The Government’s announcement of a deal with the Maori Party means a massive tilting of the scheme in favour of polluters at the cost of households.
I’ll release papers shortly that show this is a deal Labour could never have made.
I am astonished by the sheer size of what the Maori Party have let National get away with.
National Gets:
- Revised entry dates of 1 July 2010 for transport, energy and industrial sectors and 1 January 2015 for agriculture
- A transitional phase until 1 January 2013 with a 50% obligation and $25 fixed price option for the transport, energy and industrial sectors
- A production-based industry average approach to allocations for trade exposed, emissions intensive businesses
- A phase-out of industry support aligned with trading partners and the Government’s long-term -50 by 2050 emissions reduction target
- Incentives for afforestation created by a domestic and international market for carbon credits
The Maori Party Gets:
- Enhanced transitional support for the fishing industry.
Perhaps the scale of disappointment I have for this deal is nothing compared to the hypocrisy by the Maori party. I am well aware of the complexities of delivering a fair and effective response to climate change. That is why Labour made its principles quite clearly known.
When the Maori party messed about with its minority report a few weeks back, Climate Change spokesperson Rahui Katene professed her party’s commitment to Papatuanuku as a basis for any agreement. In fact they went even further, stating that rejecting a late entry for agriculture was a bottom line.
Congratulations to the Maori party. You sold Maori representation on the super city down the river. Now you have sold us all down the river on climate change as households will subsidise polluters under your deal for years to come.
Stick to your guns on this one, this will be a major issue next election. Neither National nor the MP have any comeback on this one apart from “this will save you money”. Of course this will not be true either given the $428.3mill subsidy to pollute they are handing out, based on current Carbon prices.
Interested to see what the business reaction will be- especially tourism and forestry.
Business reaction: Business NZ loves it.
This is a shocker. Key dropped a good deal with Labour in exchange for keeping the spotlight off Goff.
What a coward.
Not very bright are they?
hahahaha
so Charles .. how come you are right and they are not.
The way to deal with a carbon tax or ETS will be argued forever everyones an expert.
This is another example of shameful behaviour from the Maori Party.
In exchange for Maori representation on the Auckland Council, the Maori Party kindly ensured a round of hui for a Maori Flag debate.
Now this.
The MP for Te Tai Tonga has lacked any integrity in leading her party’s commitment to “Papatuanuku”. These actions have humiliated Maori and hurt the work of the many organisations who worked hard to ensure authentic Maori collaboration.
Shame on you again Maori Party.
how could the Maori Party join up with the Nats after all that labour has done for them
Too true jabba!
This says it all to me: “The executive director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, representing the energy intensive sector on climate change issues, says the proposed changes the government has announced for the emissions trading scheme are a welcome move in the right direction.” Just to be clear, the GPC’s membership directory reads like a Who’s Who of the biggest polluters in New Zealand.
Of course, none of the MP’s actions surprise me here. They’re a right wing party – of course they’ll sell out. I hope that at least someone in their party is embarrassed at using Papatuanuku as spin.
I too was very disappointed by the Maori Party’s u-turn. Good on Charles Chauvel for standing up for Labour’s scheme, even though Labour’s scheme gave too much to polluters in my view. National’s proposal makes a mockery of NZ’s clean green reputation. Good to see Phil Goff criticise National’s ETS plans too. All in all a much better performance by Labour than that dreadful vote in Parliament last week in favour of National’s changes to the RMA.
So, will Labour be repealing the worst aspects of this (the 50% pollution subsidy, price cap, production-based subsidies and slow phase out) in the event of a change in government?
Inquiring minds etc…
@IS: I would back that, so long as the forestry sector is not given a jerk about.
And should Labour not win in 2011, policy change becomes harder to change significantly, the window just gets smaller and smaller.
O.k Charles and co.
Could we have a vociferous opposition now please.
Take it to them!
Have at it!
pledge to repeal it once there is no return on the deal.
@Kaine T, ConorJoe, I/S, Top Cat: We will release the papers from our negotiations today. You will see that we refused signing up to this sort of deal. We will repeal those aspects of the deal that extend a massive subsidy to polluters at the expense of taxpayers for 40 years. For what we would put in place, or for those worried that we weren’t vociferously opposing the undesirable aspects of this plan, it would be good if you read the minority report to the select committee, or saw the principles I set out in the New Plymouth speech – there is a link in the blog. I don’t see any future in further negotiations since this is such a bad deal, so obviously you will now see a more vociferous traditional opposition approach. But I make no apology for trying to get the ETS into a position where it was not an election football at the next election. If we could have done that in a way that produced a satisfactory scheme, it would have been the right thing to do for NZ, the environment and the economy.
@jabba: I actually don’t have any real problem with a carbon tax. Both the tax and the ETS are just different economic mechanisms to price carbon. As long as you get the design of either one right, it will be ok as one of the tools needed. The rest of the world is going ETS/cap and trade so there is merit in us using the same instrument for linking/intertradeability. But be clear here – the Maori Party hasn’t got a carbon tax – its stated preference – as part of this ‘deal’. It has just let National and the big polluters get away with 40 years of taxpayer subsidy for very little likely behaviour change to benefit the environment. That is a sell-out by anyone’s standard and no amount of sarcasm will disguise it, sorry.
