Waste Management Takes Offensive
"In the wake of the 1999 announcement of the preferred site, Dump The Dump (the Selwyn group set up to fight it) settled in for the long haul. On the Sunday after the November general election they invited the public to join them at a picnic at the dumpsite, so that the urban rubbish producers could see the future destination of their weekly black plastic rubbish bags and weekend trailer loads to the various refuse treatment plants around Christchurch. Several hundred people accepted the invitation and headed for the hills (the Malvern Hills, that is). CAFCA was represented by myself and Reg Duder. Once again, we took several hundred copies of our leaflet on Waste Management, the same one that Reg and I had handed out at the 1999 midwinter Darfield public meeting to oppose the dump (over 1,000 people had attended that). It has been well circulated throughout the Selwyn district, being included in Dump The Dump’s material at the annual Canterbury Show and at the picnic itself. Driving towards Darfield, on the West Coast highway, motorists could’t escape the plethora of Dump The Dump signs on the roadsides, farm gates, and in farmers’ paddocks. These people were angry.
"The three speakers at the picnic reflected the broad political opposition to the landfill. They were, in order: Sir Kerry Burke, former (Labour) Speaker and current Christchurch 2021 Canterbury Regional Councillor; the local National MP, Jenny Shipley, who was still Prime Minister, despite National having been defeated the previous weekend; and Rod Donald, Greens co-leader, and technically an ex-MP at that point, as the Greens had fallen short on election day (but ended up with seven MPs, once special votes were counted). Shipley said that one of the few consolations in losing the election was the time that was now available to her to fight the landfill. The organizers also singled Brian Priestley out for thanks. The former head of the University of Canterbury School of Journalism and well known media commentator had devoted several of his weekly columns in the Christchurch Star to comprehensively rubbishing the dump.
"It was a very strange sensation for CAFCA people to be listening politely to Jenny Shipley from a few metres away, surrounded by her applauding constituents. Single issues definitely lead to strange bedfellows. It was all a bit much for old Reg, who had been heavily involved in the fightback against Shipley’s vicious benefit cuts and war on the poor in the early 1990s. He shouted out something and was promptly shoved by the rural Tory next to him. But the rain doth fall on Tory and CAFCA alike - the speeches were abruptly foreshortened by the opening of the heavens, everyone scattered and decided that while they were at it, they might as well go home. Our retreat was only temporarily stopped by Rod flagging us down to give us a piece of his homemade quiche (proving that he can’t be a Real Man). We were left with several hundred of our leaflets - fortunately we found a home for them in mailouts by Agenda 21 and the Aoraki (Canterbury) branch of the Greens.
"So the stage was set for a ding dong battle lasting years. Waste Management NZ itself was heavily committed to a propaganda offensive. It took journalists to its Redvale landfill, north of Auckland (see, for instance, Press, 14/2/00; “Redvale - a place where landfills work”, by Mike Bruce). Waste Management NZ was one of the finalists for the 1999 Roger Award for the Worst Transnational Corporation In New Zealand (see cover story. Ed.). This obviously perturbed it - CAFCA received an unprecedented approach from Jane Parlane, of the Auckland Communications Company, on behalf of their client, Waste Management. She rang me more than once, anxious to know things like who had nominated WM (“was it an individual or an organization?”). We don’t release those sort of details. Her main aim was for us to relay PR material to the Roger Award judges, so that, presumably, they would have all the “facts”. Eventually she sent an entire NZ Post Handibox full of PR bumf, with one set for each judge - annual reports, glowing environmental references and articles from the likes of Lockwood Smith and Guy Salmon (with friends like those, who needs enemies?), even a videotape singing the praises of WM’s Redvale landfill, north of Auckland (this had been made especially for use in Canterbury. If anyone wants the video, it’s yours for the asking.). She need’t have bothered - WM did’t win, was’t even in the worst three. ...
"Opponent Sir Kerry Burke, Canterbury Regional Councillor, analyses the history - back in 1992, the Canterbury Regional Council gave the Christchurch City Council permission to operate the Burwood landfill for a further eight years. Waste Management appealed this decision, to the Environment Court. “This was the beginning of an extraordinary love dance, a mating ritual which concluded with a happy marriage of public and private interests and the birth of their baby, Trans Waste. WM held a gun, the appeal, at the CCC’s head. WM then offered to withdraw if the CCC entered into a joint venture with it…Government deregulation had created a much freer market and WM used this more open business environment to threaten to open up its own dump in competition with the city. It has the international muscle to run a loss making operation until its competitors cave in…The legal dispute never went to a hearing at the Environment Court. Several times one party or the other would seek mediation and then, mysteriously, back away…Decisions were in fact being made, but off stage, away from the limelight and the public gaze…”.
