Latest news with #OfficialInformationAct
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Leading International Climate Scientists Rubbish Luxon's ‘Methane Review', Call On PM To Take Methane Seriously
According to the Financial Times report, leading climate scientists are accusing politicians in New Zealand and Ireland of using an 'accounting trick' that could undermine global efforts to fight climate change. Over 25 international climate change scientists have written an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, calling out the Government for 'ignoring scientific evidence' and urging it to 'deliver methane reductions that contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.' According to the Financial Times report, leading climate scientists are accusing politicians in New Zealand and Ireland of using an 'accounting trick' that could undermine global efforts to fight climate change. Specifically the use of 'no additional warming' as a way of setting methane targets would unjustly allow countries with large historic livestock emissions to keep polluting, while penalising poorer countries. Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Amanda Larsson says, 'This is yet more international criticism of the New Zealand government's anti-science approach to tackling climate change. 'The New Zealand dairy industry is the country's worst climate polluter. Yet rather than responding to the climate crisis with action, the New Zealand Government is looking to sweep the problem under the rug with creative accounting.' The concept of 'no additional warming' is highly controversial because it focuses on keeping emissions at current levels, rather than reducing them. Quoted in the Financial Times article is Oxford University Professor Paul Behrens, who said: 'It's like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river, and it's killing life. If I then go and pour just 90 barrels, then I should get credited for that'.' 'No additional warming' has also been criticised by New Zealand experts, including the independent Climate Change Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The open letter urges Luxon to listen to the Climate Commission's advice and strengthen action on methane. The Climate Change Commission recommends methane cuts of 35-47%. However, under pressure from lobby groups like Federated Farmers – whose ex-President Andrew Hoggard is now an ACT Party MP – the Government established a separate panel to review the methane target in line with this controversial tool. That panel landed on a much weaker methane target. Documents released under the Official Information Act show that the methane panel was established because the Climate Commission's independence meant the Government could not direct it to use 'no additional warming'. Ministry for the Environment officials advised at the time that 'no additional warming' was not in fact a matter of science, but a political decision. Larsson says, 'The Luxon Government chose to sideline its independent, science-based climate advisory body by setting up a separate review panel with the very narrow task of giving it the answers it wanted. No wonder international climate scientists are raising the alarm.' Further OIA documents show that the Methane Review Panel only met with agribusiness stakeholders, including a Groundswell-linked lobby group. Greenpeace says this is just the tip of the iceberg. The organisation has unveiled documents showing the startling level of influence that groups like Federated Farmers, Dairy NZ and Beef+Lamb NZ have had over government policy. This includes writing draft policy and communications plans for Ministers. 'Most New Zealanders are deeply concerned about climate change and the risk to their kids and grandkids,' says Larsson. 'They expect the Government to be using the best evidence from its appointed experts, not fudging the numbers to let the country's worst polluters off the hook. This is what happens when you let polluters write the policy.' The Government has indicated that it will make a decision on the methane target this year, ahead of the UN climate summit in the Amazon this November.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Health
- Scoop
From Tobaccogate To Gendergate: Casey Costello's Pattern Of Ideology Over Evidence Continues
Wellington, New Zealand Rights Aotearoa (formerly Countering Hate Speech Aotearoa) today strongly condemned Associate Health Minister Casey Costello for issuing a discriminatory directive targeting trans and non-binary pregnant people without any evidence, consultation, or regard for human rights – the latest in a disturbing pattern of ideological decision-making. Official Information Act documents prove Minister Costello: Took ZERO advice before directing Health NZ to exclude trans and non-binary people from health communications. Conducted NO analysis of human rights implications under the Human Rights Act 1993 or the Bill of Rights Act 1990. Had NO evidence to support her claim about inclusive language confusing ESL speakers. She just lied about this point. Ignored established medical best practice to pursue an ideological agenda. "Casey Costello presented her personal prejudice as fact," said Paul Thistoll, CEO of Rights Aotearoa. "She claimed inclusive language confused people with English as a second language, yet sought no advice, consulted no one, and had zero evidence. This is governance by discrimination." The minister's directive forces Health NZ to erase pregnant trans men and non-binary people from existence in health communications – a clear breach of the Human Rights Act 1993. "First, there was tobaccogate; now it's gendergate. This isn't just about words; it's about trust and a pattern of behaviour," Thistoll continued. During the tobacco scandal, Costello: Ignored Treasury officials who told her "Philip Morris would be the biggest winner" from her $216 million tax cut. First denied that a tobacco policy document existed, then claimed not to know who wrote it or how it ended up in her office. Was reprimanded TWICE by the Chief Ombudsman for acting "contrary to law" in withholding