UPDATE: Denniston Protest Over, Climbers Down
Stockton. The climbers who blockaded the Stockton Mine coal conveyor for over 60 hours have been arrested, ending a bold direct action that disrupted operations at Bathurst Resources' controversial coal mine on the West Coast.
All climbers, part of a 70-strong protest encampment that spanned generations, from eight months old to 74 years, have been charged by police alongside five other protesters for Trespass.
'We'll keep fighting this mine,' said climber Adam Currie. 'We've stalled at least two days of coal extraction, sent a clear message to Bathurst and the government, and shown that people are ready to resist the Fast Track Act and the climate-wrecking projects it enables.'
The protest targeted Australian-owned Bathurst Resources' plan to mine 20 million tonnes of coal from the pristine Denniston Plateau under the government's new fast-tracked consent process. The company has a history of consent breaches in Aotearoa, and campaigners say they won't back down.
'Support has poured in from across the motu, and local folks have backed us by bringing baking, offering places to sleep, and sharing their own frustrations with the mine. Our resolve is stronger than ever,' Currie said.
The climbers' action prompted a response from Resources Minister Shane Jones, who attempted to justify coal expansion with misleading claims about domestic energy needs—despite the fact that the coal in question is for export. 'This isn't just about one minister,' said Currie. 'His comments reflect a deeper truth: this government is doubling down on fossil fuels at the exact moment we need to be scaling up renewables.'
The encampment, which included people from Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Nelson and beyond, has now disbanded. In total, 10 people have been charged, four of them had also been arrested.
So what's next?
'This weekend was just the beginning,' said Alva Feldmeier. 'The Fast Track is waking people up. It's uniting communities, whānau, and climate defenders across the country. We're building a movement that's ready to rise up - again and again - against corporate exploitation and climate betrayal. It's carrying on the legacy of over 150 years of māori-led land back movements here in Aotearoa.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Australian visitors Sean Clifford, Jamaica Faletoilalo jailed for Auckland cocaine smuggling plot
In 2005, young Australian banker Sean Clifford made headlines at home and overseas for a bizarre mistake in judgment in which he reportedly found A$263,000 cash in an alleyway and stowed it under his work desk rather than informing police. When the stash was found by a co-worker, the
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
AUKUS: A Very Antipodean Stupidity
Call it abandonment, anxiety, or just latent stupidity. The messy goo of feelings and fuzzy notions behind Australia's most injudicious strategic decision is yielding its nasty harvest. Conceived by paranoid armchair strategists, flabby think tankers and profligate spenders happy to expend other people's money, the tripartite agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States is rapidly unravelling. Even during the Biden administration, under whose bumbling watch this agreement was hatched, there were doubts. The ogrish price tag (US$239 billion or A$368 billion) that would be billed to the Australian taxpayer; the absurd time schedules (delivery of nuclear-powered submarines by the 2030s and 2040s); the contingencies and qualifications (Congressional concerns about transferring Virginia Class (SSN-774) submarines to the Royal Australian Navy), all pointed to the fact that Canberra had fallen for a lemon, childishly refusing to taste its stinging bitterness. The central point of the tediously named Pillar One of the AUKUS agreement (there is no pillar, one or otherwise), which involves the transfer of US Virginia class boats to the RAN – was always its viability. While President Joe Biden was gradually losing his faculties in the White House, the Congressional Research Service was pertinently noting the obstacles that would face any transfer. The CRS report released on May 22, 2023 was the sort of thing that should have alarmed Australian defence planners, instead of turning them into paid up ostriches dreaming of consultancies. For one thing, it made it clear that Congress was always going to be the one to convince in the matter. 'One issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify DOD's AUKUS-related legislative package for the FY2024 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] sent to Congress on May 2, 2023'. That package included the authorisation for the transfer of 'up to two Virginia-class SSNs to the government of Australia in the form of sale, with the costs of the transfer to be covered by the government of Australia.' There were also weighty doubts about the 'net impact on collective allied deterrence and warfighting capabilities of transferring three to five Virginia-class boats to Australia while pursuing the construction of three to five replacement SSNs for the US Navy'. This is a point that has never gone away. To give, even to an ally, and a perceived advantage yet diminish, however small and fictional, the supposed power of the US submarine fleet, is never going to take place if the annual production of 1.2 Virginia boats remains as it is. Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker was always of the view that 'the AUKUS plan would transfer US Virginia-class submarines to a partner nation even before we have met our own Navy's requirements.' The fact that the Trump administration is now conducting a review of AUKUS can be seen as a mere formality – for those who think formalities smooth matters. The Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles certainly hopes so, calling it 'a completely natural step for an incoming government to take.' That Yankee stronghold of renown in Canberra, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, apes the line with simian consistency: 'It's normal, after a change of government, for a new administration to review existing commitments in the light of new policy priorities: in this case, 'America First'.' But nothing about the Trump government is a formality, or any review's outcome a foregone conclusion. The presence of Undersecretary of Defense Policy Eldridge Colby should be disconcerting to the AUKUS band leaders and comparisons to Britain's own review of the pact by Sir Stephen Lovegrove should be seen as fantastically distant. 'AUKUS,' in Colby's assessment, 'is only going to lead to more submarines collectively in 10, 15, 20 years, which is way beyond the window of maximum danger, which is really this decade.' Putting to one side the warmongering stirring in the latter part of the statement, Colby is certainly not wrong about the time that will elapse before any delivery takes place. Down under, the strategists are scurrying and fretting, a sight that is proving enormously entertaining. But the political classes have only themselves to blame for this pigsty of a conundrum. As former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull notes with snappy precision, the AUKUS agreement is perfectly positioned for the US to not follow through. It can still stick to the letter of the agreement without having to ever transfer a single submarine to Australia, all the time raking in Australian largesse. 