Green Party Q&As – Quentin Duthie

1.    What is the most important perception – or misperception or baggage – your party needs to overcome to win more votes in October?

The Green Party has been seen as a minor party promoting niche policies rather than a potential part of the next Government. Some voters fail to recognize that MMP means that it is almost inevitable that smaller parties will play a role in forming the next Government. In addition, some of our once ‘niche’ and ‘radical’ policies around the environment and social fairness have been adopted by major parties, although often only rhetorically. The Greens have shown how much we can achieve much without being part of Government, we are now ready for the next level. With more MPs the Greens can provide the ‘change’ in Government that is needed.

[Editor: Says Quentin, "One challenge is to not allow our social policies to be "boxed into a left of Labour" posture. He notes that as a party with parliamentary representation, and therefore involved in all policy-making, the Greens cannot limit themselves to only an environmental agenda, even if that might appeal to more people. Moreover, he says, major economic, social and environmental issues are inter-twined and can't be effectively dealt with in isolation.]

2.    What are the three most important accomplishments of the Green Party resulting from its cooperation with the Labour government?

The Green Party has been in opposition since 1999, working with the Labour-led Governments on particular policy areas. From 2002-2005 we voted against the Government on confidence and supply, and in this term we have abstained. Our level of co-operation has therefore been issue-by-issue rather than as part of coalition Government. Three accomplishments from our co-operation are:
A) Climate change – our policy for a price on carbon has finally been realized, albeit it is not urgent, fair or effective enough
B) Transport – our influence on major transport legislation and our pressure on the Government has begun to shift the balance towards building public transport infrastructure, and the Prime Minister has finally begun to acknowledge the end of cheap oil
C) A raft of environmental funds and improvements that are supplementary rather than structural, yet have plugged crucial gaps, empowered communities, and assisted our environment. E.g. legal aid, environment centres, wetlands, community funds, contaminated sites, environmental education. There have also been a raft of social initiatives of equal significance.

3.    Doesn’t the presence of a Green Party in Parliament actually reduce the pressure on the governing party to itself take a more dynamic and accountable role in protecting the environment? In the years the Green Party has supported Labour, has NZ’s “clean, green” image and reality improved?

The Greens have not ’supported’ Labour, but co-operated on areas of mutual agreement. A Green Parliamentary does not reduce pressure on Government; to the contrary, it has added pressure. Our presence gives communities and community groups – especially those who cannot vote such as children and the environment, and those marginalized such as beneficiaries and low-waged – a voice in a Parliament dominated by big business lobbies and vested interests. We work with the community to push the Government into action. For example, it is no coincidence that all five Members’ Bills passed this term of Parliament were Green Bills, and made great strides on waste minimization, children’s rights, and workers’ rights.

Many environmental indicators have worsened in the past decade – including crucial ones like greenhouse gas emissions, water quality and many parts of threatened biodiversity. Other areas – such as some conservation protection, waste minimisation, and energy efficiency – have been turned around. Green influence has reduced the slide, but we need to be in Government to arrest it and begin the necessary improvement.

4.    Some people believe local NZ governments lack both the expertise and the political will to staunchly protect the environment … do you agree? Do you believe central government should be more proactive in setting clear and strict national environmental standards? Should the RMA be changed to better protect the environment?

There always needs to be a balance of local participation in decision-making and national consistency. The RMA was designed to have national guidance and within that to be participatory at the local level. The Greens support more national guidance, particularly for water and energy where there is a clear national interest, but we would note erode the rights of communities. Given threats to gut the RMA from National (including removing community objection on landscape or amenity grounds), and erosion of elements such as national guidance being used to facilitate development rather than protect the environment, we will focus on defending the RMA and improving national guidance so rules and standards meet environmental goals and are clear and consistent.

[Editor: "Reform" of the RMA as proposed by National is a hot issue to Greens. Using an analogy to software, Quentin says: "Everything gets blamed on the RMA. But the code's not wrong" … it's bad data and how the Act gets used that can produce dodgy outcomes. Giving the RMA a rating of 7-8 (where 10 is ideal), he argues that more national environmental standards and policy specificity are needed, and ministries like DoC and MfE need to be more aggressive in the RMA submission process about protecting the values they are charged to uphold.]

5.    On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is world-class, how would you rate the quality of health care most Kiwis receive? What are the most important improvements that must be made to improve that score?

7.5. Fundamentally our public health system is very good relative to other countries – it is still by and large free and publicly accessible. Our lifestyle and aging population increases cost pressure on that system annually, in part because it structurally forgets the need to seriously promote wellness as well as fix illness. The Green Party would protect the public health system, but also focus on preventative health, including addressing the social and environmental causes of preventable illness. We have begun that work through $1 billion for warm dry homes, junk food out of schools and off TV, reducing air and water pollution, and strong advocacy for the Public Health Bill which Labour has dropped the ball on.