information. Claimed to have "independent advice" supporting tobacco tax cuts, but refused to reveal its source. "When a Minister bypasses evidence, ignores expert advice, and has a history of transparency issues, it undermines public confidence," said Thistoll. "Whether it's handing $216 million to Big Tobacco or erasing trans people from healthcare, Casey Costello operates the same way: no evidence, no consultation, no transparency, no accountability." This directive will erase trans and non-binary pregnant people from health communications, potentially denying them vital care, despite research from Dr George Parker showing inclusive language benefits them without harming others. Rights Aotearoa demands Minister Costello: Immediately reverse this discriminatory and evidence-free directive Issue a public apology to the trans and non-binary community for the distress caused and for pursuing policy without due diligence Commit unequivocally to transparent, evidence-based policymaking, particularly in health If Minister Costello refuses to uphold her responsibilities and correct this harmful directive by July 1st, Rights Aotearoa will: Support pregnant trans and non-binary people to file formal complaints with the Human Rights Commission and pursue proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal to seek a ruling that the directive unlawfully discriminates based on gender identity "Kiwis deserve healthcare based on facts and fairness, not a Minister's personal crusade," Thistoll declared. "Casey Costello has shown she will sacrifice public health and human rights for her personal ideology. From tobacco to trans rights, she operates without evidence, hides the truth, and puts vulnerable people at risk. This must stop." OIA response CCHOIA-447 from Hon Casey Costello's office (29 May 2025) confirms no consultation or advice was sought. The Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex, which includes gender identity, according to the Human Rights Commission, based on the Crown Law 2006 Opinion. Health NZ confirmed they had no policy requiring gender-inclusive language before the minister's intervention. Minister previously found to have acted unlawfully by Chief Ombudsman in tobacco policy matters.
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Leading International Climate Scientists Rubbish Luxon's ‘Methane Review', Call On PM To Take Methane Seriously
Over 25 international climate change scientists have written an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, calling out the Government for "ignoring scientific evidence" and urging it to "deliver methane reductions that contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees." According to the Financial Times report, leading climate scientists are accusing politicians in New Zealand and Ireland of using an "accounting trick" that could undermine global efforts to fight climate change. Specifically the use of "no additional warming" as a way of setting methane targets would unjustly allow countries with large historic livestock emissions to keep polluting, while penalising poorer countries. Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Amanda Larsson says, "This is yet more international criticism of the New Zealand government's anti-science approach to tackling climate change. "The New Zealand dairy industry is the country's worst climate polluter. Yet rather than responding to the climate crisis with action, the New Zealand Government is looking to sweep the problem under the rug with creative accounting." The concept of "no additional warming" is highly controversial because it focuses on keeping emissions at current levels, rather than reducing them. Quoted in the Financial Times article is Oxford University Professor Paul Behrens, who said: "It's like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river, and it's killing life. If I then go and pour just 90 barrels, then I should get credited for that'." "No additional warming" has also been criticised by New Zealand experts, including the independent Climate Change Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The open letter urges Luxon to listen to the Climate Commission's advice and strengthen action on methane. The Climate Change Commission recommends methane cuts of 35-47%. However, under pressure from lobby groups like Federated Farmers - whose ex-President Andrew Hoggard is now an ACT Party MP - the Government established a separate panel to review the methane target in line with this controversial tool. That panel landed on a much weaker methane target. Documents released under the Official Information Act show that the methane panel was established because the Climate Commission's independence meant the Government could not direct it to use "no additional warming". Ministry for the Environment officials advised at the time that "no additional warming" was not in fact a matter of science, but a political decision. Larsson says, "The Luxon Government chose to sideline its independent, science-based climate advisory body by setting up a separate review panel with the very narrow task of giving it the answers it wanted. No wonder international climate scientists are raising the alarm." Further OIA documents show that the Methane Review Panel only met with agribusiness stakeholders, including a Groundswell-linked lobby group. Greenpeace says this is just the tip of the iceberg. The organisation has unveiled documents showing the startling level of influence that groups like Federated Farmers, Dairy NZ and Beef+Lamb NZ have had over government policy. This includes writing draft policy and communications plans for Ministers. "Most New Zealanders are deeply concerned about climate change and the risk to their kids and grandkids," says Larsson. "They expect the Government to be using the best evidence from its appointed experts, not fudging the numbers to let the country's worst polluters off the hook. This is what happens when you let polluters write the policy." The Government has indicated that it will make a decision on the methane target this year, ahead of the UN climate summit in the Amazon this November.