'This is because it has always been part of the deal, and part of the US legislation, that the transfer of submarines to Australia is highly conditional.' The legislation in question notes that the President will submit to the relevant congressional committees and leadership a certification no later than 270 days prior to the transfer of vessels that the move 'will not degrade the United States underseas capabilities'; is consistent with the country's foreign policy and national security interests and furthers the AUKUS partnership. That furtherance, however, involves the US ensuring 'sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments' that will meet undersea capabilities; Australia supplying 'appropriate funds and support for the additional capacity required to meet the requirements' under the provisions; and Canberra's 'capability to host and fully operate the vessels authorized to be transferred.' The latest development in this overpriced show shows it up as a series of fictions: for Australia, the boyish hankering for nuclear powered submarines in the first place; for the United States, the fact that it needs more nuclear armed boats in order to look more ridiculous in having an arsenal it can never use. It was the military industrial complex in full song, nourished by expensive games, dubious scenarios and drab excuses for war. With Donald Trump in the White House, the Make America Great Again philosophy mushes the terminology of sweet friends and mortal foes, turning it into the mortar of self-interest. Washington's interests come first, and Australia's own idiotically misplaced interests are barely visible in the White House situation room. Then again, never ask Australian strategic thinkers about their interests, ever the hostage of governing fears and treasured prejudices.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
The Morality Of Small Means: Sanctioning Israel's Ministers
They really ought to be doing more. But in the scheme of things, the sanctioning of Israeli's frothily fanatical ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich by New Zealand, Canada, Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia is a reminder to the Israeli government that ethnic cleansing, mass killing and the destruction of a people will receive some comment. But a closer look at the trumpeted move does little to suggest anything in the way of change or deterrence, certainly not in Gaza, where the cataclysm continues without restraint. According to the joint statement, both politicians 'have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous.' The violence by Israeli settlers in the West Bank had 'led to the deaths of Palestinian civilians and the displacement of whole communities.' The reasoning for the imposition of such sanctions tends to minimise Ben-Gvir and Smotrich's zealous defence of programmatic and systematic displacement and removal of Palestinian existence in the Strip, despite the statement claiming that 'this cannot be seen in isolation'. The statement fails to note the warnings from the International Court of Justice that Palestinians in Gaza face the risk of genocide, with a final decision pending on the matter. Singling out individual members of the Netanyahu cabinet as the convenient lunatics and the devilishly possessed is a point of convenience rather than effect. It is true that, even by certain Israeli standards, a figure like Ben-Gvir is a bit too pungent, a convict of racist incitement, the procurer of assault rifles to West Bank settlers and an advocate for the full annexation of the territory. But identifying the villainous monsters conceals the broader villainous effort, and the Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong did as much in simply calling the two ministers 'the most extreme proponents of the unlawful and violent Israeli settlement enterprise.' The report of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, prefers to note the broader role played by such agents of power as the Israeli security forces, which it accuses of committing war crimes in directing attacks against the civilian population in Gaza, wilful killing and intentionally launching attacks that 'would cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians'. Killing civilians seeking shelter in schools also implicated the forces 'in the crime against humanity of extermination.' The canvas of responsibility, in other words, is panoramic and large. Pity, then, that the latest expression of small means by these five powers does not extend to a complete halt to military cooperation, the selling of arms, or engagement across various fields of industry. That would have diminished the hypocrisy somewhat, something that the countries in question are unlikely to do. More's the pity that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been spared this fit of moral clarity. When considered in substance, the two ministers face the sorts of restrictions that will be mildly bruising at best: travel bans and the freezing of assets. The move by the Australian Labor government and its counterparts was, in the broader scheme of things, a modest one. It was also worth remembering that Canberra's decision was made in sheepish fashion, with Wong previously stating that Australia would never unilaterally make such a move, as 'going it alone gets us nowhere'. It was seen by Greens Senator Nick McKim as 'far too little and far too late'. Sanctions were needed against the 'Israeli industrial war machine.' On the other hand, Alex Ryvchin, co-chief of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry suggests that these measures can become a martyr's tonic. 'They have little support in Israel, but this is the sort of measure that will boost their notoriety and make them perhaps more popular'. Looking ever the marionette in the show, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio flapped about in condemning the sanctions, which 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war.' Bereft of skills in argumentation, he could only warn US allies 'not to forget who the real enemy is.' The sanctions seemed to cause the condemned two less grief than Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar, who derided the decision as 'outrageous', 'scandalous' and 'unacceptable.' It was all part of 'a planned and coordinated pressure campaign.' Ben-Gvir was almost smug with the attention and bursting with semitic pride. 'We survived Pharoah, we will also survive [British Prime Minister] Keir Starmer,' he tooted in a statement. Smotrich even seemed thrilled by the timing of it all, having been at the inauguration of a new Jewish settlement near the West Bank city of Hebron when he heard the news. 'I heard Britain had decided to impose sanctions on me because I am thwarting the establishment of a Palestinian state,' he boasted. 'There couldn't be a better moment for this.' One point is certainly true: the selective moves against the dastardly two leaves the murderous apparatus intact, and the IDF war machine undiminished. Most of all, it will do nothing to halt the construction of a single settlement or save a single Palestinian from dispossession.
