Maori ambitions for more power.

A Slippery Slope to Ruin
David Round

For some years I taught constitutional law at the University of Canterbury. I was also a debater, in those days when debating was a more popular activity than it is now ~ and it would happen, from time to time, when I appeared to speak in a debate, that the chairman, in introducing me, would tell the audience that I was a remarkable man, because (among other things) I lectured in constitutional law, and this in a country that did not possess a constitution! I would smile politely at this merry jest and pass on to the subject of my discourse.
But now I shall explain. New Zealand may not possess a single grand document like the document ~ actually the collection of documents ~ which the United States has, for example, and which can be pointed to and read as ‘the Constitution’. But of course we have a constitution. Every organised state has one, and simply has to have one. Every incorporated society has one, and has to have one. Every group, incorporated or not, every sports club and trust and residents’ association ~ every organisation has a constitution, and has to have one. That is what ‘organisation’ means. A constitution is simply the collection of rules by which a group is organised ~ the way in which it is constituted or made up. That is all. New Zealand’s constitution is the body of rules which describe and prescribe how we run our affairs ~ how laws and executive decisions are made, how we are taxed and how taxes are spent, how we decide disputes, how we select and replace the people who do these things, and so on. In New Zealand, as in England, there is no one document that can be pointed to as ‘the constitution’, but that does not mean we do not have one. We cannot, unlike many other countries, draw a precise line between what is ‘constitutional law’ and what is just ordinary law ~ those laws which we think of as typically ‘constitutional’ are to be found in all sorts of places ~ but of course we have a constitution. If we did not, we would not have an organised society.
Sometimes people speak of ‘written’ constitutions (the United States sort) and ‘unwritten’ constitutions, such as our own. But this is a little misleading, because all our constitutional law is certain, and it is all written down somewhere. It may not be on one single piece of paper, but it is still written. It is to be found in Acts of Parliament, in the principles of the common law as declared over the centuries by judges, in the royal prerogative (part of the common law) and in the ‘conventions’ ~ the ‘agreed understandings’ of what is to be done. We do now have the rudimentary beginnings of a written constitution, however ~ in 1986, prompted by Mr (now Sir) Geoffrey Palmer, our Parliament made the Constitution Act, which collects together a number of very basic provisions. It is not controversial ~ it merely speaks of the Sovereign, the exercise of the royal prerogative by the Governor-General, Ministers of the Crown and Parliamentary under-secretaries, the House of Representatives and the Speaker, the full power of Parliament to make laws, the protection of judges from removal from office, and such like. In 1990 Parliament also made the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act ~ a somewhat stupid name, for reasons which, forgive me, I do not have time to explain at this very moment ~ which states certain rights which we all have, ‘subject to such limits as are justified in a free and democratic society’. But neither of those Acts of Parliament is a ‘higher law’. In the United States of America, as we are all aware, the Constitution is a higher law. It is ‘entrenched’ ~ that is to say, it cannot be altered as other laws are altered, but only in a special and complex and difficult way. And it is also the supreme law against which all other laws are to be judged and, if necessary, found wanting. The American courts have the power to declare laws invalid if they conflict with the constitution ~ if they conflict, to put it more accurately, with the judges’ interpretation of what those eighteenth century documents prescribe. And judgments, therefore ~ especially of the higher courts, especially the Supreme Court ~ can often take on a highly political quality. The authors of the Constitution nowhere mention, and never thought about, issues such as abortion, racial segregation and affirmative action, gay rights or donations to political candidates and parties. Such issues are, in any case, political and moral and philosophical issues, where judges have absolutely no special expertise qualifying them to make better decisions than anyone else. When judges decide arguments over fierce modern issues matters according to the words or intention of the constitution, they are in fact free to make law. This is why there is such great interest in the membership of the Supreme Court, and in its decisions ~ because many decisions are not narrowly ‘legal’ decisions, as we might think, but very political ones. It is for this reason also that nominees to the United States Supreme Court must undergo an examination by a committee of the Senate. When judges are able to some considerable extent to act as politicians, it is only reasonable that they be examined as to their political alignments as well as their more strictly judicial record.
