spinofflive
Flooding in Mataura as seen from the air (Radio NZ, Katie Todd)
Flooding in Mataura as seen from the air (Radio NZ, Katie Todd)

PoliticsFebruary 13, 2020

Deep dross in the deep south: Is Rio Tinto holding New Zealand to ransom?

Flooding in Mataura as seen from the air (Radio NZ, Katie Todd)
Flooding in Mataura as seen from the air (Radio NZ, Katie Todd)

Minerals giant Rio Tinto has once again provoked the fury of the government over their operations down in Southland. So what’s going on, and why are people so angry?

What’s all this then? 

This story is all about dross. Not the dross that gets put out by global corporations as PR when they find themselves on the wrong side of an issue – rather, literal dross. Those are the dregs that get produced in the process of smelting minerals.

In the case of this story, there’s an old paper mill in the Southland town of Mataura which is full of it. The dross got produced in the course of Rio Tinto’s aluminium smelting operation at Tiwai Point. This particular dross, when combined with water, can create dangerous clouds of ammonia gas, and there were huge fears of this happening when the town flooded last week. As it happened, the dross was secured, but many in the town wanted it gone for good.

It appeared that there was good news on this front, with the Gore District Council believing they hand a handshake deal with the smelter to remove the material, in collaboration with a million dollars from the government. But now the smelter’s owners Rio Tinto have apparently pulled out of that agreement, according to District Council chief executive Steve Parry. And a lot of people are very annoyed about that, including environment minister David Parker, who said on Morning Report that “it’s outrageous. I can’t reconcile it with their statements of corporate responsibility that they put on their own website”.

Is it Rio Tinto’s responsibility?

That depends on your interpretation. Rio Tinto paid another company (Taha International) to remove the material and store it in 2014, but in 2016 they went into liquidation, and the dross has simply sat around ever since. Community pressure has been constant for Rio Tinto to be good corporate citizens and remove it – for example in 2017 campaigner Cherie Chapman told NZ Geographic that “the smelter company has been too passive and left the Southland community with a major hazard.” In that story, the liquidators of Taha said they were trying to find a solution to dispose of the material that would be safe and meet regulations. Clearly, that hasn’t happened.

Jacinda Ardern on a visit to the Tiwai Point Aluminium Smelter in 2018. (Photo by Dianne Manson/Getty Images)

Who are Rio Tinto again?

The company was founded almost 150 years ago, and is now one of the largest mining companies in the world, with revenues of around $40 billion USD a year. Over that long and storied history, they’ve faced numerous allegations of human rights and environmental abuses. They’ve also been two-time winners of the Roger Award – an activist project aimed at highlighting the worst transnational companies operating in New Zealand.

So why are politicians involved in this now?

A major part of it rests on the “strategic review” currently underway of Tiwai Point operations. Basically, the smelter provides a lot of direct and indirect jobs around Invercargill and Bluff, and have periodically gone to the government for financial support, particularly around their extremely high electricity costs as the largest single power user in the country. The last government did provide $30 million in support, but on the understanding that it was the last time such funds would be forthcoming; an understanding that some commentators regarded with considerable scepticism. The alternative would have been the smelter closing, and those jobs being lost.

Of course, that wasn’t the case, and now Rio Tinto’s strategic review holds the threat of closure over the head of the government once again. There has been an unconfirmed suggestion that they don’t want to add to their legal liabilities while that review is underway, which also made Parker furious, accusing them of “crying wolf” to “wring out concessions.”

Incidentally, news broke yesterday that Rio Tinto were also reviewing an unprofitable smelter in Iceland. Here’s a fun quote from the Reuters story that sounds familiar: “Rio said it will complete a strategic review of the smelter in the first half of 2020 and continue talks with the Iceland government and power provider Landsvirkjun to explore options for a return to profitability.”


Read more: Not-so-modest proposals for Tiwai, by Dr Nicola Gaston


So what happens now?

There may be legal action, with Parker speculating that the government might attempt to sue Rio Tinto. It’s a hardball tactic, but one which is in keeping with how escalating tension of the strategic review has gone so far.

As for Tiwai Point itself, a decision is expected to be announced on that in March. If it is to close, there’s a good chance it will be in large part because aluminium prices are low, and have been so for quite a while. You don’t become a multi-billion dollar company by running unprofitable operations.

And as for the dross? Who knows, but for the residents of Mataura, they’ll just have to pray that it doesn’t rain too hard again.

Keep going!
winston-facebook

PoliticsFebruary 13, 2020

Winston Peters stages his own Moment of Truth, live on Facebook

winston-facebook

When a politician apparently can’t get a fair hearing in the media, how do you get the truth out? Political commentator Ben Thomas braves the wobbly audio to watch Winston Peters’ efforts to clear up questions around the NZ First Foundation donations scandal by doing a Facebook live. 

Private sector media companies have plenty to grouse about when it comes to publicly funded competition. A mooted Triple-J clone to contest the crowded youth radio market. A mega-merger between RNZ and TVNZ. And now add to the list a new state-sponsored rival for audience eyeballs in primetime: deputy prime minister Winston Peters.

