and good name.

Quoting Adam Smith from 1776, Der Spiegel recently reminded us that "A fair, open and avowed bankruptcy is always the measure which is both least dishonourable to the debtor, and least hurtful to the creditor."

And it is understood Mr Serepisos told the council that taking action to recover the $2m could jeopardise the Wellington Phoenix football franchise he owns.

Mr Serepisos said he had put about $5m of his own money into the Hyundai A-League club since establishing it three years ago.

What a cheek – do we smell blackmail?

Just hold the phone there! Mr Serepisos owes at least $2 million dollars to his fellow ratepayers and probably half a million or more in unpaid bills – doesn’t this mean that the community has actually staked at least half of the capital required to fund the Phoenix Soccer Club?

INTEGRITY AND THE MATES RATES CULTURE

As with ‘Clean and Green’ the world often sees what it wants in New Zealand.

Transparency International regularly puts us at the top of the international ‘Worldwide Corruption Perception Index’, ahead of Denmark and 179 places above the wooden spoon basket case Somalia.

The trouble with this is (again referring back to Simon Upton) is we live in a small society in which the elite essentially run a ring against intruders.

This is a modern business reflection of the founding colonial ‘mateship ethic’ that still permeates New Zealand. At the local level, if you want something done by a builder or tradesman, you can always ask for ‘mates’ rates’ on a personal basis, backed by a beer. The same applies for bigger deals with more profit over a gin at the Golf Club or a cocktail or two at a smart reception.

But don’t be pushy or challenge the status quo too hard at the top as properties, positions and opinions are often ‘tightly held’ by the in-groups - even though this strait-jacket chokes enterprise, initiative and creativity for the nation as a whole.

This I would suggest explains a good deal about the widening of income differentials in New Zealand beyond those evident in the United Kingdom, and our failure as a nation to keep up with Australia or even the second peleton of the OECD in terms of overall economic growth.

We have to remember that as Adam Smith also commented in the Wealth of Nations:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

Especially so in a small society – and even more suspect in the case of a cosy coterie of councillors and city property developers.

ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER TO COMMUNITY CONFIDENCE IN THE COUNCIL





I attended the Environment Court here in Wellington yesterday to follow up on an application by the Wellington City Council to rezone for residential use some land that looks to all intents and purposes to be part of the Te Kopahou (Red Rocks) Reserve.

This reserve has important conservation values and is a unique Wellington asset. Within 600ha of land there is a variety of walking and mountain biking tracks, popular diving, surfcasting and beachcombing areas, fur seals, interesting flora, historic sites and outstanding views.

A couple of point struck me forcibly.

The first was the extraordinary cost of the whole exercise. It is planned for two days and involves three judicial panelists. As these are paid around $220,000 per year, their attendance alone plus 4 weeks each prep and adjudication time (assuming a 220 day working year) was worth $66,000. A rough assessment of overheads from court staff and building and travel costs at 45% pushes this to say $100,000.

If you then allow for the legal costs of the Council at $90,000 and those of the objectors (say $60,000), you are up to $250,000. Plus the cost of the time spent by all the experts (either diverted from other tasks or donated) – say a total of 12 expert witnesses valued at $800 per day spending an average of 2 weeks on preparation, gives $115,000.

So, a rough back of the envelope calculation comes up around $365,000. All this is to get the go-ahead to sell two sections worth $250,000 each. Does this make any kind of sense?

Second, it seems that you have to have a PhD nowadays to be able to say the most banal things.

There was, for example, a serious zoological lady who was cross-questioned about penguin burrows. She had to prevaricate about whether the traces of a penguin track-way in the Bush indicated that there may at some time have been a burrow that had or had not been occupied.

And then, much more scandalously in my view, there was the ‘urban design specialist’ called by the Council who opined about whether the entranceway or perceived ‘gateway’ to the Reserve was where the current street ended (self-evident in my view – marked 2 above and pictured in the lowest photograph) or where the Council had self-servingly erected a sign (marked 1 above).

The specialist (on oath) swore that the sign marked the ‘gateway’, citing a good deal of Post-Modern babble.

It was a shame that, instead of shuffling papers and pointing at the wallboards, everyone could not have simply jumped in a couple of mini-buses and gone down there.

Anyhow if the Council wins, the penguins and the public are likely losers one way and another. And ‘heads you lose, tails I win’, the officials, lawyers and experts will have notched up another win in the battle for the survival of the fittest.

The Dominion Post story:

COUNCIL IN BATTLE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT

By TIM DONOGHUE - The Dominion Post, 02/03/2010

The fight against a housing development planned for the entrance to the Red Rocks roadway on Wellington's rugged south coast has been taken to the Environment Court.

Wellington City Council wants to sell two sections at 178 and 180 Owhiro Bay Pde, less than 100 metres from the Red Rocks visitor centre. It also wants to zone the sections for residential development.

However, residents have vowed to fight the proposal.

The Southern Environmental Association, supported by Action for Environment Inc, wants the sections rezoned from rural to open B space, which would prevent residential development.

The council wants the sections rezoned from rural to outer residential, making them easier to sell.

The environmental groups say the rezoning to open B space would allow the sections to be retained as part of the overall car park area at the entranceway to the coastal park.

Southern Environmental Association chairwoman June Epsom said outside the court yesterday that the community wanted open space retained for the coastal site.

If the council won the case, the rezoning might mean four two-storey houses or a multi-unit development being constructed on the site, she said.

"Under the council's proposals for the land, developers would be able to remove the bottom five metres of the coastal escarpment ... by obtaining a resource consent.