Now by this point I am beginning to get ahead of myself, and so I must take a breath and tell you where I am going. At the end of last year the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Bill English, and the Minister of Maori Affairs, Dr Peter Sharples, announced a far-reaching review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. I would not blame you if the announcement ~ and a later announcement, just a month ago, of the membership of the ‘Independent Advisory Panel’ ~ had slipped under your radar. I do not recall much, if any, publicity at the time. (Indeed, at morning tea this very week I mentioned the review to several of my colleagues in the Law School, and a couple of them had not heard of it either.) The review is, fortunately, to be a reasonably leisurely one ~ the advisory panel’s final report is only due in September 2013, and final decisions will be made thereafter by Parliament ~ and so there will be plenty of time for us to think about the issues and make our views known. It is absolutely vital that we do. The issue of our constitutional arrangements is more important than anything else that we have argued about over the last twenty years. It is more important than any Treaty settlement, more important than the foreshore and seabed or the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, more important than anything. Constitutions deal with power, with who exercises it and according to what rules. Everything that has been done in the last twenty years by way of dealing with Maori issues has been done according to the constitutional rules we have grown up with, absorbed with our mothers’ milk and know without even thinking about. The results, we might say, have been bad enough. But if our constitution is changed, then decisions will be made in different ways in future, and by different people. Past decisions may certainly be less than satisfactory, but that is our fault, for not having been firm enough ~ but past decisions will be nothing compared with future decisions which will be made under much more Maori influence. The almost inevitable consequence of any changes made by this review will be a transfer of power from those who have it now to other people. That will mean, in fact, a change from our present equality to a regime of inequality. (Bear in mind, also, that once these particular constitutional changes are made, it will be easier for the newly-empowered to push through further changes in future.)
At present, ultimately, power rests with the people, and all the people enjoy equal political rights. Parliament is supreme, and we elect parliaments. ‘The English constitution,’ a nineteenth century Englishman said, ‘is a majority of one in the House of Commons’. With that majority ~ and we have only one house in this country ~ a parliament can make any laws it pleases, and support any Ministry it pleases. Occasionally, certainly, some people worry about this, and wonder if there should not be ‘safeguards’ of some sort to prevent parliaments from being too hasty or dictatorial. In principle there is something to be said for this, although the need has not been as pressing since MMP was introduced. But in our present situation, the remedy will be worse than the disease.
And what is our present situation? Well, we know it only too well, but let me remind you. This review was promised to the Maori Party by the National Party as part of its coalition deal after the 2008 election. It is not prompted by any failings in our constitution (other than some perceived failing to give Maori more power than they possess now). It is prompted entirely by Maori ambitions, and Maori are already preparing their complaints and demands for new constitutional forms. What is more, the terms of reference of the Independent Advisory Panel are already declared to be to ‘seek the views of all New Zealanders…in ways that reflect the Treaty relationship’ and ‘in ways that reflect the partnership model and are responsive to Maori consultation preferences’. One might almost conclude that the Panel’s conclusions are already to be found in its instructions.