The New Zealand First leader took to Facebook Live last night to, he said, “reveal the truth” about the New Zealand First Foundation donations scandal that was referred to the Serious Fraud Office on Monday after the Electoral Commission formed the view that the mysterious NZ First Foundation had received donations which should have been treated as party donations for the NZ First party.

It’s easy to focus on Peters’ theatrics, which wouldn’t be out of place on reality TV. Peters scheduled the stream for the exact time that the entire press gallery had been invited to drinks at Premier House with the prime minister. He made a great show of talking “directly” to his supporters, to make sure his statements weren’t “contaminated by interfering comment not associated with the facts” – the deputy prime minister’s own Diary Cam, to hold forth about the dramas in the (Parliament) House.

And just like reality TV, this is part of a longer story that its audience of 12,000 was following at home. But while reality TV shows are at pains to remind viewers of what they already know, with flashbacks and narration as constant reminders to keep the plot on track, Peters’ Q&A had no such respect for conventions of continuity. What follows is an attempt to provide context to some of the questions Peters answered. 

“Is the Serious Fraud Office justified in launching an investigation into your party’s handling of donations and loans?”

Peters did not mention the Electoral Commission’s referral of New Zealand First Foundation donations to the Police at all. By his answer, it sounded as if SFO investigation was his idea. “Having seen the controversy out there” in the past months’ through Stuff and RNZ’s reporting of the Foundation’s affairs, he said, “we had decided, from my consultation with the party itself, that we should request the police’s involvement because they would have the powers to get out the truth.” Finding the leaker was only “one of the matters” that Peters desperately wanted resolved with Police (and now SFO) assistance.

Welcoming an inquiry by a law enforcement agency is a smart PR move – after all, why not welcome it if you have nothing to hide? Peters has embraced the tactic with such enthusiasm, though, it appears to have affected his short term memory. His claim that his party had resolved to seek an investigation into its donations is not borne out by any of his statements prior to the Electoral Commission actually referring the donations to the Police on Monday. 

On Sunday, Peters released a statement saying that he was recommending that the Party’s president make a complaint to the Police based on a “massive breach of party information”. 

When Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking asked Peters on Monday (before the Electoral Commission’s statement) what he was intending to ask Police to do, Peters’ response was “what we can do is get them to trace the person responsible [for the leaks] and charge them because it’s a criminal offence.”  

“What does the NZ First Foundation do and what was it set up for?”

An excellent question, to quote Peters himself. “A group decided the National Party had a foundation and that we should duplicate that.” But a better question might have been, what is the relationship between the Foundation and the party? This is a key question. If the Foundation operates genuinely independently from the party, then many of the nascent issues raised in the investigation will be solved. But is it independent? 

“My only involvement, then and all the way through, was to say at the start, you make sure it’s legal,” the deputy prime minister said last night. In other words, he and the party then had no operational say in the Foundation’s affairs. 

Except remember that Peters on Sunday had described the leak of Foundation information as “party information” and said a complaint would be laid by the party president, not the trustees of the Foundation. Peters also said that the person he strongly suspects leaked the Foundation’s information was a former party member – rather than someone formally associated with the Foundation. 

Peters also said he had “never seen one of the accounts” of the Foundation, but also reassured his viewers that “to the best of my knowledge it has only [received donations] from New Zealand legal entities and residents” and that he was “very confident” there were no donors linked to the Chinese Communist Party. It’s not clear how exactly he has this level of confidence, since he also said “Have I got any information that I can proffer to the Police or the Serious Fraud Office? No.”

“How do you respond to the horse racing industry donations to your party as the horse racing minister?”

“For 30 years,” Peters said, “I’ve been talking about the need to save this industry.” Why would there be any surprise that he was supported by individuals interested in the industry, and related companies, to the tune of $80,000 in 2017, according to RNZ?

Besides, Peters observed, the current racing policy is the result of an independent report by Australian racing expert John Messara. He omitted to mention that Messara’s report was submitted in July 2018, and two months earlier in May Peters had announced a $4.8 million in tax breaks for “high quality” horse breeders, which officials estimated may blow out to $40 million and which was the only tax cut in the coalition’s first budget. 

The prime minister said on Monday that criticism of Peters over the donations was unfair, and that it is “no secret to anyone in New Zealand that Winston Peters has a strong knowledge, understanding and long-standing connection to the racing industry”.

Incidentally, a long-standing tactic for dealing with scandal in New Zealand politics is to say “of course, everyone already knew that”, where “everyone” usually means members of the Press Gallery and Wellington gossips. Anyone raising further questions is made to feel like a yokel or a square, as if suggesting a new TV series a year after everyone else has already seen it.

The public do in fact know that Peters has longstanding support in the racing industry – thanks to news media reporting that breeder and rich lister Sir Patrick Hogan paid for an electoral ad promoting the party in the 2017 election campaign that the Electoral Commission found should have been declared by the party. Again, however, last night Peters was reiterating that the public did not have a right to know the identity of donors to the Foundation from any industry.

After less than ten minutes, the moment of truth was over, leaving many questions. Just as Peters lamented, noting that 300 people had submitted queries before his broadcast, “I can’t answer them all, obviously.”

Politics