[Editor: The Public Health Bill would enact various prevention and wellness measures in areas like school nutrition, anti-smoking and alcohol abuse. When I questioned his relatively high grade for the health system, Quentin's revealing comment was: "I'm pretty fit, so I haven't had to use the health system."]

6.    What is the single most important step required to ensure a vibrant NZ economy ten to twenty years into the future?

To become sustainable and protect our best market advantage across all sectors – our clean, green brand. Without urgent, fair and effective action on climate change, water and food production, our economy and environment are in dire straits.

7.    What are the three most important national infrastructure investments NZ needs to make over the next ten years?

A)    Further public transport infrastructure to reduce dependence on expensive oil and reduce transport emissions – this work includes rail upgrades and electrification
B)    Widespread rollout of energy efficiency and conservation measures, distributed generation and cogeneration, and some development of appropriately-sited new renewable electricity to displace our reliance on thermal generation.
C)    Third, I consider that the way that some of our agricultural production uses rivers and lakes as industrial sewers, and the looming threats of climate change (both adaptions to increased extreme weather predictions and the absolute need to find innovative emission reductions), mean that a sustainability overhaul of our agricultural sector requires infrastructural investment.

[Editor: Quentin elaborated on the last item. Using the examples of water storage and bio-fuels, his point is that individual farmers cannot reasonably be expected to deal farm-by-farm with some of the infrastructure and technology challenges posed by changes like global warming and rising environmental standards. Their collective bodies and the government need to play a more proactive role.]

8.    Drinking legislation is now under special review, and most would expect some tightening of controls to occur. What further controls on alcohol sales or consumption do you support?

A drug-free lifestyle is healthiest. Drug use, be it alcohol or tobacco or cannabis should be treated as a health issue. I am not an expert on this area, but I would apply the Greens’ harm reduction principle on proposed controls to the sale and consumption of alcohol. Specifically, we would provide more funding for education programmes in schools and communities, and ban TV ads for alcohol. Raising the age limit is only one possible solution, and is somewhat unfair on responsible users. Solutions must focus on effective outcomes, not just be populist knee-jerk reactions.

9.    Would you advise the Green Party to support a governing arrangement that included Winston Peters in a Ministerial position? What ethical benchmarks would the Green Party set for Parliament?

The Green Party has already set high ethical benchmarks for parliament – in our MPs’ own behaviour, work with other parties on a code of conduct, and our support for strong rules around election finances. A poll recently found that Jeanette Fitzsimons was the country’s most trusted party leader and our MPs are constantly admired for focusing on policy not personality, demonstrating the way our actions have set benchmarks. That would continue. Winston Peters? I would advise against working with him because I don’t personally trust him and trust is crucial when dealing with issues and policies that affect New Zealanders.

10.    Whether or not you make the decisions on these matters, your views on high profile local and regional issues define you to voters in Hawke’s Bay. In just a sentence or two, tell us your position on:

Developing Ocean Beach, as proposed by Andy Lowe and Hill Country

I oppose this development, and hope that the Coastal Policy Statement currently under review will raise the bar for coastal development and pollution. Our wild public places are irreplaceable.

Building the Regional Sports Park

This is a local issue for the local community to debate, as they have been rather animatedly. The Council process has been less than perfect, and there are arguments for and against. I do not have a strong opinion on the best solution at this stage.

Extending the Napier Airport runway to accommodate jets

I am most concerned at the bull-headed attitude of the National and Labour MPs, and Mayors, who seem to believe that international tourists will come flocking if we build it. The economic argument for better domestic flight access is stronger, but also not entirely convincing. I am not implacably opposed to the extension, provided there is little or no impact on the wetland, but the public debate needs to be tempered with some serious economic and environmental realism rather than blind parochialism and populism.

Reducing pollution from wood burners in Hawke’s Bay

The Greens support the air quality standard because of the pollution contributes to 1,100 cases of people dying earlier than they would have otherwise, as well as numerous other negative health effects, costing an estimated $1.14 billion per year. However, the way communities go about transitioning to clean heating systems must be fair to low-income households – we must not replace ill-heath from pollution with ill-health from cold damp homes. The Greens $1bn fund for insulation and clean heating will be available to HB homes. The Greens are concerned that the standard overlooks the air pollution from vehicles, which may result all the effort going into fires when a lot of the problem is from transport pollution.

Banning pitbulls

I support the banning of dangerous breeds and the control of menacing dogs in the current Dog Control legislation. American pitbull terriers are already banned from import. Pitbull crosses are popular dogs, so a ban would be a challenge. I support the powers in the new Dog Control Bill where the Government can require neutering of specific breeds such as pitbulls.

Comments

Got something to say?




Subscribe to BaybuzzSubscribe to comments for this article