Well, this week I’ve had my first exposure to the ETS Amendment Bill. It is so bad I cannot quite find the words to describe it.
Try this for starters:
- “a $21 billion wealth transfer from consumers and taxpayers to industry an agriculture by 2030″ with an open-ended subsidiy beyond that;
- A process so rushed that submitters were called as late as 4pm this afternoon to appear same day!
- Treasury advice saying the government’s own analysis and design is woefully inadequate for a scheme of this importance;
- There is NO Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS)!;
- Different rules for agriculture, fishing, forestry, various industry sectors with NO apparent logic – just lobby muscle;
- The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s submission (and others) stating there is zero chance the amended scheme could possibly achieve the Government’s own 50% by 2050 reduction target, yet the per-job subsidy in some industries getting a souped up free allocation will cost the taxpayer $109 000 per year!
All in all this is a HUGE intergenerational dump on our kids.
It is a effectively a HUGE rort with National’s business mates getting the cream and all our kids footing the bill.
How bad is this? How about $30 B by 2050 – that is three times the impact of the $10bn writedown on the Crown accounts since the global financial meltdown hit.
Be VERY afraid. This is a shocker.
Bad law. Bad process. Bad politics.
There’s too much rushing with this government.
I agree it’s a shocker. A carbon tax is a much better option.
“Different rules for agriculture, fishing, forestry, various industry sectors with NO apparent logic – just lobby muscle;”
David, You have made the statement please explain it and justify it.
Nick Smith again.
“All in all this is a HUGE intergenerational dump on our kids.”
“It is a effectively a HUGE rort with National’s business mates getting the cream and all our kids footing the bill”
Once again you have made statements with no supporting arguments.
Explain and counter with Labours proposals and costings please.
Hi pentwig – very quickly, the lack of any apparent justification understandable to submitters about the reasons for treating agriculture, fisheries, fossil fules, stationery energy, forestry and industry differently relects a judgement call by Nick Smith and the Cabinet rather than any empirical logic (for example emission intensity, trade exposure or manageability of impacts.
There are several consequences: first you the taxpayer pay enormous wads of money for generations to cushion these sectors at different rates from the adjustment incentives of meeting our reduction targets.
Secondly there is no obvious equity between sectors: in the words of the Timber Processors today: “Why? Because there are more dairy farmers than sawmillers”.
Third, from an economic perspective, these differentials create distortions that prevent a cap and trade system frrom achieving its goal of achieving a given level of reduction at least econmic (and social) cost.
Bottom line – cap and trade doesn’t work so well without a cap. These botched amendments have a partial cap in some sectors, not in others.
But thats just the start… this is a complete shocker of a Bill. New Zealanders must fight it hard now or regret it for generations.
I said this in Charles Chauvel’s posting but it deserves repeating.
This was in the National minority report in the report back of the ETS bill:
“The legislative process has been rushed and inadequate given this bill’s complexity and significance. The public has not had adequate time to examine and submit on the bill, and it is evitable that serious mistakes will be made that will adversely affect New Zealanders.”
Hypocrites.
“There are several consequences: first you the taxpayer pay enormous wads of money for generations to cushion these sectors at different rates from the adjustment incentives of meeting our reduction targets”
David .. when you say “you” the taxpayer pay enormous wads of money .. who are you referring to because low income earners, especially those who qualify for working for family’s, don’t pay a hell of a lot of tax? I assume you are referring to those who earn say .. over 60k per year with no dependants
Good Morning. Am I allowed to take this information-as is-with your name on it and discuss with the Urban Nat/Green swing voters i.e. Farmers Markets, Community Parenting and Urban Organic Shops etc ?
@Cherie
A nice simple statement like “National are legislating to use your taxes to the tune of $200 per person per year to subsidise pollution by big business” is over-simplifying the situation. But it will be understood by most people. If slogans like “Kiwi/Iwi” are okay for National, they shouldn’t have any problem with a statement like that.
Two words – corporate welfare. NZ’s version of “It’s the economy, stupid”, methinks?