The Panel is of a remarkable racial composition. Its co-chairs are the respected former professor of law (and my old colleague) John Burrows, now a Law Commissioner, and Sir Tipene O’Regan. It has five European members, five Maori members, one New Zealander of Pacific Island extraction and one of Asian descent. Among the five Maori members are Professor Ranginui Walker, known to readers of this column, and certainly someone who will be very vigorously pursuing privileges for members of one of his ancestral races. I am afraid to say that several of the Panel’s other Maori members seem to my perhaps jaundiced eye to be capable, at least, of being readier to pursue selfish racial interests than the common good. Forgive my presumption. Certainly, many of the people appearing before the Panel will be pressing for racial privilege in a new constitution. I do not envy John Burrows his task.
Our present situation is such, then, that unless poor old longsuffering New Zealanders kick up the most IMMENSE stink, the almost inevitable direction of any proposed constitutional change will be towards further racial division and Maori privilege. And once such privilege is in place, then our continued racial division, and our poverty and accelerated decline as a nation, is inevitable.
Once power is transferred from those who have it at present, the newly powerful will not give it back. If our constitution is altered in the way in which it looks as though it may well be altered ~ that is to say, to give more power to one particular racial minority, and (by a written constitution, which will thereafter have to be interpreted by judges) to give power to unelected and unaccountable supporters of the Maori cause in the higher judiciary ~ then we are on an irrevocable slippery slope to ruin. I mean this seriously. If what the Maori Party and its friends desire by way of constitutional change comes to pass, then this once lovely little country of ours will be irrevocably stuffed. More things will happen, of the sort that we have deplored over the last twenty years, and worse, and we will have less and less ability than we seem to have even now to stop them. Yes, it does seem strange that ‘reform’ should lead to a loss of power by the people, but that is what will inevitably happen. Our laws now recognise the equality of all citizens. Let me repeat, the forthcoming constitutional review is not prompted by any failure of our constitution, which is working perfectly well, and without any problems at all. (The only possible exception to that remark might be in relation to our voting system, where some might wish to replace the present MMP system with either the former first-past-the-post system or some entirely new one ~ but voting systems are not a part of the review, being dealt with by a referendum at the time of this year’s general election and possibly another referendum later.) This review has been established, not because of any failure in our constitution, but simply because the National Party promised it to the Maori Party. It is entirely prompted by Maori demands ~ it has no other justification. Maori are already starting to agitate, to demand the ‘justice’ which our present constitutional arrangements evidently deny them. They seek greater power. They will not exercise it for the common good, but in their own interests. National’s behaviour over the foreshore and seabed provides abundant evidence that the Party’s senior figures are perfectly ready to sell their own fellow-citizens down the river for the sake of their own short-term political advantage. They did it then, and there is no obvious reason why they will not do it again. Any change in our constitutional arrangements to grant more rights to Maori must inevitable be a change away from our present equality, and that must mean, inevitably, a change towards inequality. As Maori obtain more rights, so the rest of us must lose some.
Nor must you imagine that such changes will be opposed by many enlightened liberal defenders of the human spirit. For a generation, at least, much of New Zealand’s liberal ‘intelligentsia’ has been profoundly illiberal. Democracy is very much yesterday’s idea. The majority of the people are ~ so ordinary, my dear ~ simply so unexciting~ so dull ~ so worthy of nothing more than being completely ignored, while we pursue the latest new fashions in ethnic and multicultural chic. Darling, David Round is just so mediaeval. I have given many examples in the past in these columns of the way in which our reasonable and widely-shared views are instantly dismissed out of hand by the enlightened as not worthy of a second’s consideration, and I see no reason why their attitudes should not continue. No ~ I doubt that we will get much help from our intellectual leaders, who on the whole think that the Treaty is just a simply marvellous idea. We are on our own.
