Greenpeace Calls On Chris Hipkins To Take A Courageous Stand Against Seabed Mining
Greenpeace is calling on the leader of the opposition, Chris Hipkins, to take a public stand and pledge that seabed mining will never happen under a Labour-led government. A petition to the Labour Party leader launched this week has already gained more than 2200 signatures.
Greenpeace spokesperson Juressa Lee says: "The Luxon government seems intent on waging war on nature - but Governments come and go, and they won't be in control forever. That's why we're calling on Chris Hipkins to promise that any seabed mining consents granted under the Luxon government will be revoked by Labour if it gets elected.
"Despite failing again and again to win approval for its seabed mining project, wannabe miners Trans-Tasman Resources have applied to the Environmental Protection Authority for permission to mine the South Taranaki Bight under the Luxon government's Fast Track process.
"That's why we're launching a new call on the leader of the opposition, Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins, to take a stand and ensure this destructive industry never gets off the ground in Aotearoa."
For more than ten years, Trans-Tasman Resources has suffered defeat after defeat in the courts and faced opposition from Greenpeace and the Taranaki community, including iwi, commercial and recreational fishers and surfers.
Juressa Lee says: "Yet now, like a zombie, TTR is rising from the dead by taking advantage of the Fast Track Approvals Act to bypass environmental protections.
"That's why it's urgent the opposition leader Chris Hipkins takes a stand against seabed mining the Taranaki Bight.
"Chris Hipkins will also be in tune with the weight of public opinion in Aotearoa. Nearly 54,000 people signed the last Greenpeace petition to ban seabed mining."
Trans-Tasman Resources is planning to extract 50 million tonnes of iron sand from the South Taranaki Bight every year for 35 years and dump 45 million tonnes a year back into the ocean.
Seabed mining in the South Taranaki Bight would damage rich ecosystems and threaten precious marine life such as the pygmy blue whale, Māui and Hector's dolphins and kororā.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
32 minutes ago
- Newsroom
New Zealand's invisible children
When Helen Clark's Labour government brought in a law that would create waves of undocumented children, even the immigration experts had no idea of the impact it would have on thousands of lives. The 2006 Citizenship Amendment Act ended automatic citizenship for children born here to overstayers or parents with temporary visas. It was also supported by the National Party. Immigration lawyer Alastair McClymont has been working in the sector for more than 25 years but only recently discovered the fallout from the law. 'It never really occurred to me that this would actually be a problem,' he says. 'It was only really when these children started coming forward that I thought 'This is really unusual, I wonder how many other children are in this sort of situation'. 'It is only recent because these children are now finishing high school and realising that their life has now come to an end, they don't have any options as to what to do.' They are called 'the invisible children', says RNZ immigration reporter Gill Bonnett. They are mainly children of overstayers or temporary visa holders from Pacific countries, India or China. She's known about them for many years but they have been hidden or protected by their parents and communities. 'These people don't want to come forward because they are scared about the consequences of doing so and they don't want to speak up either in the media or necessarily don't want to put their case in front of immigration officials in case it means that they or their parents get deported.' The case of Daman Kumar brought the issue to light, she says, when he bravely spoke to RNZ Asia reporter Blessen Tom two years ago. At the time, the teenager's voice was disguised and he went unnamed for fear he would be deported to India, along with his parents. This year he hit the headlines and his identity was revealed when he was on the verge of deportation. 'He'd been able to go to school okay but when it came to thinking about university or work he realised that he had nowhere to go,' says Bonnett. To further complicate the matter, Kumar's sister was unaffected because she was born before the 2006 law, meaning she is legally a New Zealand citizen. And it is not unique to the Kumar family, Bonnett says. She explains to The Detail what was happening in New Zealand when the law was brought in, including the sense of moral panic. At the time Helen Clark said she was concerned about incidents of people flying to New Zealand for a short time and having babies here to ensure they gained passports, known as 'birth tourism'. Clark said the government would be silly not to look at this, given what other countries were doing. 'They call it the 'anchor babies',' says Bonnett. 'The idea that if your child had citizenship that later on in life you might be able to get citizenship yourself or that you would just be bestowing good privileges on them for later on.' She says there were concerns on both sides of the ledger at the time: one side about birth tourism, where a child born on New Zealand soil would automatically get citizenship, and on the other side concerns about children who had lived here all their lives but didn't have citizenship. It is not clear how many children are undocumented, but McClymont says it could be thousands and the number will keep growing. 'Every year now more and more children are going to be coming out of high school and realising that they can't study, they can't go and get jobs because it would be a breach of the law for employers to employ someone who's here unlawfully. So they can't work, they can't study, they can't travel, they just simply cannot do anything.' McClymont says he has not had a satisfactory response from the Government to his suggestion that New Zealand follow Australia and Britain by giving children birthright citizenship after 10 years of habitual residence. 'Really, it's hard to see what the justification is for punishing these children. Nobody is making the argument that these children have done something wrong and that they deserve to be punished. 'The only potential argument is that these children are being punished as a deterrent for others against having children here in New Zealand,' he says. 'It's just unfathomable as a society that we can actually do this to children and use them for this purpose. There doesn't seem to be any moral justification whatsoever for treating them so badly.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Ruth Richardson's state honour is a slap in the face for the poor