"Burke is succinct on how the partners were chosen. “No tenders were called. It was not a competitive process…” WM and Envirowaste (the other private partner) have, properly, a primary duty to their shareholders, not to the Canterbury public. What chance could an alternative proposal from another company have with them influencing the decisions?” Burke details the refusals by the City Council to release details of alternative proposals, citing that old shibboleth “commercial confidentiality”. He pulls no punches:
"There are serious grounds for the Commerce Commission to show an interest in this decision making process. It seems, on the face of it, to be anti-competitive quite apart from a corruption of good governance. We are, after all, talking about very big bucks” (emphasis added. Ed.). He does a detailed study of comparative costs and drops the odd bombshell along the way.”The Malvern site would also be more expensive than when costings were done in 1992 because Trans Waste was proposing that the leachate which didn’t get into the aquifers would be recovered and transported back to Christchurch for delivery into the Estuary via Bromley. Yes, I thought that might surprise you. An ‘oversight’, not to tell the Community Boards or the public? Well, consulting them is something which some think is best done after decisions have been made. Community Boards are a bit like the Canterbury Regional Council, better not have them in the way”.
"His final section is entitled: 'So what about Waste Management?' and details the spectacular court record of the company in the US and elsewhere. All very familiar to Watchdog readers. “These examples may, of course, have nothing to do with us or the way WM operates here. Alternatively, they may help to put into perspective the Environment Court appeal and the threats to Christchurch City. These are the actions which lay behind the changing of minds at the City, the deal struck over waste in Canterbury and the regional landfill proposal…The Trans Waste model should be abandoned. The CCC and the District Councils should start again and do the job properly, transparently and fairly. If there needs to be a change in the law to give local authorities more control over their waste stream, let’s ask for that. Let’s involve the private sector at the end of the decision making process by fair competitive tender. A better process will ensure that Canterbury’s economy, its environment and the condition of its body politic will all be enhanced”.
"The issue was generating enough steam to run a decent size rubbish incinerator. And then, suddenly, it was over. Why? Because of a laughably simple reason. Geologists conducting preliminary site investigations came across a previously unknown earthquake fault line running right through it. In February 2000, it was officially announced that the Malvern Hills site had been abandoned. The dump had been dumped. Selwyn opponents were ecstatic; the joint venture spokesman, pugnacious Christchurch City Councillor, Denis O’Rourke, put a brave face on it: 'We always said we would walk away if we found an environmental flaw. We are now showing we are not prepared to compromise on that '(Press, 5/2/00; 'Quake fault rules out landfill site'). It was a humiliating climbdown for O’Rourke, who has staked his reputation on the landfill (see Watchdog 92. Ed.).
"Brian Priestley had another perspective: 'So, hurrah! - the Trig Hill fiasco is over. The big Malvern Hills dump has indeed been dumped. After all the fuss and expense, they have now discovered (would you believe it?) that there’s a small fault line running across the site. This has apparently come as a surprise to the City Council, the other local bodies concerned, and their team of officials and experts. Fault line or not, of course the area could be affected by earthquakes. Of course there was a danger of contaminating our water supplies. It was simply a bad idea. I am almost sorry the scheme collapsed because many questions remain to be answered about the Malverns episode, and a public hearing would have been the ideal place to put them. But it’s over now, and the City Council has still to find an answer to our rubbish problem' (Christchurch Star, 11/2/00; 'Dump fiasco over').
"Of course this doesn’t mean the end of the regional landfill saga. The joint venture intends to follow the words of the old song and pick itself up, dust itself down and start all over again. Just where the new site will be is the $64,000 question. Canterbury Waste Services general manager, Gareth James, said that it had relinquished its claim to the Cattle Peaks Station site at Omihi, North Canterbury (see Watchdog 91 for full details of the Omihi battle. Ed.), nor will it proceed with another favoured site, at Norton Downs, near Amberley, also in North Canterbury. The joint venture has also ruled out expanding the existing Burwood landfill, in Christchurch (which has a few more years to run). It has announced that it will have to look further afield, in a radius of 75-100 kilometres from Christchurch. It will take 12 months to produce a new shortlist of sites, and once one is selected, the whole exhausting process will start again. As for Waste Management, it is quietly building a bigger presence in Christchurch. In February 2000, the City Council announced that it would begin trial collections of garden waste, using WM’s wheelie bins. ...
