Sustainable New Zealand Leader Vernon Tava is avoiding detailing his new political party's stance on topical environmental issues.
Tava - a business broker, who unsuccessfully ran for the Green Party's co-leadership before joining National - has done a series of media interviews in recent days, having officially launched the party on Sunday.
However, he hasn't responded to a request interest.co.nz made on Monday at 2pm, asking him to answer a series of questions before the end of the day.
When interest.co.nz followed up with Tava at 6pm, he said he'd had a "full day". Interest.co.nz didn't receive a response from Tava when it texted and called on Tuesday, so decided to push on with a story.
Interest.co.nz acknowledges Sustainable NZ is still developing its policies, but asked Tava to provide yes/no answers to questions related to topical environmental issues in the table below.
It sent the same set of questions to The Opportunities Party Leader Geoff Simmons, whose responses are detailed.
The aim of the exercise, which interest.co.nz didn't disclose to either party, was to compare and contrast their policies, as both are environmentally-focused and willing to work with either National or Labour.
Sustainable NZ has been touted as a solution to National's dearth of coalition partners.
Having less policy than TOP, and being almost solely focussed on the environment, there are fewer areas where it's likely to clash heads with National. For example, TOP's other key policies involve introducing an equity tax and legalising cannabis.
Nonetheless, on the environment, the blue boxes in the table show where TOP and Sustainable NZ's views align with National's.
Interest.co.nz endeavoured to fill in some of the blanks for Sustainable NZ, but the policies detailed on its website didn't directly answer the questions posed. We could however answer one question further to comments Tava made in an RNZ interview.
We will update this piece if/once we hear from Tava.
| Do you support the Coalition Government's moves to: | TOP | SNZ |
| Ban new offshore oil and gas exploration | No | |
| Work towards a target to reduce biogenic methane emissions by between 24-47% below 2017 levels by 2050 | Yes | |
| Ensure the Climate Change Commission's advice is non-legally binding | No | |
| Get farmers to come up with their own plan to price emissions at the farmgate, rather than bringing them under the ETS | Yes | |
| Introduce a 100% renewable electricity target | No | |
| Introduce a One Billion Trees programme | No | |
| Ban all mining on conservation land | Yes | |
| Require banks, insurers and large NZ-listed companies to report climate risk in their annual reports | Yes | |
| Propose to restrict farmers from using new irrigation schemes or converting their farms to dairy unless they can prove this won't increase pollution | Yes | |
| Propose to introduce a car feebate/rebate scheme | Yes | |
| Do you believe: | TOP | SNZ |
| The new oil and gas exploration ban should be repealed | Yes | |
| Agriculture should be brought under the ETS rather than an alternate emissions pricing scheme | No | |
| The number of cows NZ has needs to fall | Yes | |
| Forestry should be able to offset biological emissions | Yes | |
| Regulated gene editing should be used to protect the environment | Yes | |
| NZ should strive to increase meat and dairy exports using more sustainable practices | Yes | |
| That even though GDP growth has its downsides, on balance, it is always a good thing | Yes | Yes |
| EVs should be subsidised and purchasers of higher emitting vehicles should be penalised | Yes | |
| The Government needs to allocate more money towards road infrastructure than it is | No |
National Leader Simon Bridges on Monday told RNZ that Sustainable NZ would be a "valuable addition" to New Zealand's political landscape.
He said he hadn't been in talks with Tava, nor had he seen anything concrete regarding the formation of a party.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said at a post-Cabinet press conference that she didn't believe there was a space for Sustainable NZ to fill on the political spectrum, as Government already has a significant environmental focus.
Indeed, the Green Party has been criticised by the likes of Greenpeace and former Green MP Sue Bradford for not pushing an environmental agenda hard enough, as it's sought to build consensus across the political spectrum around the likes of the Zero Carbon Bill.
Additional questions
Interest.co.nz also asked TOP and Sustainable NZ to answer a few additional questions in full.
In the absence of a response from Tava, it's worth noting Sustainable NZ's website says its top three priorities are "safe, healthy water that sustains life", "to save our native species from extinction" and creating "sustainable economic growth".
One of its policies is to increase funding for environmental conservation by $1 billion over four years.
Here is Simmons' response:
If you could introduce three environmental policies, what would they be?
I'm assuming the Government's freshwater proposals are implemented, otherwise that would be one of my three. The goals are good, but the detail on implementation is lacking. The most important thing is to avoid the use of grandparenting in allocating nitrogen leaching rights.
1. Commercial water users should pay a price for the water they use. The money should be used to clean up our waterways so that ratepayers/ taxpayers aren't paying. Maori rights over freshwater should also be resolved as part of this process.
2. On Emissions Trading forestry should be used as an offset for biological emissions but not fossil fuels. If we also remove the price cap and start phasing out free allocations that would allow the price of carbon to rise rapidly (at least double what it is now, possibly triple). Revenue from auctioned units should be invested in energy efficiency, adaptation and as a carbon dividend.
3. Re-engineering our cities. We need to invest in the infrastructure required to do density well. This should provide affordable, quality housing that allows people to live in a low impact way, with easy access to walking, cycling and public transport.
Have you identified an electorate seat you'd like to run in?
We have developed a long list of options but the priority for TOP is to restore our election night support of 2-3% by early 2020 and then talk to the major parties about this.
Who are your key funders?
We have hundreds of regular donors with an average donation of around $20.
33 Comments
As per the piece, TOP was chosen because it is also pitching itself as an environmentally-focussed party that's willing to work with National and Labour. We did a comprehensive policy comparison across all parties and all areas ahead of the 2017 election. Policy comparison will be at the centre of our coverage ahead of the 2020 election too. Parties don't like answering simple yes/no questions, but a tick-box table is one way of cutting to the chase and providing a summary...