But there is hope, although, like the cavalry, it may arrive only at the eleventh hour. For most of our history, certainly, until liberty and democracy were achieved, and until we could therefore take them for granted and be anaesthetised by home comforts and tawdry luxuries, our constitution has been a matter of burning concern. Constitutional development has indeed been one of the great themes of English history. From Magna Carta’s sturdy assertion of established rights against the encroachments of bad King John, through the tumults of the Middle Ages, the despotism of the Tudors, the great resistance of the seventeenth century (when the people sent one king to the scaffold and another to end his days in gloomy exile in France) ~ through all of this to the gradual establishment of Ministerial responsibility and parliamentary government under the Hanoverians and a constitutional monarchy under Victoria, the great concern of the Crown’s free subjects was the assertion and maintenance of their ancient liberties. This is why our hearts beat faster at the mention of those heroic days and deeds and documents. Our hearts stir at the assertion of liberty in the American Declaration of Independence, and in the lesser-known but magnificent Declaration of Arbroath whereby the Scots, fighting against the English Edward, declared that ‘it is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honour that we are fighting but for freedom ~ for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with his life itself’.
‘Freedom’! Think of that! Freedom! What might that be now, exactly?
Set against that magnificent background, this present review seems to be an utter betrayal of the human spirit. Its instigators’ purpose is not freedom, not the greater good ~ not even the shallow lure of economic prosperity, not that that isn’t handy ~ but special ‘rights’ for a racial minority. Their purpose is to bind the non-Maori population of this country hand and foot and turn them over to a racist constitutional regime in which they have far more power than they deserve. Apartheid as improvement. We would laugh out loud at the suggestion that granting more power to farmers, say, or manufacturers, or trade unions or the poor or the elderly, would lead to anything but their stronger pursuing of their own interests ~ yet somehow our rulers manage to suspend disbelief and assume that the inevitable consequence of enlarging Maori influence on our constitution will be the greater good. Equally bizarrely, they seem to think that we will not notice that such ideas are not consistent with our own understanding of our ancient rights and liberties.
The conclusion I am forced to, then, is that whatever the outcome of this review, it will only engender further bitterness and division. If Maori get what they want, then we shall be angry in future for ever. If they do not get what they want ~ if we manage to hold the line ~ well, that will be good, but they will be disappointed, and they will be angry forever in future, because they will consider themselves deprived of what they are (somehow) entitled to. And absolutely everyone will of course have become agitated and concerned during the debate. The entire exercise seems to me to be doomed to an unfortunate outcome, regardless of what precisely happens.)
Doubtless different Maori will come up with different suggestions as to how New Zealanders’ alleged obligations under the Treaty might be implemented. In recent years some have suggested a separate Maori House of Parliament, whose consent would be necessary to laws. Such a proposal would mean that the vote of a European New Zealander would not be worth as much as that of a Maori ~ for the 15% or so of the Maori population would have as much say as the 85% non-Maori. It would also be a guarantee of blackmail demands for ever. It would also mean, of course, a thorough racial classification of everyone in the country to ascertain whom they should be voting for and what their rights were. And then here we’d be, back in Nazi Germany.
(Some elections ago, by the way, the Green Party had a policy of separate and equal Maori and European Houses of Parliament. Perhaps they will tell us if they still have that policy, but they certainly used to.)