"None of which mollified Dump the Dump, the 5,000 strong group of Selwyn district ratepayers totally opposed to the landfill. The strength of opposition can be gauged from the fact that a July 1999 public meeting to express opposition attracted over 1,000 people, the biggest meeting in Darfield’s history. Spokeswoman Gillie Deans said: 'We will devote all of our resources to condemn this proposal because we violently oppose it. We will hound it in the courts and at any other forum. We will make the attempt to create a megadump potentially the most expensive ever process' (Press, ibid). Dump the Dump is particularly bitter about its own Selwyn District Council (SDC), which is part of the joint venture and which, like the other councils, has waived its right to object. Dump the Dump has urged the SDC to respect ratepayers’ wishes and fund its fight against the proposal. The SDC has described local opposition as childish; confined itself to calling for a policy of zero waste to landfill by 2015 and taken the fight to the locals, by ordering the immediate removal of 50 Dump the Dump signs around the district. Pat Morrison, Dump the Dump chairman, responded that the SDC 'can expect civil disobedience on a scale they have never seen before' (Press, 17/9/99). The signs remain up and the SDC has agreed to help ratepayers meet the costs of compiling reports. Morrison is unmollified, saying that his elected representatives had allowed 'a bunch of cowboys' to run roughshod over the locals (Christchurch Star, 15/10/99).
"Dump the Dump has some heavyweight politicians supporting it. The local National MP for Rakaia is none other than the Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley. When Malvern Hills was first named as a likely site, Shipley had waded in with an extraordinary boots and all attack on the proposal, using her Prime Ministerial position for maximum leverage and drawing on her own expertise acquired as a former local councillor in the district Her concern was that a landfill in the Malvern Hills could leach into the aquifers that supply the agriculturally vital Canterbury Plains and the city of Christchurch. When the site was announced, Shipley denounced it as foolhardy' and did not accept claims that a clay base would prevent leaching: 'They give themselves away in the design of the landfill when they put two monitoring wells either side of it, conceding that leaching is a risk' (Press, 15/10/99). O’Rourke described Shipley’s comments as 'political and irrelevant' (ibid). 'Cr O’Rourke said he expected a war with the Malvern community but said it would be short, once people looked at the facts. Malvern residents laughed at his claim that the landfill would enhance the environment. Cr O’Rourke said he would have the last laugh' (Press, ibid).
"Shipley’s involvement has added a dimension to the row, namely that of central government versus local government. Christchurch Mayor, Garry Moore, said that he was amazed at the Government’s lack of interest in waste, and that he’d heard nothing from Shipley about it until her 'not in my backyard' opposition to the landfill (Press, ibid). The other councils in the joint venture - Ashburton, Selwyn, Banks Peninsula, Waimakariri and Hurunui - declared that they were right behind Denis O’Rourke. Green Party co-leader, Rod Donald, (who has been consistently against the landfill from the outset, for environmental reasons) made a telling point.
"In May 1998 it was announced that Canterbury local authorities, spearheaded by the Christchurch City Council, are close to forming a joint venture with two companies to operate the proposed new regional landfill.
One of those companies is Waste Management. We have a number of serious concerns about this particular American transnational corporation, and in the recent past, city councillors have not hesitated to be forceful in their views about it. In 1995, Waste Management NZ very clumsily offered to withhold threatened court action if the City Council entered into a joint venture with it. Councillor David Close said then it was 'inappropriate for a private investor to be "making the running" over the city’s future landfill needs' (Press, 16/3/95). Councillor Garry Moore said: 'I believe that we are being subjected to the threat of litigation to get a commercial advantage. Anyone who threatens a city council with that should be told to go to hell' (Christchurch Star, 22/3/95). What has happened since to change councillors’ minds?
"We got a reply from Christchurch’s then Mayor, Vicki Buck. She said: '...Your letter was referred to the Solid Waste Engineer and the team who are currently finalising the agreement with Waste Management New Zealand and Envirowaste Services Ltd. They believe that your concerns, and the concerns of many others, have been addressed in this agreement. Under the current agreement Waste Management NZ Ltd will have only a 25% share in any joint venture regional landfill and will never be able to control more than 50% as the remaining 50% will be controlled by the Territorial Local Authorities in Canterbury, thus giving significant opportunity for input by our communities...' (letter to CAFCA, 29/6/98). Such touching naivete from our lame Buck mayor. For a start, it ignores the fact that, since 1973, any company more than 24.9% foreign owned is legally defined as a foreign company. Waste Management’s stake in the joint venture meets that definition.