"Potential natural habitat for little blue penguins observed on the site during 2009 would be lost," she said.

Council lawyer Stephen Quinn told the court rezoning to open B space to enable car parking would be inappropriate. "Car parking on both sides of the entry and placed up against the escarpment base would be very poor visually," Mr Quinn said.

The sections were not essential to serve the future foreseeable recreational needs of the community.

"There is already overflow space available outside the formal car parking area on the seaward side of Owhiro Bay Pde.

"This is regarded as an acceptable activity by the council's transportation and parks planners."

The case is being heard by Judge Craig Thompson.



A WIN - PENGUINS ICE DEVELOPERS

[From the Southern Environmental Association, Wellington, Friday Apr 16, 2010]

‘The Environment Court has just issued a wonderful 28 page decision approving Open Space zoning for the public coastal land at 178-180 Owhiro Bay Parade (at the entrance to the Te Kopahau Reserve - the former Owhiro Bay Quarry) and ruling out the residential development being promoted by Wellington City Council.

The ruling was as requested by the Southern Environmental Association, Action For Environment Inc, Owhiro Bay Residents' Association, and Island Bay Residents' Association at the Environment Court Hearing held on 1-3 March 2010.

The Court has firmly rejected Wellington City Council's request for Outer Residential zoning of the site to provide for housing development.

This means that the land will be protected as open space for future generations (and a habitat for penguins) – at least until the next challenge!


MILK STILL MUDDYING THE WATER

A 2009 Report Card has recently been released for the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord that was signed in 2003 between Fonterra, the ministers of Agriculture and the Environment, and regional councils, which aims to minimise the negative impact of NZ dairying on waterways.

The Accord set targets to keep dairy cattle out of waterways, treat farm effluent, and manage the use of fertilisers and other nutrients.

Only two out of the five targets were met in 2009. Overall:

• The average level of significant non-compliance – which increases the risk of environmental harm – of effluent treatment rose from 12 per cent to 15 per cent in the past year.
• The rate of farms properly treating or discharging their dairy farm effluent dropped from 64 per cent to 60 per cent.


NATIONAL GOVERNMENT PLANS TO MINE NATIONAL PARKS

The NZ Forest and Bird organization has sent the letter below to Prime Minister John Key:

“Dear Mr Key,

I strongly disagree with the government’s proposal to remove our protected areas from Schedule 4 to allow exploration and mining activities. All of the areas proposed have outstanding ecological and landscape value, which is why they were originally protected.

Schedule 4 was put in place by the National government in 1997 to protect and safeguard the future of our core conservation areas. Protected and safeguarded they should continue to be.

I therefore do not support the government’s proposals to remove the following areas from Schedule 4 and open them to mining:

• The Inangahua sector of Paparoa National Park
• The Otahu Ecological Area in the Coromandel - Parakawai Geological Area in the Coromandel Peninsula
• An additional seven areas in the Coromandel Peninsula totalling 2,574 hectares
• 705 hectares of the Te Ahumata Plateau are on Great Barrier Island

In contrast, I support the addition to the schedule of the 12,400ha of conservation land that now qualifies to be in schedule 4.

Marine reserves, national park additions plus numerous scientific, scenic and nature reserves should automatically be added to Schedule 4 once gazetted to ensure protection from mining and exploration activities.

I do not support the government’s proposal to subsidise the minerals industry by spending $4million to investigate the mineral potential in our other conservation areas. Public conservation land belongs to the public of New Zealand and should be protected now and for our future generations.

Our protected areas must remain protected.

Yours sincerely,

Concerned Citizen’


SOFT SOAP, GREENWASH AND BAD LANGUAGE

[Extract from The Economist, March 23rd 2010: ‘A backlash to New Zealand’s vow of purity]

‘Last November, UK Guardian, a British newspaper, environmental journalist Fred Pearce pointed out that New Zealand’s greenhouse-gas emissions had risen 22% since 1990 (its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol was to keep them level) and were now 60% greater per head than Britain’s.

The current NZ emissions-trading scheme excludes agricultural emissions until 2015, and its generous allocations of free carbon credits to business have been lambasted by environmentalists. The country’s transport strategy favours road-building over already-scant public transport, and there is much talk of the need to ease resource-management rules that act as barriers to business.

In February, the government revealed it was considering opening some of the country’s pristine public land up for mining—an activity to which the Dwarves in “The Hobbit” are much given, but which is not popular with more Elvish sensibilities.

Energetic lobbying by environmental groups forced it to scale back the amount of land under consideration, but on March 22nd it announced that it still intended to open 7,000 hectares of conservation land to mining, with other conservation areas to be surveyed for their mineral potential.

Even the government’s boasts of reforestation to replace forests cleared for dairy farming are less green than they might appear. As the Guardian reported, these forests are not long-term sinks for carbon, but plantations, which will when harvested return carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The Sustainability Council of New Zealand, an independent body, has also criticized this approach as playing games with Kyoto targets.

In many ways, the dilemma New Zealand faces is no different to that of other rich countries—how to balance economic growth with the need to address environmental degradation. But it is particularly acute in a country so dependent on the export of commodities and landscape-driven tourism.

The difference between New Zealand and other places is that New Zealand has actively sold itself as “100% Pure”. Now that New Zealanders themselves are acknowledging the gap between the claim and reality, and the risk to their reputation this poses, it is time for the country to find itself a more sustainable brand, and soon’.

When tackled on these claims by an Australian reporter, New Zealand’s normally amiable prime minister, John Key angrily dismissed them as “bollocks”.