Possibly likelier, but equally disastrous, would be the elevation of the principles of the Treaty to some form of ‘higher law’. If we were to adopt a written constitution then it would be very surprising indeed if it did not begin with some acknowledgement of the Treaty and its principles, and thereby give judges the opportunity to strike down laws made by Parliament on the ground that they offended against Treaty principles. This is not far-fetched. Our present Chief Justice ~ one Treaty claimant described her at the time of her appointment as Maoridom’s ‘best weapon’, although we would readily concede she is not entirely responsible for what other people say about her ~ has already publicly stated that she considers herself legally entitled to strike down Acts of Parliament right now if they offend against her interpretation of Treaty principles. She has not been the only judge to voice that opinion. This would be the overturning of centuries of absolutely fundamental constitutional law and democratic principle. She considers herself to be entitled to strike down the laws of this country, decided by democratically-elected Parliaments, if she thinks that ‘Treaty principles” justify it. These are the words of a would-be dictator. As I may have said before, for a judge to do that would be as much a coup d’etat as if armed men entered Parliament and drove the Members out at gunpoint. It is as much treason as Guy Fawkes’ plans (worse, in fact, for it seems that he may very possible have been framed!) She has already demonstrated her readiness to overturn long-established law and embark on disgraceful political adventures when she and her fellows in the Court of Appeal made the 2003 Ngati Apa decision on the foreshore and seabed which has already brought so much anger and division to this country and will continue to do so. That decision was a deliberate political choice. If we get a written constitution, however, we will inevitably be handing more power over to its interpreters ~ some of whom will be people like her.
Treaty principles, as I hope I have explained sufficiently in the past, are such vague platitudes, pulling in different directions, that they can be used to justify about any decision any judge might ever want to reach. If we should ever be unlucky enough to have the Treaty or its principles inserted into our constitution as some special standard with which legislation must comply, then judges will forever after be entitled to strike down any law, any decision on the ground that it offended against Treaty ‘principles’. The Maori Council has already argued, for example, that it is a breach of ‘Treaty principles’ if Maori do not receive preferential treatment in the allocation of limited medical services, such as kidney dialysis ~ this because old people (with kidney disease) are ‘taonga’, guaranteed by the Treaty. By the same token, young and middle-aged Maori people are probably taonga also. So if our constitution says that the Treaty and its principles have some special status ~ a reasonable prospect if we get a written constitution ~ and if some judge swallows this argument, also surely a reasonable possibility ~ then hey presto, Maori enjoy better access to health care for ever than anyone else. We pay the taxes, they use the services. And so it could be with any aspect of government. One could easily imagine that a taxation law, say, could be struck down because Maori can’t afford it as much as anyone else, and therefore it’s oppressive ~ or there might be a declaration that Treaty principles require the Maori language to be taught in all schools, or that the whole country be bilingual, or that more money be allocated to Maori television, or Maori education, or that the Department of Conservation give Maori special rights (the judges have begun to head down this track already), or that the Treaty requires that more rateds money be spent in Maori communities, or that they should have 50:50 representation on local bodies….The possibilities are endless. And there are judges who will enjoy nothing more than making lofty holier-than-thou pronouncements of principle with disastrous consequences and then handing it over to others to attempt to clean up the mess. Examples may be found in some decisions on Treaty principles in the last twenty-four years.
In the light of our present political situation, then, I cannot but think that just about any constitutional reform which is likely to ensue from this current review is going to be bad for this country and its people. Our attitude should most certainly be one of caution ~ indeed, of cynicism. My own family has a saying, a famous remark by a great-great uncle of mine ~ also a lawyer, as it happened ~ who used to say, ‘If you trust anyone, you’re simple’. A little cynical, perhaps, but also wise. And this is the principle of all democracy. We won’t trust other people, thank you very much ~ we’ll be in charge ourselves. We won’t hand care for ourselves over to the state, or to another race, or to judges. No thank you. Right now, we’re in charge, and we want things to stay that way.
David Round
David Round teaches law at the University of Canterbury and is author of "Truth or Treaty? Commonsense Questions about the Treaty of Waitangi".