I would back that, so long as the forestry sector is not given a jerk about.
The forestry industry will be made better off by such changes, as it will improve both the size of the domestic carbon market, and the price they can expect to get on it.
But I make no apology for trying to get the ETS into a position where it was not an election football at the next election.
I don’t think that’s anything you need to apologise for. Having read the speech, the principles in it are pretty robust, and the need to avoid this sort of gutting of the ETS was pressing. Compromising to avoid something worse happening is perfectly defensible.
As for the Maori Party, I compare their rhetoric and their reality here.
Its all mumbo jumbo – one bunch of thieves whining about how another bunch of thieves get to allocate the spoils of a massive confidence trick.
When you have killed the incentive for people to do productive work, farm etc you are going to be mighty hungry and cold.
Memo to Labour
Sock it to the Maori Party Labour… starting with Question Time today. Their lack of wisdom and foresight is now untenable. They are not worthy of consideration.
Do you still have to pay if you don’t believe in Global Warming? Oh wait, is it Climate Change now?!
@ Anne – labour have always considered them the last cab off the rank, and haters and losers, so hardly considered them in the first place.
Charles, add to the ledger that the Maori Party got deforestation liabilities removed for North Island forestry owning iwi.
This is pork barrel politics, pure and simple.
bikerkiwi, you’re absolutely right, this will just bounce straight off the party, who are so used to being treated with contempt by Labour that it won’t make any difference.
Being attacked by the Greens might make a difference, because the Greens treat them with respect and work together where they have common cause (as Labour should have been doing for the last 4 years).
@Nathan: This is not a faith-based initiative; climate change is science, not Scientology. The planet doesn’t much care whether you “believe” or not, as the ongoing human-driven changes to the climate are largely unaffected by your belief systems.
Thank-you bikerkiwi. So glad you agree – “losers and haters” Beginning to look like it was an apt description of the leadership of the Maori Party at least.
@ anne – I dont agree with you at all.
…much like swine flu, SARs, Bird Flu and the Y2K holocaust?
Anne, don’t you see? They’re not doing it to get back at Labour but concerned for Maori Dairy Farmers (as opposed to those Maori who have lareg forestry assets and now won’t be able to get a return!).
@ Nathan MIlls…… much like microbes, the earth is round, spermatazoa and the double helix -unbelievable,eh?
And here we go. Those who disagree with the concept of global warming (where it all began) are labelled flat-earth deniers. It’s wound up to the point of a religion, where people are actually OFFENDED by those who take a differing viewpoint. Is that constructive?
I’m not denying it, but I struggle to see how taking a small chunk of geographic/meteorological information, gathered only in the relatively short period of time since records began, should form the basis of something that we’ll be forced to base our lives around.
A subsidy from every single New Zealander, man, woman and child, to polluters, to the tune of $300 per year. $200 of which goes to farmers.
http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,2107.sm?p=131181#post131181
Fonterra could have written this bill.
Nathan Mills, have I got a deal for you!
You go away and convince everyone else on earth that it does not matter, and then I will support you in getting rid of the ETS. Otherwise, why complain – we need to act to protect our interests as this is key to an international accord.
[...] Posted by Ari under Uncategorized [2] Comments Suffice it to say I don’t think I need to detail the new joke of an “emissions trading scheme”1 here, but I do want to say I feel pretty [...]
Just seen your response bikerkiwi. Don’t you know an inverted quip when you see one.
TopCat. Yes, I know Maori dairy farmers etc. are a consideration with the Maori Party, but I don’t believe for one moment it is the only one. They have shown themselves to be weak and incredibly short sighted.
Hey, I’m not trying to convince anyone it doesn’t matter, (and let’s not pretend I’m the only person on the Earth who has doubts about the reality of global warming or climate change or whatever buzzword they’ve resorted to now!) I accept that pollution is a problem, I don’t necessarily subscribe to the “science” of climate change!
What I am concerned about is the fact that this is less a genuine attempt to deal with the real issue of pollution by those who contribute to it the most, and becoming entirely political, at the expense of the average everyday householder, who will ending up carrying the cost and can least afford it! A statement above pretty much encapsulates my concern. Protecting our interests under an international accord seems light years away from saving the planet…
Under the ETS scheme, in all it’s mooted forms, there seems little incentive to actually cut emissions. Instead, buy credits or pay taxes.
Personally, I think that the ETS scheme will not address the core issues, and combined with the massive massive misapprehensions re the Kyoto protocol, we’ll be looking back in a couple years wondering “WTF were we thinking?”
There are two issues here. First and foremost has to be around whether you believe CO2 is a pollutant (viz. the concept of AGW). If you do not, then the idea of an ETS is fundamentally flawed, and the only reason yo would support one is a pragmatic one: protecting interests.
If you do consider AGW a threat, then you will consider CO2 a pollutant and will most likely want an ETS (or carbon tax)that will reduce emissions overall.