Otago Daily Times
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Clarity needed on our Gaza stance
New Zealand's foreign policy stance on Palestine lacks transparency, John Hobbs writes. It is difficult to understand what sits behind the New Zealand government's unwillingness to sanction, or threaten to sanction, the Israeli government for its genocide against the Palestinian people. The United Nations, human rights groups, legal experts and now genocide experts have all agreed it really is "genocide" which is being committed by the state of Israel against the civilian population of Gaza. It is hard to argue with the conclusion genocide is happening, given the tragic images being portrayed across social and increasingly mainstream media. Prime Minister Netanyahu has presented Israel's assault on Gaza war as pitting "the sons of light" against "the sons of darkness". And promised the victory of Judeo-Christian civilisation against barbarism. A real encouragement to his military there should be no-holds barred in exercising indiscriminate destruction over the people of Gaza. Given this background, one wonders what the nature of the advice being provided by New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the minister entails? Does the ministry fail to see the destruction and brutal killing of a huge proportion of the civilian people of Gaza? And if they see it, are they saying as much to the minister? Or is the advice so nuanced in the cloak of "diplomatic language" it effectively says nothing and is crafted in a way which gives the minister ultimate freedom to make his own political choices. The advice of the officials becomes a reflection of what the minister is looking for; namely, a foreign policy approach that gives him enough freedom to support the Israeli government and at the same time be in step with its closest ally, the United States. The problem is there is no transparency around the decision-making process, so it is impossible to tell how decisions are being made. I placed an Official Information Act request with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2024 seeking advice received by the minister on New Zealand's obligations under the Genocide Convention. The request was refused because while the advice did exist, it fell outside the timeline indicated by my request. It was emphasised if I were to put in a further request for the advice, it was unlikely to be released. They then advised releasing the information would be likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand and the international relations of the government of New Zealand, and withholding it was necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. It is hard to imagine how the release of such information might prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or that the legal issues could override the public interest. It could not be more important for New Zealanders to understand the basis for New Zealand's foreign policy choices. New Zealand is a contracting party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Under the convention, "genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they [the contracting parties] undertake to prevent and punish". Furthermore: The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide. (Article 5). Accordingly, New Zealand must play an active part in its prevention and put in place effective penalties. Chloe Swarbrick's private member's Bill to impose sanctions is one mechanism to do this. In response to its two-month blockade of food, water and medical supplies to Gaza, and international pressure, Israel has agreed to allow a trickle of food to enter Gaza. However, this is only a tiny fraction of what is needed to avert famine. Understandably, Israel's response has been criticised by most of the international community, including New Zealand. In a carefully worded statement, signed by a collective of European countries, together with New Zealand and Australia, it is requested that Israel allow a full resumption of aid into Gaza, an immediate return to ceasefire and a return of the hostages. Radio New Zealand interviewed the Foreign Minister Winston Peters to better understand the New Zealand position. Mr Peters reiterated his previous statements, expressing Israel's actions of withholding food as "intolerable" but when asked about putting in place concrete sanctions he stated any such action was a "long, long way off", without explaining why. New Zealand must be clear about its foreign policy position, not hide behind diplomatic and insincere rhetoric and exercise courage by sanctioning Israel as it has done with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. As a minimum, it must honour its responsibilities under the Convention on Genocide and, not least, to offer hope and support for the utterly powerless and vulnerable Palestinian people before it is too late. — John Hobbs is a doctoral student at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago.
