Labour’s heavy hit
Waihi mine decision illustrates dilemmas Green ministers face
It was something of a paradox that one Green Party minister got steamrolled by its Labour senior partner on the same day another had a moment of triumph: and that both events were lauded by business.
On Tuesday morning Green Party co-leader James Shaw was speaking at the Environmental Defence Society conference, announcing Rod Carr as the new chair of the Climate Change Commission.
At the same time, a press release announced Ministers David Parker and Grant Robertson had overturned a decision by Shaw’s colleague, Land Information Minister Eugenie Sage, not to allow a land sale for Waih¯ı Mines to develop tailings ponds.
Sage had rejected that application under the Overseas Investment Act in May and OceanaGold, the company involved, had gone to the courts to review the decision.
The company had then also put in a new application in August — a move understood to have followed a gentle suggestion from Labour about what options it might have.
Had Parker and Robertson been happy with Sage’s decision, they could have refused to consider the second application and left it to the courts. That they did not do so indicates they believed they would lose in the courts.
The reason for that is in the press release the ministers issued when they announced the second application had been allowed.
“The ministers noted that they are required to assess only the benefits described in the Overseas Investment Act when making their decision.”
That sentence effectively indicates Robertson and Parker believed Sage made a decision for political (or at least irrelevant) reasons rather than the criteria set out in law.
It was a complete steamrolling of Sage and should have Sage considering whether she should continue to hold on to the portfolio.
It amounted to a show of a lack of confidence in Sage’s willingness to properly conduct such decisions, and that Sage was too conflicted by her political beliefs for the job.
That is not to say the steamrolling was not warranted.
One of Sage’s concerns was the environmental impact — an assessment more properly done under the Resource Management Act when the company applies for consent rather than the Overseas Investment Act.
The subsequent decision by Parker and Robertson makes that point clear, saying the decision did not mean the Crown either supported or opposed that consent.
The Waih¯ı mine decision illustrates both the Green Party’s impotence against the larger Labour Party and the dangers in taking on a portfolio which requires a politician to sometimes go against strongly held political positions.
The reason for the concern within Labour was that the first Waih¯ı mine decision sent a wider signal that such decisions could be made on seemingly arbitrary and political grounds, undermining the certainty that the Overseas Investment Act was supposed to ensure.
The Waih¯ı Mine decisions are also a perfect example of the sometimes conflicting priorities of Labour and the Green Party.
In rejecting the application, Sage argued it was contrary to the government objectives on climate change. The three Labour Ministers who considered it said it was consistent with the government priorities of regional economic development and jobs.
In that respect, the move to overturn Sage’s decision will have done the Green Party no harm among its base. That was shown by former Green Party MP — and Coromandel resident — Catherine Delahunty.
Delahunty tweeted that it amounted to a “sabotage” of Sage. Greenpeace’s Russel Norman — a former Green Party co-leader — also said it showed how powerless the Greens truly were, claiming Sage was doing her job in standing up for the national interest.
It will go some way to reversing the damage to Sage among that base after criticism over her earlier approval for Otakiri Springs water bottling company to buy more land.
Many of the Greens’ policy positions are close to Labour’s and as the election looms, the Green Party will be at pains to highlight what distinctions there are.
That happened again later on the same day after Treasury revealed the larger than expected Budget surplus of $7.5 billion.
The Green Party is increasingly sceptical about the Budget Responsibility Rules it agreed to be shackled by before the election.
Those rules were signed up to by co-leader James Shaw as a means to convince the electorate that a Green-Labour alliance would not provoke economic chaos.
However, it is now itching to loosen them. The opening of the Government’s books showed they were over-delivering on meeting those rules — the Government’s net debt was below the 20 per cent target ahead of time, and the surplus was much healthier than expected.
As calls of tax cuts grew, given it was partly the result of a larger than expected tax take, Shaw put out a press release. He said the Government had now proved it could manage the books, and should move on to proving it could meet its other promises as well, such as on poverty and climate change.
The Green Party is often dismissed as the quiet third wheel in the governing arrangement, but of late that wheel has started to squeak.