The ETS foisted upon us by National and the Maori Party will achieve neither. It will allow CO2 pollution to continue largely unabated, and be a joke internationally, while costs are all socialised and profits made are privatised.
If you are talking about general “pollution” then there are other measures we would do better to pursue – watse and pollution levies, and waste repatriation regulations that will transfer the cost of consumption on to the consumer. A decent ETS is only designed to do this for a certain type of pollutant. Our one transfers it to the taxpayer.
look, we have about 4.5mil people in NZ .. I would say that there would be just a hundred or so who any idea about climate change, global warming .. whatever and yet if you read these blogs, newspaper articles and letters to the Ed you would get the impression that we are all experts.
This whole thing is pure politics. I will add that many of us aknowledge we can’t be seen doing nothing as the rest of the world will punish us in some way lets bite the bullet and sort something out.
I think the Nats were stupid not to bring in all parties and try and get the best ideas so they all have a sense of involvement to ensure each election doesn’t become a farce.
What is it about farmers that Labour people hate? I tell you what, if it wasn’t for them we would be stuffed.
Whatever system we come up with WE will pay. If the huge costs are paid by the big companies and farmers 2 things (no doubt there will be more than 2 but)will happen:
1/ Companies will go bust .. massive job losses
2/ higher prices for everything. Look what happened last year with dairy products going through the roof due to high off shore demand.
Most of us on this blog need a dose of get real.
Right now our carbon policy is a car parked in the middle of a railway track. While we’re debating whether to push it forwards or backwards, there’s a TGV heading our way, and it’s called the American Clean Energy & Security Act.
American CLEAN ENERGY & security ACT .. wow, do China and India have one of those?
So Charles, what are Labour’s Maori MPS going to do about it then? The Maori Party has consistently failed its constituents on the big issues this term, and have allowed themselves to be distracted and placated by token gestures such as the Maori flag. The Maori Party have given some pretty big openings for someone to step in and take the lead on issues important to Maori, and, quite frankly, Labour has just not stepped up to the mark.
Auckland SC representation for Maori will be a big issue, as long as it stays in the media. Labour’s Maori MPs should be out there in Auckland offering their support and assistance, not quietly lobbying behind the scenes like the Maori Party. Perhaps an enquiry in to Maori representation on the SC should be held along similar lines to the banking enquiry – anything to keep the pressure on the Maori Party and the issue in the media. If you don’t, then this whole issue will be swept aside and forgotten about once the concessions that the Maori Party has gained on the foreshore and seabed issue are made public, and an opportunity will be lost.
Maori are quite happy to go along unquestioningly with Turia and Sharples, and generally believe that the Maori Party can do no wrong. To change this, you actually have to show Maori how the Maori Party has let them down, and this is what Labour should be doing.
Firstly, can we stop equating the constituency of the Maori Party as the voice of Maori, it most certainly hasn’t, doesn’t and never will speak for me.
Charles, well done, having read the minority report and your comments beyond, you’ve absolutely demonstrated some immense backbone on this issue. It is such a shame the Maori Party cannot see beyond the first five minutes of anything. This process is particularly important for Maori interests.
The Maori Party’s faux concern for the poorest of us is a sham, they’ve done nothing but prolong the agony of already debilitating economic conditions and by signing up this deal have, like National, consigned those interests to the scrap heap in favor of those who have the loudest and best resourced voices.
Such a disappointment.
@jabba – you need to spend some time with people from China, India or Brazil. They ask why so much pressure should be brought to bear on them to reduce pollution while their living standards remain low – meaning that they will remain low – and while the developed world continues to decline to adopt meaningful reduction targets. Another reason for us to take action. We all agree that our industries – including farming – need ongoing support so we don’t export jobs and wealth until such time as all our trading partners have put a price on carbon. Some of us just don’t think that is likely to merit 40 more years of pretty generous taxpayer subsidy.
I agree with what you said Charles .. I have seen that those countries want the op to get out of their 3rd world status like the west have. I do feel for them. It’s a shame that to do so they will cause huge pollution in doing so. As I said, most of us have no idea what the answer is .. lets not destroy our own status in being leaders of change like Clark wanted us to be.
[...] could not have made such a deal like that made between National and the Maori party. What we were prepared to negotiate was made clear in the Minority view in the ETS Select [...]
Charles is correct in his summation of the attitude of China, India and Brazil. Issue is of course none of these countries have made an ounce of effort to equally distribute their wealth amongst the poorer folk and while considered “third world” tell that to extremely wealth people or even the burgeoning middle classes.
China for example would be ruined by a welfare system similar to NZ’s or the US. Which is why they will never have it.
It is also the reason why they should be given absolutely no favours in terms of these targets. The leniency is only making the rich in those countries richer (which one wouldn’t necessarily have an issue with). But (minor deletion for questionable language Trevor) why “western countries” already burdened with welfare of their own people at the lower margins, should all financially support that as they are making fools of the rest of us claiming poverty. All three countries Charles mentioned there have plenty of wealth. It’s just all kept at one end of the spectrum.