Otago Daily Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Immigration Minister regrets email ‘spam' remarks
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford. Photo: RNZ Immigration Minister Erica Stanford says she regrets remarks made in Parliament earlier this month, when she likened unsolicited emails from Indians to "spam". When answering parliamentary questions about the use of her private email on May 6, Stanford said she had received a number of emails from people in India asking for immigration advice, which she never responded to. She told RNZ she had been receiving emails from all over the world, and would not have singled out any particular country if she could go back in time. Stanford said she never intended to upset anyone when she made the comments. "You know, it wasn't my intent to draw out one particular country," Stanford told RNZ today. "It was just a recent example that I happened to have in my head at the time. "If I could go back and not say that particular country, of course I would." When asked if she regretted making those remarks, Stanford said, "Looking back, of course". Willow-Jean Prime. Photo: supplied "I would have said many people from many countries e-mail me asking for a job and a visa, and I do treat those as spam because clearly no minister in any country would be expected to respond to such an e-mail saying, 'Can I please have a job' and 'Can I please have a visa' from someone who's not stepped foot in the country before." On May 6, Labour MP Willow-Jean Prime asked Stanford to confirm every email related to her ministerial portfolios, which had ever been sent to or from her personal email account, had been captured for official record. The question followed revelations a day earlier that Stanford had used her personal email account for work purposes, including sending herself pre-Budget announcements to print out. "I have complied with the Official Information Act. I have also made sure that everything is available to be captured and have forwarded everything that I've needed to my parliamentary email address," Stanford said in response to the Labour MP's question. "I will acknowledge, though, in a very similar case to Kelvin Davis, I receive a lot of unsolicited emails like, for example, things from people in India asking for immigration advice, which I never respond to. I almost regard those as being akin to spam, and so there are those ones. But, similarly, other ministers have had probably very similar issues." Priyanca Radhakrishnan Photo: RNZ Priyanca Radhakrishnan, a Labour MP and former minister of ethnic communities, made her displeasure with the remarks about unsolicited emails from India clear in a social media post on May 10. "Earlier this week, in response to a question by @willowjeanprime the Immigration Minister felt the need to single out people from one country/ethnicity in a negative light," Radhakrishnan wrote. "If you're from India, don't bother emailing her because it's automatically considered spam. So much for the National govt's all-of-government focus on strengthening the relationship between India and NZ and focus on people-to-people links." Approached by RNZ, Stanford initially defended her remarks, claiming Radhakrishnan's assertion was "incorrect". "As I advised the House, I receive unsolicited emails from people overseas to my personal email address, often requesting personal immigration advice," Stanford said. "In this instance, I recalled a recent email I'd received of this nature when answering in Question Time. I did not say it is automatically considered as spam, I said 'I almost regard those as being akin to spam'. "While these people are attempting to contact me as the minister of immigration, I have no ministerial responsibility for providing non-citizens with immigration advice, nor do my officials at Immigration NZ have any responsibility. "Therefore, these emails to my personal email address are not responded to. Emails sent to my official email addresses are managed appropriately by my office." Her remarks have sparked anger in India over the past two weeks, with many mainstream media in the subcontinent devoting column inches to the story. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said Stanford could have expressed herself better, but meant no offence when she made comments about receiving emails from people in India. Veer Khar Photo: RNZ Members of the Indian community in New Zealand have also criticised the minister for her remarks. Veer Khar, president of the New Zealand Indian Central Association, expressed concern about the comments. "We find this characterisation ill-mannered, dismissive and inappropriate," Khar wrote in a letter to the minister. "While we appreciate that ministers receive a high volume of unsolicited emails, the specific reference to Indian-origin correspondence creates an unfortunate impression of bias against a community that has long contributed positively to New Zealand's economy, culture and society. "Your comments not only risk damaging trust in the immigration process but also send an unwelcome message to aspiring migrants and Indian-New Zealanders who seek fair and respectful engagement with the government." Ravi Bajpai Photo: Supplied Ravi Bajpai, editor of Indian community newspaper Indian Weekender, said Stanford's remarks contained two core assumptions. "First ... is the way Stanford made the reference to Indians," Bajpai said. "[She] actually doesn't need [to] typecast a particular ethnicity. "Second one is more subtle. When the immigration minister herself is engendering such stereotypes, it will rub off on officials making frontline immigration decisions. "The Indian community in general feels the real question is about implicit bias. "[But] a lot of immigration advisors I have talked to say it's not just implicit bias, it's also explicit bias against a lot of applications they deal [concerning Indians]." Bajpai said the remarks had become a hot-button issue in the community because Indian media had picked it up. "Her remarks have made headlines on all the major news website. It also coincides with Foreign Minister Winston Peters' visit to India," he said. "When you are trying to crack a [free trade] deal with India, something you haven't been able to do for about 10-15 years, does it really help for your minister to say things like that?"
