Posted on 24-7-2002
The
Green View
by Green Party Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons
Six years ago the Greens came to Parliament - at first three
of us, then
seven. And things began to change. Issues were discussed that
had never
been raised in the House before. The old ways of thinking and
acting
practised by the old parties were challenged.
The logging of old growth forests on the West Coast became a
regular matter
for debate as we interpreted to Parliament the views of those
camped out in
the trees in a cold wet winter. And eventually the logging stopped.
We asked why ships carrying plutonium and high level nuclear
wastes were
allowed through our so-called nuclear free zone and introduced
amendments
to the Act to stop them. All other parties voted that down.
We asked why it was counted as a great success that the Crown
balance sheet
had just grown by $3 billion dollars when that turned out to
be made up of
student loan debt to the government and a revaluation of state
houses
because they could now earn market rents!
We raised issues of dioxin before most of Parliament could spell
it and
linked environmental contamination with ill health.
We asked why we were spending $64 million a year to prosecute
adults and
give them criminal records for personal use of a drug but doing
so little
to break the crime rings that peddle drugs to children and spending
so
little on keeping children safe from drugs.
We asked why so many homes were cold, damp and uninsulated and
why NZ
wastes so much energy and we introduced and had passed legislation
to
change that.
In the last term we have asked why we are letting a foreign
owned company
run down our rail system, close services and fail to maintain
tracks and we
put forward a proposal to regain control of our rail network,
invest in it
and use it to reduce energy use and get big trucks off the roads.
We ve asked why we have only ever had a roading strategy when
we need a
sustainable land transport strategy and over the summer we negotiated
such
a strategy with the Government, including ring fenced funding
for public
transport, alternatives to roading, cycling and walking facilities.
We have brokered agreements across the House to amend the new
Health
legislation so that it will not be thrown out and replaced when
there is a
change of government and we ve got agreement from all parties
to a sensible
change to the Rating Act that is now saving money for ratepayers
across the
country.
And we have constantly and repeatedly asked why there is such
a rush to
allow the release of GE into our farms and our environment when
non-one
wants to buy GE food and it will destroy our main marketing
advantage and
our ability to sell at a premium the clean, green, GE Free food
the rest of
the world is crying out for.
Our MPs are seven people who are all experienced campaigners
for issues we
believe in. We have stuck to the issues and not wasted time
on petty point
scoring and mudslinging and Parliament has not been the same
since. These
changes are happening all over the world as Green parties grow
in strength.
Just last Saturday the Tasmanian Greens scored 18.4% in the
state elections
and increased their representation from 1 to 4 or 5 in a Parliament
of 25.
That result is the highest by a Green party anywhere in the
world but in
Belgium, in Germany, in Sweden and throughout Europe, Green
is the colour
of the future.
Over the six years I ve been in Parliament I ve seen two coalitions
formed
and the smaller party destroyed in each case. We have learned
the
parliamentary system through holding the balance of power and
supporting
the Labour led government on confidence and supply. Thirty pieces
of
legislation including key issues like Employment Relations and
ACC have
passed only because of our support but we have also voted against
some of
Labour s bills - notably the so-called Electoral Integrity Bill.
I think
the sight of a Deputy PM leaving his party while still claiming
to be its
Parliamentary leader have shown we were right when we said that
couldn t
work. So we are in a good position now to add to our team of
experienced
MPs a new intake of community based activists, all expert in
their fields.
Let's look at what that team could add to a new government.
Clean air and
water. Children. Education. Transport - rail. Eco-tax reform.
With all this you couldn't possibly say we were a single issue
party. But
that's the way we have been portrayed, because we have said
a continuation
of the moratorium on commercial GE release is a necessary condition
for
support of, or participation in, any government. Over four years
now we
have educated and built awareness of the risks and benefits
of the genetic
revolution. We have argued that genetic science and even genetically
engineered organisms in a contained lab can benefit us with
new knowledge,
new diagnostic tools and new medicines. But that transgenic
organisms are
too unpredictable to release into the environment or our farming
from where
they can never be recalled. Because these new crops and animals
can have
unexpected and dangerous side effects the world does not want
to eat them
and is prepared to pay a good premium to get food that is not
contaminated
by them. The formation of the Sustainability Council has shown
that this is
not a fringe issue. Their main issue is the damage to our markets
and our
economy if we gave up our ability to produce what the world
really wants.
Their scientist, professor Garth Cooper, has said that, as a
previous
member of an ERMA committee, he was not confident that ERMA
was equipped to
protect New Zealand.
Labour's position rests on their assertion that we have the
strictest
regulatory system in the world. That belief has been seriously
challenged
by Corngate. Whatever you believe about what was in the corn,
the record
shows more than a month of official chaos and confusion. The
eventual
decision was to resolve the issue by setting an allowable level
of GE
contamination in any batch of imported seed while allowing it
to be called
GE Free. What is less well known is that the Government itself
ordered no
testing. They relied on the testing ordered by the seed company
and when
the testing lab told them it had more test results and that
it believed it
had discovered the definite presence of GE, the Government did
not even
ask for those results. This is what enabled it to reassess the
results it
did have and decide that Genescan, the internationally recognised
testing
company was wrong about what it had found; ERMA s assessment
was wrong; the
Ministry for the Environment s assessment was wrong. It also
enabled it to
give us a huge sheaf of papers last week in response to our
request for all
documents, which did not include positive evidence of contamination
-
because they had never bothered to ask for it.