These questions are narrowly focused on only one aspect of environmental policy - climate change. A typical millennial view.
No questions on:
> Anything to do with our marine environment: Expansion of marine reserves, fish quota management, fishing management (eg cameras on boats)
> Natives species preservation: Rat eradication, weed control, creation and expansion of pest free reserves
> Native forest management, preservation and expansion
> Preservation of reserves in urban area in the face of council approved infill housing
> Urban sewage system maintenance and renewal to prevent river contamination
With China planning to build "between 300 and 500" new coal fired power stations and India doing likewise, what NZ does as regards CO2 emissions, fades into insignificance.
With China planning to built "between 300 and 500" new coal fired power stations and India doing likewise, what NZ does fades into insignificance
Under the Zero Carbon Act, the calls the Climate Change Commission makes aren't legally binding, like the decisions the RBNZ makes for example. So, to the disappointment of some climate advocates, it can only make recommendations to the government, which will decide if they're implemented.
""We have hundreds of regular donors with an average donation of around $20."" Generously assuming that the 'hundreds' are almost a thousand then this political party is being funded at under $20k. Compare that to the 150k raised for Geoff Goff at a Chinese community fund raiser. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/313906/goff-denies-hypocrisy-over-$…
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
... where's the farmers party ... we've had MMP for a quarter of a century , and the so-called " back bone " of the country , our farmers , still lack the spine to set up their own special interest political party ...
Relying on the Gnats ? ... AKA Labour Lite . .. pwah ha ha ... those mutts have sold us out .. they're toeing the Labour line with WFF , carbon neutral 2050 .. immigration....
C'mon cockies , every man & his dog are forming a political wedge .. .. let's do this !
Well just maybe climate change is a real thing and hence any non-extremist political parties can see the writing on the wall. I mean just look at how well the GOP is doing in the USA with climate denial. Meanwhile farmers have the NATS and even the far right like ACT to vote for if they are into climate denial.
Where do I fit in: man made and unavoidable!
Many scientists (and common sense) say that the CO2 has been emitted, even if every human activity stopped this minute the effects of the CO2 whatever they may be are with us for thousands of years (average half life of atmospheric CO2.
What do weather patterns show?
The year coming into the 2019-20 summer has been unusually warm and dry for large parts of Australia. Above-average temperatures now occur most years and 2019 had the fifth-driest start to the year on record, and the driest since 1970. Australia recorded its hottest month in January 2019, its third-hottest July and its hottest October day in some areas, among other temperature records.
I thought this new party would leap at the opportunity to get some real coverage given that they have no profile and I didn't know their name until this article. Up until this point people who have talked about SNZ have just referred to it as a branch of the CCP National Party that only exists for the purpose of gerrymandering.
I meant sausage party as in a party where there are no women. Up to them if they want to eat meat.
On the issue of vegetarians when I worked at a bar as a student I sold a lot of hot dogs to vegetarians. I was surprised at how many would still want the hot dog even when I offered alternatives.
The Opportunities Party is lucky to have friends like interest.co.nz.
TOP will steal a few votes from the Greens. With the exception of TOP's insane tax policy, they are almost indistinguishable from the Greens. Sustainable NZ will steal a few votes from both TOP and the Greens. Neither will make it to 5%, but Sustainable NZ has a chance of being gifted an electorate seat by National. Of the minor parties, ACT is going to be the big winner at the next election. Would be great if ACT got anything close to as much coverage on this site as TOP does.
Yip DD, for years we all can observe their appearance, that's how human affiliates politically in the end. I watched on TV, muted volume, study their background, funding basis, their body language, appearance and like you straight away I knew which voters they are trying to grab and where is their closest large party allegiance will be; 70% debt can be unsustainable, but the 30% positive change can be in the sustainable future outlook. Hmn..
My gut feeling tells me, this one will be in bed with Nat. next year - or duckling silently gathering votes, then like NZFirst to Lab. - The numbers will go for the Blue coalition, the word 'sustainable' is the most variable to use at disposal. eg. say to choose between scale 0-10, balanced is in the middle.. sustainable you can put it anywhere, left, right.. in which you can always state a consensus where it's at the point of 'Sustainable', it's in the eye of the beholder of the party that own it... You loose Mr. Bishop Tamaki, too eager to use the rejected 'Coalition'.. now 'Vision NZ' - it is futuristic biblical term, but in short current pragmatism 'Sustainable' is catchy.
thank you for this analysis: I look forward to more. And Andrewo - I agree with your comments:
Anything to do with our marine environment: Expansion of marine reserves, fish quota management, fishing management (eg cameras on boats
This seems to be a shibbolith that no-one wants to criticise - food for the masses; income for the country...oh yeah? at what cost environmentally? Take salmon farming as well- the cozy arrangements between MPI (and Fisheries NZ) and New Zealand King Salmon (overseas owned - nothing to do with Aotearoa/NZ despite the catchy "green" name associated with our country by this industrial operation) must be investigated! Salmon farms in the Sounds have losses of up to 75% mortality-wise, and the plans for a 1700 hectare salmon farm in Cook Strait are charging ahead - green lights for go! of course "open ocean" farming as it is called will be in seas that have greater water flows - this does not mean that the volumes of waste (uneaten food, faecal matter and other debris) will be lessened just spread around more.... and with a greater impact not only on the benthos but on the marine birds/mammals and other organisms great and small that are an undeniable part of a food chain that has been, to date, "sustainable". For how much longer can we continue to exploit the natural resources of the sea with no meaningful limits? And of course, DOC where are you?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.