Labour not immuned to making deals it's MMP after all.

Andrew Little has also expressed outrage over the National strategy on Epsom this week.

Given that in New Plymouth, “the independent Rusty Kane came in third with 756 votes and if he hadn’t been in the race they could have gone to Duynhoven”, the mainstream media should ask Mr Little and Mr Kane whether or not a deal has ever been raised with Rusty Kane on the possibility he might step aside so that Andrew Little can continue his ascendancy to Labour leadership.

by Whaleoil on July 22, 2011

To read full article follow this link.
http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/index.php/2011/07/hypocrisy-over-deals/

Leading The Way Maori Promote Biological Farming.

Te Arawa FoMA to promote biological farming systems
Te Arawa Federation of Maori Authorities (FoMA) is investigating biological farming systems for its member organisations.
Te Arawa FoMA is the largest cluster of Trusts & Incorporations in the Rotorua District. Te Arawa FoMA’s goal is to help its members advance their aspirations for economic development, in a manner that is mindful of and does not compromise with the receiving environment, which Maori culture is historically known for.
Many Maori owned trust lands are used for farming and are on either Lakes or rivers catchments. In recent years, nutrient leaching from farming has been an issue in these areas.
The Rotorua Lakes and Land Trust (RLLT) – a joint venture between Te Arawa FoMA and Rotorua/Taupo Province of Federated Farmers – has set up the Vallance Project which explores how biological farming systems can play a role in reducing nitrate leaching from farms, while keeping farming profitable. The project has been operational since August 2010 in Reporoa. A similar research project was set up in two farms in Edgecumbe recently.
“Maori community believes in sustainable management of our land, water and forest resources; it is based on the tradition and culture that has been handed to us by our ancestors,” said Mr Malcolm Short, Chairman of the RLLT.
“Rotorua’s future depends on our land and water. The wealth and wellbeing of the district and its people will continue to depend heavily on making the most of farming, forestry and tourism to generate jobs and income”.
Maori culture believes in Kaitiakitanga (traditional way of environmental management) and Mauri (life force) of nature. Hence, human societies can not be separate from nature.
“That is one of the reasons why we have set up the Vallance research project. Biological farming systems which do not depend on artificial saturation of the farm by chemical fertilisers are expected to provide a more nature-friendly manner of agriculture,” Mr Short added.
Te Arawa FoMA and RLLT have formed an affiliation to take advantage of the benefits in joining together to share resources, ideas and development initiatives. Both entities retain their autonomy but where possible share and/or pool their resources to reach common outcomes.
Te Arawa FoMA is organising “Options and Tools” conference on Friday, 17 June 2011 at the Rotorua Club Inc. located in the Main Grandstand at the Rotorua Race Track.
A number of interesting topics have been chosen for deliberations by the executive committee. Dr Guna Magesan, a senior scientist, has been invited to present a paper on “Biological farming systems and nutrient leaching” for the benefit of farming community.
“In addition to the Vallance project, we are also planning to have a second trial soon on a Maori owned farm,” said Tom Walters, a Te Arawa FoMA representative and Trustee of RLLT.
“We will study pasture productivity, pasture quality, and key indicators of soil physical, chemical and biological properties”.
Various biological farming fertiliser companies will be invited to be part of this research. The focus will be to test the biological farming system rather than the product.
“It is our desire to research methods in which we may farm in a more sustainable manner, and introduce this methodology to a collective of Maori farms across the central plateau after which we may share success stories to fellow members of the Federation of Maori Authorities and indeed throughout the country,” Mr Walters added.
“This is a concentrated conscientious effort on our part, to reduce the dependence and cost of advisors and consultants, and to do a better job at controlling what is controllable. More natural processes and clean lakes and waterways are a priority”.
Ultimately, a balance has to be struck between the productivity and financial sustainability of the farm, and environmental costs. Many of the Western farming systems place a single minded focus on profits to the detriment of the environment, thus forgetting the fact that human society is a part of nature.”
In October 2011, the RLLT is organising a National Conference on Biological Farming Systems in Rotorua with the theme "Towards a Sustainable Farming – by farmers, for farmers ". A number of key scientists from various crown research institutes and universities, and farmers from different parts of New Zealand are participating and sharing their experiences at the conference. For more information, please email: BiologicalFarming.Systems@gmail.com
"We have been promoting our research every possible way," said Gifford McFadden, a Trustee of RLLT and the Project Leader for Vallance Project.
“We believe our national conference will be a turning point for biological farming in New Zealand,” Mr McFadden added.

Poisoning Paradise: PCE 1080 Report - Concerning

Poisoning Paradise: PCE 1080 Report - Concerning: "Yesterday the PCE (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment) released her report on the use of 1080 poison in New Zealand.    TV3 news..."

How Wins Taranaki Regional Council Environmental Award.

Return 2 Earth
– for composting of organic waste.

Return 2 Earth is based at the New Plymouth Colson Road landfill and each year processes large volumes of green waste, wood shavings and animal shed bedding into high-quality compost for a range of markets.