The Corngate story has faded from the news, leaving the lasting
impression
of the PM s incandescent anger and categorical denials that
there was any
contamination or any cover up. But the government response has
raised more
questions than it has answered. In particular, it makes me very,
very
afraid of allowing this regulatory system to handle arrangements
for
release of GMOs.
A few weeks ago the only real question for this election was
whether Labour
would have the numbers to govern alone or whether they would
need to work
with the Greens. But Labour has campaigned to destroy the vision
many had
of a Labour-Green government with its extraordinary position
that having
just one policy that we insisted must be part of such a government
would
rule out a coalition. In the process they have seriously damaged
their own
poll ratings as well as ours and created confusion among voters
who are now
casting their votes all over the place as they seek a sharing
of power that
will give some balance to Labour.People didn't vote for MMP
in 1996 so they
could end up with an homogenised government where everyone agreed
all the
time with the Leader. They voted for sharing power, for consultation,
for
more voices round the Cabinet table so that a major party could
never again
do what Labour did in the eighties or National did in the nineties.
In a
desperate bid for absolute power Labour called us pathetic,
fringe,
Luddites, anti-science, against growth and unready for Government
and paid
thousands of dollars to tell the country our policies will lose
jobs
without ever being challenged to say how. We have not returned
the name
calling but we have refused to budge on our one bottom line.
Tomorrow you will see ads in the main dailies funded by the
anonymous big
business backers of the Life Sciences Network. They will feature
the young
talented scientist, Margie Gilpin, whose work was destroyed
in the Lincoln
lab break in last January. They will imply that the Greens somehow
supported this stupid action and that we would damage the careers
of such
people. What they won t tell you is that Dr Gilpin s work could
continue
under the Greens policy. It was in a contained lab and although
it used GE
processes in the lab it was not designed to lead to the release
of a
transgenic organism. It is just one example of the many uses
of genetic
science which can remain contained in the lab. The ad will refrain
from
quoting my press release after the attack which condemned the
break in and
will not raise the interesting question of how an outsider could
have got
past the considerable security and why the police didn t really
bother to
investigate and still have no idea who was behind it. Particularly,
the ad
won't tell you about the many scientists whose funding has been
withdrawn
because of the rush to do mainly GE work. It won't tell you
of the bright
future our scientists could have if we positioned ourselves
as leaders in
the science that underpins sustainability and which could make
the clean
green brand a reality. I want to know who is funding these ads
designed to
attack us - is it the multinational corporations who have the
most to gain
from release of GE in NZ or is it government money sourced from
those Crown
Research Institutes who support and largely make up the Life
Sciences
Network? AgResearch, Crop & Food Research, Forest Research,
HortResearch
are all listed members.
Voters have punished Labour for their vehement attacks on their
most likely
partner in government and Labour support has crashed from a
high of 56% in
one poll to a low of 41% yesterday. The kaleidoscope has been
shaken and
other small parties are now being considered as coalition partners.
Let s
look at their record.
Both Peter Dunne s fundamentalist Christian party and NZ First
have
consistently voted with National over the last six years. They
have both
voted for a less precautionary position on GE even than Labour.
Peter Dunne
voted against more than sixty bills in the last parliament and
voted
against the Government on every confidence motion. It's hard
to guess what
price United would extract for its support for Labour, as they
are very
light on actual policy but their moral conservatism is unlikely
to sit well
with Labour . We know Winston extracts a very high price for
his support
which is why he has been Labour's last choice in the House in
this term. In
return for supporting Labour s fund to invest our super savings
in the
overseas stock market and the anti-defection bill Winston demanded
and got
the badly-drafted pre-Christmas bill on making areas alcohol
free. What
would Winston squeeze from Labour in return for his support?
After all, he
s campaigned this election on just three policies. Will Labour
agree to cut
off the infusion of new blood that immigration brings to this
country? Will
it remove all reference to the Treaty from legislation? Will
it tackle
crime by building the dozens of new jails necessary to house
all the people
Winston wants to put away? Any deal between Winston and Labour
must
inevitably wreck Winston's credibility - or Labour's. More likely,
both
would be irreparably damaged.
Which brings me back to the credibility of the Green Party.
No-one should
be fooled by Labour s spin that the moratorium would stay in
place and the
Greens would bring the government down in 14 months time. Given
their
choice of partners, they will find it very easy to extend the
moratorium
and run a co-operative full term government. It doesn t cost
any money, it
doesn t stop any NZ research and the only people likely to have
a GE
organism ready for release in the next three years are the multinationals.
We have worked with Labour before without agreeing with them
on everything
and we can work with them again. The pundits have devoted much
time in this
campaign to looking at the permutations of which parties could
work in
coalition with each other but one thing is certain. Labour and
the Greens
are the only possible combination that can form a Government
that will
deliver policies that improve our quality of life, while preserving
our
environment. The spectre of a right wing coalition forming the
next
government of New Zealand has become a distressing possibility
over the
last few days. It would be a tragedy if Labour s desperate grab
for
absolute power backfired and made this unholy alliance of the
right a reality.
We hope Labour - and the people of New Zealand - realise the
danger before
it is too late.
|