The architect of 1991's 'mother of all budgets', who was made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the King's Birthday honours this week, did immense damage to the country's poorest and most vulnerable, writes Max Rashbrooke. In the early 1990s, two Porirua preschoolers burned to death when their state house was set alight by a candle their family had begun using after the power was cut off. They had been forced to this extremity by a National government that, obsessed by 'market forces', had decided to remove their housing subsidy and require them to pay market rents instead. This sharp rise in costs had left them unable to pay their power bill; hence the candle. Labour MP Graham Kelly caused an uproar in parliament when he attributed these deaths to National's policies – but even allowing for imponderable factors, like whether a candle falls over or not, he was in the broadest sense right. Policies that target the poor always have consequences in the end. And no one targeted the poor harder than Ruth Richardson, who on Monday was made a Companion to the New Zealand Order of Merit. Alongside the market-rent reforms, Richardson is most notorious for the 1991 'mother of all budgets', which cut the benefits of some of the poorest and most vulnerable New Zealanders by up to one-quarter. In a move familiar throughout history, she decided that the burden of tackling New Zealand's (admittedly severe) budget deficit was to fall disproportionately on the poor, rather than those better able to bear it. The result was immediate: a doubling of the number of those living in the most extreme poverty – that is, on less than 40% of the typical income – from 4% in 1990 to 8% two years later. Most policies are much slower to show their effects; Richardson is among a select few who can claim to have doubled poverty overnight. The effects of this stark rise, quite apart from the pain and misery inflicted on families, have spread right throughout New Zealand. Food banks used to be virtually unknown in this country; in the 1990s they became commonplace. Unable to afford to heat their homes, or indeed pay the rent, multiple families began living under one roof, enduring the cold or huddling together for warmth. Mould and damp proliferated. Diseases like rheumatic fever, long since eliminated in other developed nations, flourished in these conditions, wrecking childhoods and ending lives prematurely. A sharp uptick in the hospitalisations of children for medical conditions – from 50 per 1,000 to 70 per 1,000 – began in 1992, just after Richardson's budget. While she was not, of course, the sole author of these misfortunes, she undoubtedly wrote much of the script. Child poverty leaves scars that later affluence never really erases. Children born into hardship have, in adulthood, twice the rate of heart conditions of those born into wealth. They also have far lower reading scores and educational results. Quite apart from being devastating in their own right, these deficits create colossal financial costs: the annual bill from child poverty in this country is estimated at anywhere between $12 billion and $21 billion. This is particularly ironic because Richardson's legacy on the right is one of financial rectitude: she is seen, in particular, as the author of the 1994 Fiscal Responsibility Act, which aimed to improve the transparency and long-term management of the government's accounts. But not only is this relatively small beer compared to the appalling damage poverty inflicts on people's lives, the long-term economic costs of increased hardship are an example of massive financial irresponsibility. Not that Richardson has ever been able to acknowledge as much. Interviewed by the academic Andrew Dean a decade ago, she denied her policies had resulted in any wider harm: 'Over time, was there a social cost? No, there was a social benefit.' That, then, is the person the New Zealand state decided to honour this week: someone who not only did immense damage to the country's poorest but is also quite disconnected from the realities of that harm. The puzzle is less – as some commentators suggested – that it took so long for her to be recognised, but rather that she has been recognised at all. Maybe, though, we should not be surprised. Over in the UK, a similar strategy of slashing government budgets and benefit payments took place under the Conservatives between 2010 and 2024. This austerity cut access to the social services on which ordinary people rely, reduced ambulance services, and sparked poverty-related 'deaths of despair'. All up, it is conservatively estimated by researchers to have caused 190,000 preventable deaths. The man most responsible for this social devastation, former chancellor George Osborne, nonetheless occupies a gilded position in British life, having moved smoothly into editing the Evening Standard newspaper and pontificating on global politics. Inflicting misery on the poor is, in short, socially acceptable as long as it is clothed in the classic establishment rhetoric of taking 'difficult' choices, 'balancing' the books and fiscal 'responsibility'. The poor may be, as the Christians say, always with us, but that does not guarantee that their lives will ever be accorded the proper respect.