This operation provides a sustainable use for material that, in most cases, would otherwise have been landfilled. All of the green waste from the New Plymouth and Waitara transfer stations is processed by Return 2 earth.

Outdoor windrows are used with mechanical agitation to optimize the compost process, based on the temperature and moisture content of the windrows.

Use of the company’s products by farmers and gardeners benefits the environment as it is likely to be associated with reduced use of chemical fertilizers, reduced leaching of nutrients, improved soil structure and increased soil carbon sequestration.

Company founder Russell How says he and his wife Nerida are honoured to receive the award and hope it encourages others to put hard work and effort into sustainability. Describing himself as an entrepreneur, Mr How got the idea for Return 2 Earth at a sustainability field day at Ruakura in 2008. “I met Gerry Gillespie, of Zero Waste Australia, who talked about what had been achieved in Australia, and I could see an opportunity to make something happen here.”

Mr How says the Taranaki Regional Council, New Plymouth District Council and Envirowaste Ltd have provided valuable encouragement and assistance, and the company’s product is now used by farmers, local gardeners and the NPDC Parks Department.

The issue of nitrogen leaching.

Taranaki environmental activist Rusty Kane believes New Zealand farming is at the crossroads when it comes to the issue of nitrogen leaching.

Down one path lies more efficient, more profitable farms, while going down the other finds the future of New Zealand's clean, green image in serious doubt.

Mr Kane, the leader of the People's Choice lobby group and former political candidate, has been visiting regional councils throughout the North Island to campaign for stronger policies surrounding nitrogen leaching on farms.

Last week he met Waikato Regional councillors Jane Hennebry and Phillip Legg, as well as policy and strategy acting group manager Tony Petch, to discuss the issue.

Leaching occurs when nitrogen-based fertilisers, which are spread on surrounding pastoral land, seep into farm rivers and waterways, creating a chemical imbalance in the quality of the water and surrounding land.
Mr Kane said the issue, if not addressed through regional council policy and changes in farming habits, could seriously impact on New Zealand agriculture.

''We can't say things and do something else,'' he said.

''If you want to have a future in farming, we have to move on this (the nitrogen issue).'' The best recognised way to combat nitrogen leaching is to look after riparian zones, or land immediately surrounding waterways, through the planting of specific trees and plant life on the banks of the waterways. These act as a ''filter'' to prevent nitrogen flowing into the water.

Alternatively, the use of non-chemical fertilisers remove the problem completely.

Mr Kane however is no long-haired tree-hugging hippie.

He knows the pressures farmers are under, and the difficult everyday decisions they must make.

This is where the encouragement and support of regional councils is crucially important, for both groups, and the environment. ''We can't expect the farmers to shoulder all the costs,'' he said. ''But you've got to look at how to really be sustainable as a farmer.

''Conventional farming today is not sustainable and if we don't make changes, we are going to lose our edge.'' ''A good conventional farmer will be a good organic farmer (without the use of chemical fertilisers) . th. th. but we need to change the way we're doing things on the land.'' Ms Hennebry described the meeting with Mr Kane as ''very positive,'' adding she was impressed at Mr Kane's balanced view of change for both farmers and the environment.

Waikato Regional Council is seen as one of the more progressive regional councils in the North Island when it comes to the issue of nitrogen leaching.

Ad Feedback The issue has been included on the agenda in the last two council meetings, signifying the growing importance of the topic.

Ms Hennebry said a recent policy on the use of lower amounts of nitrogen around Lake Taupo was aimed at creating a green belt around the lake, while the council has also highlighted water catchments around the region seen as ''priority'' for action.

The Waikato region extends from Lake Taupo to around Mercer, including the Waikato River and other large water catchments.

Mr Kane formed the People's Choice Party in 1999 to voice about a number of environmental issues around New Zealand.

The leader has stood in a number of elections, but after failing to draw significant numbers of votes, turned the party into a lobby group targetting environmental issues.

