Environmentalists Are Not The Problem, Mr Groser

It's behind an NBR paywall, but I'm told this is how Trade Minister Tim Groser described the threat to our "100% Pure" image.

“Our enemies who are internal, will find one cow in one stream and feed it back to environmental activists in the developed world to be used to try to exclude New Zealand’s products and services in the ludicrous belief this will somehow help New Zealand.” 

The 100% pure brand was used to market the New Zealand tourism experience and it has been deliberately manipulated in this space,” Mr Groser says.

The "100% Pure" brand might be a good one for the tourism folk, but we don't live up to the promise. The brand trades on New Zealand's reputation for being an unspoilt paradise, but it's a reputation we don't deserve. Our streams and waterways are dirty, our agricultural emissions are growing, and we subsidise our biggest polluters. There is also no sense of urgency within central government about the threat to our clean green image.

We're not the most polluted country in the world, but nor are we clean. We should aspire to be a country where the physical environment we live in is nurtured and cherished, rather than being treated as a dumping ground.

If our clean green image is so important, why isn't the government Groser is a part of doing more to protect it? Groser's attack on environmentalists is a clumsy attempt to divert attention from the government's failures.

Nobody living in a democracy should be talking about "internal enemies", but if we must identify those responsible for the failure of our "100% Pure" brand, let's start with the polluters, not those who are trying to improve the environment.

Our Man Phil

I’m yet to see anything remarkable come out of the New Zealand WikiLeaks cables. We have learned that various politicians are prone to saying one thing in public, while behind closed doors saying something else. Or so it would appear.

For example, who remembers Chris Finlayson saying anything publicly about just dumping our anti-nukes position without consultation – even if the policy is a relic from the Cold War that is merely symbolic?

I also found intriguing the cable of a meeting between Trade Minister Tim Groser and US official Robert Clark in September last year. 

After asking his two DFAT advisors to leave the room, Groser opened what he termed a frank political discussion. He outlined the political landmines that might befall any trade discussions with the U.S. He described Opposition Leader Phil Goff as a man under ""extreme pressure."" Goff himself is pro-U.S. and moderate, but there is an anti-U.S. component ""at the fringe of the left wing of the Labour Party,"" which seeks to exploit opportunities to replace him. Bringing the U.S. into the TPP could magnify anti-U.S. rhetoric. If Goff remains opposition leader, he should be able to contain this potential. However, if Goff fails and New Zealand is in the middle of negotiations with the U.S., you could suddenly see a ""real anti-American element spring up."" Groser emphasized that the New Zealand Government is trying to manage this process in a ""mature way"" so the opposition will be brought into the process early on to seek their buy-in. Groser, however, expressed his confidence that Goff would remain at the head of the Labour Party and as opposition leader going into the next election.

I could understand why as Trade Minister you would want to reassure the world’s biggest power that the leader of the Opposition is not hostile to that power’s interests. When it comes to trade and foreign affairs I would expect both major parties to be keen to show a united front, and to back each other.  But Groser has gone further than just saying that Phil Goff largely supports the NZ-US relationship. He has also suggested that there are anti-US elements within Labour seeking to replace Goff. This might suggest to a nervous US that under the next Labour government the relationship might be under threat unless Goff is in charge. How do such statements help the national interest?

In any event, Groser’s analysis may be faulty. There may be an anti-US flavor to some of the activism within Labour, but it is not loud, and it is unlikely to have much to do with any eventual challenge to Goff as leader. If anything, Goff has probably moved further to the left with some of his public statements of late concerning matters of defence and foreign affairs, for example regarding the deployment of the SAS in Afghanistan. Goff is in trouble because of his dire polling, and it is hard to see how his being strongly committed to the US relationship would affect his ratings.

It’s also useful to remember that the cables do not provide conclusive evidence of anything said or done by any New Zealand politician. They are reports and summaries prepared by embassy staff and US officials based on their communications with those politicians. That doesn’t mean they don’t provide useful information. But we should be careful about putting too much value on them, because we don’t know how reliable the cables are, and whether they accurately report what was said and done.

Key Demotes Three Ministers

Prime Minister John Key has moved swiftly to draw a line under the expenses scandal, by demoting three of his ministers.

Key announced today that Bill English, Phil Heatley and Tim Groser would be stripped of all ministerial portfolios. Their replacements will be announced tomorrow.

Key moved quickly after Labour leader Phil Goff earlier today demoted three MPs for credit card expense infractions.

All three ministers were shown to have spent taxpayer money either in clear breach of the rules, or in circumstances where their behaviour was morally questionable. Mr English has admitted claiming an away-from-home allowance, even though he resides permanently in Wellington.

Mr English has since paid the money he claimed back, and he admitted at the time that what he did was “not a good look”.

Mr Heatley used his ministerial credit card to pay for movie tickets and alcohol. And Mr Groser used his card for a number of hotel minibar items.

Mr Key said all three ministers had shown extremely poor judgment, and that sloppiness was no excuse. In the case of English the deception, while not illegal, had been wilful and deliberate.

“This man is the Deputy Prime Minister, and as Finance Minister is expected to set an example. I won’t have this kind of behaviour in my Cabinet.”

Mr Key acknowledged that the decision to sack English could have been made months ago.

“Sure, it’s taken time to come to this decision, and look, I’m relaxed about that. The important thing is we’ve taken a good look and have now made a decision.”

In the case of Groser the offence was the claiming of expenses, not his drinking.

"I'm not about to start asking questions about what one of my hard working ministers does after hours. If Tim gets his kicks enjoying hardcore liquor in the privacy of his hotel room, then who am I to judge?"

"But when he then puts that on his ministerial credit card, well that's another matter."

On The Perils Of Caffeine

Trade Minister Tim Groser must have had too much coffee yesterday.

On the Zespri v Turners and Growers dispute, the Herald reports:

Trade Minister Tim Groser has fired a shot across Turners & Growers' bows as allegations surface that the company has "sought to collude with foreign powers" to undermine the New Zealand Government's trade policy.

I thought Groser was supposed to be one of the more sensible ministers. Colluding with foreign powers? It's not as if T&G has been selling nuclear secrets to the North Koreans.

Next time, Tim, ask for a decaf.