Appendix i
Transcripts of correspondence from NZWBM requesting presence and input to PCE review, and the refusals.
Thursday 3 Feb 20111
Subsequent to making a phone call to the PCE and receiving a positive verbal response to my enquiry to request our NZWBM Society’s involvement in the PCE review, the following sequence of emails ensued.
NZWBM members
Earlier today I contacted Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment directly, to enquire whether the Commissioner would still accept contributions pertaining to her investigation and re-evaluation of 1080.
I did this because there appeared to be inconsistencies between what we had seen in the media and other information closer to parliament that I had become aware of. Also, some of our members had also expressed uncertainty.
It seems the media has given, prompted with help from certain other agencies, groups and societies, a completely wrong impression to the public.
The PCE has not completed its investigation at all, in fact is just beginning, and is going to forward to me all relevant info in order that the NZWBM can be a part of this. There is an intention to obtain NZ wide coverage.
Once I know more detail I will communicate this to you so that we may plan a strategy for submissions as a cohesive group to ensure consistency and impact.
Regards, Graham A Sperry.
Chairman
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Egan [mailto:Rob.Egan@pce.parliament.nz]
Sent: 07 February 2011 12:15
To: sperry@lures.co.nz
Subject: PCE report on 1080 and its alternatives
Hi Graeme,
Our receptionist asked me to contact you vis-à-vis the commissioner’s report into 1080 and its alternatives. At the moment we’re still at the research stage of the report and as such would appreciate any research papers or data you believe is likely to be relevant to our work. If you’ve got any questions about the report please feel free to let me know.
Regards,
Rob Egan
Communications Adviser
Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
PO Box 10-241
Wellington
Phone 04 495 8353
rob.egan@pce.parliament.nz
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mr Rob Egan.
PCE. Wellington
Monday 2nd Feb 2011
Hello Rob.
Our society want meaningful input into this evaluation and we have a large number of issues arising from our members throughout NZ and want to make certain these can be addressed by PCE in a meaningful way.
I understood the PCE would be seeking and accepting input throughout NZ.
How exactly do you propose obtaining a full community input?
We would much prefer our data was presented at local venues throughout NZ along with verbal personal presentations by our members.
I think PCE could begin by providing me with a complete description official document of the intent and scope and objectives of the project along with the intended method of addressing the task / set. Also, the time frames you propose working to.
I therefore look forward to you further urgent communications.
Kind regards, Graham A Sperry
Chairman. The NZ Wildlands Biodiversity Management Society Incorporated.
C/o ESPC, PO Box 1700 Taupo.
Ph 07 3338174
Email: sperry@lures.co.nz
url: www.1080.org.nz
CC: NZWBM exec
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Egan [mailto:Rob.Egan@pce.parliament.nz]
Sent: 08 February 2011 09:08
To: Graham Sperry
Subject: RE: PCE report on 1080 and its alternatives
Hi Graham,
We are performing an analysis of the science behind 1080 and its alternatives rather than an extensive consultative process. As such we would appreciate any research or data you can provide.
Warm regards,
Rob Egan
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 2 11. 10.53am
Thanks Egan.
However, I must say your replies are disappointingly quite vague. Can you not provide us with a description of the scope, the terms of reference, timeline, objectives and aims please? There must be a proper document setting out the parameters surely? I note this is now the third communication I have had with PCE on this matter.
We have extensive data in the form of correspondence with officials of MOH, AHB, MAF, DoC, Regional Councils, District Councils as well as references to certain “scientific’ papers and less formal independent investigations. We are also engaged on more than one issue with the Ombudsmen. There have been ongoing correspondences with ERMANZ. We are in contact with several members of the NZ Fur Council and possum harvesting operators. It makes no sense to simply dump these on the desk of the PCE; the issues are far to complex to allow that.
The 1080 issue is fraught with serious instances of obstructive behaviours by several agencies involved such that the public at large has been significantly disadvantaged in its ability to possess full information on some aspects of the 1080 issue; and I might add; that in my opinion this has compromised the very validity and integrity of virtually every hearing conducted in this country about the 1080 issue including the ERMA review, regional council resource consent hearings and commissioner chaired hearings.
The AHB has for over a decade been provided with over half a billion dollars of public funding while remaining aloof from the OIA and even gone to the extent of forcing non disclosure agreements on persons affected by negative 1080 impacts in order to hide the truth from the public.