Along with his Waikato visit, Mr Kane has stopped in at the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, the Horizons Regional Council (which cares for Manawatu and Whanganui), the Taranaki Regional Council and Northland Regional Council.

BEN STANLEY
Waikato Times

A Straight Shooters Point of View.

Organic Farming Activists get real.

Organic farming creates more CO2 (which is a good thing, of course). So why do urban organic activists pretend it's the other way 'round!

Urban organic activists begin every argument by pining for the good ol' days. They point out that in 1940 one calorie of fossil-fuel energy produced two calories of food. But now, due to the dreaded effects of industrialization, 20 calories of fossil-fuel energy are required per calorie of food. And this, for them, illustrates why an immediate transformation of the food biz is required to "save the planet." How? By converting from a fossil-fuel-based food economy to one based instead on sunshine. Case closed! After all, it's a 20-fold increase, right!

Well... turns out it's not.

A wise man once said an ordinary mind is incapable of making distinctions. The distinction not being made in this case is that while we're using 20 times the fossil-fuel energy, we're certainly not using 20-times the total energy. Not even close...

If only they had ever worked a day on a farm, these "slow," urban activists would appreciate the massive amounts of human and animal labour that used to be required before machines driven by fossil fuels came along. The reason only a single calorie of fossil-fuel energy was required to produce two calories of food was that, prior to the mass industrialization during the Second World War, farmers did the rest of the work by hand and by back! Far more calories were consumed emitting far more CO2. Otherwise, industrialization would not have made economic sense.

Slow food activists will try to tell you that a great deal of today's fossil-fuel consumption results from the transportation of food, and that all food should therefore be procured locally. But transportation turns out to only account for a tiny fraction of energy use. (Were this not the case, greedy capitalists wouldn't ship food over long distances; it's that simple.)

It's energy-intensive activities like the plowing of land, harvesting, and the handling and processing of food that account for the lion's share of energy consumption and hence CO2 emissions.[ii] And when our ancestors relied on horses to do this work -- which of course meant fully one-half of their arable land was dedicated to growing crops for feed (something which clearly had both an economic and environmental impact) -- they still expended enormous amounts of human energy. And all that work, human and animal, had a measurable carbon footprint which greatly exceeds the 20-fold increase in fossil-fuel energy-use that occurred over the last 70 years. How much more exactly? Hold onto your hat.

Even if you believe, as the food activists do, that CO2 is a harmful pollutant, it turns out we're actually releasing at least an order of magnitude less of it today than we used to for every calorie of food produced! Modern-day farming is far more efficient, and thankfully so. All that's changed is that fossil-fuel calories can be easily measured while human and animal calories were never measured. And why did farmers get sucked into replacing their horses with tractors? Simply because there are over 20,000 man-hours of energy in a single barrel of oil which, even when oil is at its peak price, works out to less than two cents per oil-powered man-hour. That's right... two cents!


Of course, besides reverting to human and animal labor, there is another way that some urban food activists envision converting us back to a "sunshine-based" food economy.

They seek to replace evil ol' fossil-fuels with biofuels like ethanol. Instead of burning 20 calories of fossil-fuel energy to yield two calories of food as we currently do, in a biofuel food-economy farmers would burn 20 calories of biofuel, and would once again find themselves setting aside half of all their land to grow that fuel... just like their ancestors did to grow feed for their horses.. See a pattern here!

All you achieve with biofuels is a shift in where the fuel comes from, not in how much is consumed. So much for the sunshine economy! Besides, fossil fuels are sunshine-based as surely as crops are. The sunshine was captured in forests millions of years ago and remains stored in underground reserves in the form of crude oil. Why is today's sunshine any better than yesterday's!

Most members of the urban-environmentalist crowd don't have the slightest conception of what they're promoting in taking us back to what they perceive to be the good ol' days. But the really scary part is that many do.