1News
10 hours ago
- 1News
Ardern takes swipe at Cunliffe over 'tokenistic' comment in new memoir
Jacinda Ardern singles out David Cunliffe, one of her predecessors as Labour leader, for criticism in her new memoir, describing an incident where he apparently suggested giving her a high position in the party list would be seen as "tokenistic". The exchange represents a rare public disagreement between two former leaders and amounts to an unusual moment of political candour from Ardern. She also recounts feeling relief when Cunliffe stepped down as leader after a crushing election loss for Labour in 2014, writing: "For the first time in a long while, I felt relieved." And she also wrote in her book, A Different Kind of Power, about questioning Cunliffe's authenticity and loyalty to the party. Party list ADVERTISEMENT Ardern describes a tense private exchange where Cunliffe allegedly told her he was considering her for the party's number three list position but was worried about whether it might appear "tokenistic". According to Ardern's account, Cunliffe called her to his office after becoming leader in 2013 to discuss the party's front bench positions. "I'd like to have a woman in my No. 3 spot," Cunliffe allegedly told her, before adding: "I've considered you for this spot. But I'm worried about that looking... well... tokenistic." Ardern writes she then refused to make a case for why she deserved the position: "'You either think that or you don't. I either deserve to be No. 3 or I don't. You need to decide." Ultimately she was not named at number 3 in the list, and nor was any other woman MP. Cunliffe responded to the claims in the book with a brief statement. ADVERTISEMENT "Jacinda did not raise any issues with me at the time and has not done so since," he said. "I have quite a different recollection of events." Ardern recounts volatile time for Labour The cover of A Different Kind of Power: A Memoir, set to be released on June 3, 2025. (Source: Penguin Random House/Supplied) Ardern also described her reaction to Cunliffe's infamous apology for being a man at a Women's Refuge event, writing: "I found myself holding my breath whenever he spoke." In contrast to her criticism of Cunliffe, Ardern speaks warmly of her relationship with Grant Robertson, who would later become her finance minister and deputy while PM, describing him as someone who would have been "an outstanding prime minister." She details how she supported Robertson's leadership bid, which included running against Cunliffe, and later formed a "Gracinda" ticket with him in a subsequent bid. 'My intent, never in writing this, was to ever malign' ADVERTISEMENT Ardern was asked about her candid writing regarding Cunliffe in an RNZ interview yesterday. "With any character in the book, for the most part, I've just tried to write experiences so without giving too much commentary on anyone as an individual person," she responded. "There were a few moments that were perhaps a little bit formative in my career, where I was struggling with this question of whether or not I was viewed tokenistically. The former Prime Minister was asked by Seven Sharp's Hilary Barry whether she could return to New Zealand without being given a hard time. (Source: Seven Sharp) "And the story that I shared came up through the course of those events. To not share it would have been a very deliberate edit, a deliberate exclusion of something that really did stand out in my mind. It wasn't just about the person. It was about the moment." The former prime minister said: "A lot of the things that are in there are also a reflection of that period in opposition, which was pretty tough for us, it is fair to say." ADVERTISEMENT "My intent never, in writing this, was to ever malign, but just to share an experience." 'The red wedding' Cunliffe, who now helps run a consultancy firm, has largely stayed out of the public eye since his time as a Cabinet minister and stint as Labour leader though he sometimes appears as a political pundit. He took over the leadership in 2013 following a divisive contest but stepped down after the 2014 election defeat. Ardern described the party's turbulence in detail, comparing the aftermath of Phil Goff's election loss to "the red wedding in Game of Thrones". Then-prime minister John Key and David Cunliffe go head to head at the TVNZ leader's debate on September 17, 2014 (Source: TVNZ) The leadership period was marked by internal party tensions, with factions emerging within the Labour caucus, including an "Anyone-But-Cunliffe" grouping. Years later, just weeks before the 2017 election, Ardern went on to become Labour leader and subsequently became PM in a coalition with NZ First and the Greens before winning with a landslide in 2020. When asked yesterday if she remained in contact with Cunliffe, Ardern said no. But she added that if she saw him, she would still stop and chat to him. "Not everyone do I have regular exchanges with," she said.
