Chinese steel row wake-up call

ALGAE FACTORS

I read with interest your article ‘‘Algae fix for river a slow process’’ ( which mixes news of the newWhaitua Committee with news that groundwater flowing into the Hutt River contains nutrients. Several years ago Cafe Scientifique hosted a scientist who gave a clear and concise outline of what we call ‘‘toxic algae’’ and how nutrient loading is only one of many factors which affect its prevalence.

The session outlined that 1) ‘‘toxic algae’’ is not algae at all - it is cyanobacteria. 2) it has always been there. 3) it is present worldwide and is an important part of the ecosystem. 4) about a decade ago it suddenly started producing toxic blooms. This happened spontaneously worldwide without any obvious triggers. 5) some rivers and lakes containing cyanobacteria have toxic blooms and some remain entirely non-toxic.

To focus blindly on nutrient runoff in a river that already has ‘‘quite high’’ water quality is to ignore other important factors that quite possibly have a higher impact on toxic bloom. Water temperature is an internationally accepted contributor to bloom levels and increased temperature is directly linked to decreased flow. If we want to decrease blooms in the Hutt River a guaranteed way of doing this would be to reduce the amount of water we take out of the river to feed our water-hungry cities. That means a change in our society’s wasteful water habits. Which in turn means public education and quite possibly a revisit of the metered water debate of a few years ago. But just because these are hard things to talk about doesn’t mean that they are wrong. Iain Matcham Tirohanga

BELMONT HALL

An integrated community facility with Belmont School is an exciting proposition, but like any new proposal it needs to be carefully worked through. This is particularly the case when the proposal involves demolishing aWar Memorial Hall. If we appeared less than enthusiastic with the report to council (Gill Berridge’s letter July 19), this was because it recommended approving the proposal without any engagement or consultation with the community. The first we heard about a shared community facility in Belmont was when we read the report.

The report didn’t address several important points:

Whether the community facility will retain theWarMemorial status of the existing Belmont Hall.

What community usage will be guaranteed.

What will the final ownership model for the facility be, given the suggestion of multiple funders.

Will the Hardwick Smith lounge be retained. In respect of the last point, contrary to Gill’s assertion, integrated facilities tend to replace all community facilities in the immediate area. The council report was silent on this point. At our insistence, the report’s recommendation was changed from approving the proposed facility to consulting with the community. When the council is proposing to replace a hall which has served the community well for 60 years, people are entitled to have their say. Max Shierlaw Margaret Cousins WesternWard Councillors

NO MORE SNAPPER

As a regular user of the trains and buses I would like to know how many users are disappointed by this backward step that all Snapper terminals have been removed from all Wellington Region railway station ticket offices. This is at the same time as recent publicity regarding the plan to increase the use of the Snapper Card across all bus services in the Wellington Region.

I understand it has been made for commercial and technical reasons, but one would think that the IT expertise Wellington is renown for could resolve these difficulties quickly. I appreciate there is a wide network of retailers with Snapper terminals offering the service, but maintaining a good Snapper service at major rail/bus transit points such as Upper Hutt is a priority. Paul Lambert Upper Hutt City Councillor Decades ago, Robert Muldoon claimed that, ‘‘Our foreign policy is trade’’ although – quaintly - we still call our diplomatic hub the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as if these are two different things.

Of late, MFAT has rather prided itself on sustaining a workable diplomatic balance between our fastest growing export market (China) and our closest defence partner (Australia). Moreover, New Zealand has also carved out a niche position in the Pacific between the US and China – without, hopefully, being entirely beholden to either.

Along the way though, New Zealand has also managed to convince itself it is Beijing’s Best Friend in the West. Weren’t we rewarded with the first free trade deal that China signed with a Western country? It had helped that we had virtually no tariff barriers to prevent China from unloading its stuff on our economy. (No wonder they liked the cut of our jib.) However, China stomped our gossamer illusion of friendship right into the dust last week. Reportedly, if we object to their surplus steel being sold here cheaply, they’ll attack our kiwifruit and dairy exports. It has been quite a wakeup call.

Our courtship of the Chinese had gone beyond trade and immigration policy. In Beijing last year, Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee claimed that China poised no foreseeable threat to the Asia-Pacific region. Brownlee also called China a ‘‘strategic partner’’ and lavishly praised our Five Year Engagement Plan with the People’s Liberation Army. ‘‘We do not see our defence relationships with the United States and China as mutually exclusive, ‘‘ Brownlee added. Evidently, the Key government regards the Chinese as military allies, as well as partners in trade. The recent Australian Defence White Paper views China very differently.

True, one can query whether China’s actions amount to ‘‘dumping’’ – or are merely a reflection of the competitive advantage China enjoys, thanks to its cheap labour costs and lower environmental standards. ‘‘Dumping’’ is said to occur only when things are sold at below the cost of production.

Thanks to massive state subsidies, China’s steel mills can afford to do so.

The Americans have objected. Recently the US doubled their tariffs on Chinese steel and condemned China’s refusal to cooperate with anti-dumping investigations. Not a promising outlook, should New Zealand try to investigate what China is up to. In the meantime, we’re using dubious quality Chinese steel

‘‘Our courtship of the Chinese had gone beyond trade and immigration policy.’’

within our transport infrastructure, and the Christchurch rebuild.

So far, Prime Minister John Key has downplayed the likelihood of a Chinese response – even declining to confirm, on confidentiality grounds, whether a dumping complaint against China has been laid here. By contrast, the US and EU governments talk freely about steel dumping, and the responses open to them. They also don’t seem to feel the need for more evidence, before acting.

Ultimately, China may show similar disdain for aWTOruling on steel dumping as it has to the International Court of Justice ruling on territorial rights in the South China Sea. So, we can probably afford to skip the niceties. As Henry Kissinger used to say, countries don’t have permanent friends or enemies, only interests. Perhaps we need to defend them more actively.