These comments I have now made to you are extremely serious allegations’ and the addressing of such should be conducted in a formal setting and would take some days. These issues cannot be settled by simply providing PCE with a few “so- called scientific” papers with no recourse to discuss the issues in full in a way that ensures they will be properly recorded and discussed. In fact, the PCE must be aware that in today’s so- called “Scientific climate’ in NZ, much of the research is contracted and bought, by the very agencies who have a vested interest in the continuation of 1080 and similar poisons.
I trust you will pass on my comments and emails in total to the controller s and chief executive of this enquiry in order that we can achieve a worthwhile investigation, rather than the farcical hearings that have been conducted by other agencies to date which have, by dint of suppression of information to the public by the AHB in particular, created a denial of natural justice and democracy to the NZ public.
I venture to suggest that an initial meeting which would stand as an official recorded and documented part of the PCE investigation be arranged at a venue suitable to both key PCE investigators and key members of our society to present an overview to PCE.
Regards,
Graham A Sperry
Chairman. NZ Wildlands Biodiversity management Society Inc’
CC: NZWBM exec.
Mayor Cooper. TDC
Mayor Pugh. WDC
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Egan [mailto:Rob.Egan@pce.parliament.nz]
Sent: 08 February 2011 13:17
To: Graham Sperry
Subject: RE: PCE report on 1080 and its alternatives
Dear Graham,
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is an independent Officer of Parliament charged with investigating environmental matters as per section 16 of the Environment Act 1986. While this does not preclude broad consultation on issues it is done at her discretion and as best fits the nature of the investigation at hand.
As this investigation is strictly concerned with researching the science and material application of 1080 and pest control alternatives, consultation has been mostly limited to the gathering of research materials and data.
We are, of course, a small office and as such we do not operate as a government department with their full-scale consultation processes. What we are focused upon is ensuring that we have enough information to be able to provide well grounded advice to MPs for their consideration.
Once again I would encourage you to provide us with any research or data you believe is applicable to our report.
Warm Regards,
Rob Egan
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 2 11. 14.05 pm
Hi Rob.
We are keen to provide information and reports, but we cannot do this effectively by remote means alone. We do see a strong need to converse directly with PCE on a face to face basis.
I reiterate the points I have made previously.
Surely we can come to an arrangement which allows meaningful discourse?
Regards, Graham A Sperry.
CC: WBM exec.
Mayor Cooper
Mayor Pugh
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Egan [mailto:Rob.Egan@pce.parliament.nz]
Sent: 08 February 2011 14:58
To: Graham Sperry
Subject: RE: PCE report on 1080 and its alternatives
Dear Graham,
While we understand you would like to present your material face to face we are a small office with limited resources and as such cannot extend an invitation to meet to all parties in this matter.
Warm regards,
Rob Egan
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 2 11. 15.43pm
Dear Rob,
If we were to organise a venue in Wellington, at no cost to PCE, so we can meet and converse with PCE operatives, would that be of help? We consider this extremely important.
Regards, Graham A Sperry.
CC: Mayor Cooper
Mayor Pugh
WBM exec.
R. Robinson
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Egan [mailto:Rob.Egan@pce.parliament.nz]
Sent: 08 February 2011 15:54
To: Graham Sperry
Subject: RE: PCE report on 1080 and its alternatives
Hi Graham,
As you’ll know we are getting some research sent through from Reihana. We’ll have to have a good look at this and get back to you.
Warm regards,
Rob
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 2 11. 16.15pm
Reihana’s contribution is not that of what our society will present in addition.
Please address my offer of a venue.
Regards, Graham A Sperry.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rob Egan [mailto:Rob.Egan@pce.parliament.nz]
Sent: 08 February 2011 16:32
To: Graham Sperry
Cc: Reihana Robinson
Subject: RE: PCE report on 1080 and its alternatives
Dear Graham,
I’m sorry but we don’t have the resources to meet with everyone on this issue – which is why we have requested written material. Please feel free to provide any research or data you believe is applicable to our report.
Warm Regards,
Rob Egan
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 2 11. 17.25pm
Hi Rob.
Are PCE being selective / exclusive about who they will and will not meet? It seems from your email that PCE is meeting with some persons; why not us? We are a bona fide registered entity with a long standing interest in the 1080 situation; in fact, it is the reason for our existence.
We feel strongly that your time will be better served if we can discuss our information with you so that your comprehension of it is left in no doubt. Much of what we have is not in a formal format. I think meeting PCE staff would save time and effort in the long run.
In terms of applicability to the proposed PCE report; you still have not provided us with any detailed terms of reference to work to.
Regards, Graham A Sperry
CC: WBM exec
Mayor Cooper
Mayor Pugh