"We also lobbied virtually all candidates for the City Council, Christchurch' s community boards, and some candidates for the Canterbury Regional Council. We sent them a fact sheet on Waste Management (along with fact sheets on Onyx; the impact of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment [MAI] on NZ local government; and our Corporate Code of Responsibility, which we publicly launched in 1998). Vicki Buck did not stand again for Mayor or Council; the new Mayor elected was the very same Councillor Garry Moore who was so critical of Waste Management’s heavyhandedness back in 1995. We wrote to him again, essentially the same letter, but with a couple of additions:
"We believe that you, as the newly elected Mayor, need to be fully aware of the dangers involved in contracting out services to, or entering into joint ventures with, transnational corporations. Very briefly, those dangers include: loss of local control; loss of resources (profits) from the region; and the threat to local jobs. Not to mention doing business with some very `interesting’ customers indeed. CAFCA believes that before getting involved with a transnational corporation, local bodies should be aware of its record. The public and local bodies should know the bad along with the good, the reality as well as the PR hype. ...
"There is another reason why you should be wary about getting involved with transnationals. The global economy is in recession and `cost cutting’ and `divesting non-core assets’ are the catchcries. This is already happening with other transnationals that have New Zealand subsidiaries (eg International Paper, the huge American company which owns Carter Holt Harvey). NZ is just one tiny expendable speck on a map in a faraway corporate head office. Waste Management itself is already shedding non-core businesses amongst its more than 1,300 subsidiaries worldwide. Be warned that the Council and other local bodies could be left holding the baby if the overseas partner decides to pull the plug...” <
"We also sent him our Code. On that subject he replied: '...the code is a very useful statement of the principles all companies, especially transnationals, should follow. It provides a useful checklist to use when agreements are being negotiated'; letter to CAFCA, 26/1/99.
"Unlike his longserving predecessor, Mayor Moore gave us a thoughtful and lengthy reply on the Waste Management joint venture. His letter betrayed plenty of misgivings about both the company and the landfill deal: ...
"'You are right to point out that both Cr Close and I expressed strong opposition to their (Waste Management’s) tactics when they attempted to use an objection lodged with the Environment Court to pressure the Council into accepting a joint venture deal for a landfill. We were aware of Waste Management’s bad track record in the United States and saw this threat to the City Council as an example of their local use of strong-arm tactics. We acknowledge the dangers of the loss of local control, loss of profits and sometimes loss of jobs when transnationals take over contracts to supply city services (emphasis added. Ed.). For the most part the City Council has resisted the pressure to move in this direction. You deserve an explanation as to why an exception has been made for the development of the landfill...
"'The first decision made was to act in partnership with other local authorities...The second decision - to seek joint venture proposals from the private sector - flowed from the first. Whereas the Christchurch City Council representatives on the joint committee had a preference for the local authorities themselves to develop the landfill (emphasis added. Ed.), the representatives of the other local authorities had a preference for contracting with a private company to build, own and operate the landfill (the Redvale model. Redvale is Waste Management’s giant landfill north of Auckland, the country’s biggest. Ed.). The compromise that emerged was for a joint venture of local authorities with a private sector company. "'The third decision - to have two companies instead of one on the joint venture - arose from the fact that both Waste Management and Envirowaste had carried out a huge amount of investigation of suitable sites in Canterbury and obtained options to purchase a number of sites. In entering a joint venture with both companies the local authorities were obtaining access to some of the best sites in Canterbury. At the same time they were limiting the exercise of corporate muscle by a private sector partner...
"'The form of the joint venture agreed to is not what I originally favoured (emphasis added. Ed.) but I am convinced that the conditions set out in the agreement safeguard the Council’s interest. In preparing this reply I have discussed the issues with Cr Close who is a member of the joint committee - he agrees with the views expressed...' (letter to CAFCA, 26/1/99). This letter was deemed sufficiently newsworthy to warrant its own story in the Press.
"For our part, CAFCA said: '...it’s not too late to pull the plug on this deal... We say to the City Council - if you lie down with this dog, you’re going to get up with fleas. Dump Waste Management, and keep transnationals out of our essential publicly owned utilities and services' (9/2/99; press statement).