Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘gerry brownlee’

Dopey things like Radio NZ…

Posted by Clare Curran on May 24th, 2012

Well at least it’s out in the open now. The National Government would get rid of Radio NZ if it could.

Speaking in the general debate yesterday, Gerry Brownlee accused the Labour Opposition of “wanting to spend more on dopey things like Radio NZ”

Guilty as charged. Labour doesn’t believe that Radio NZ is dopey. And neither do most of New Zealand. It’s had its funding frozen for the last three years and is doing its best to provide quality services to NZ.

It wasn’t an off the cuff remark, Brownlee glanced at his notes before he said it. I suspect it will come back to bite him.

See the video clip at around 2min 40 sec


Children must not watch. The Finns on Brownlee

Posted by Trevor Mallard on March 27th, 2012

H/t TV3. Warning – this is not for kids to watch.

What the Finns think of Brownlee.


EQC not sorted from September. Gerry should be sacked

Posted by Trevor Mallard on April 10th, 2011

Campbell Live

I just can’t work out why the Nats find Brownlee acceptable as Minister in Charge of a response which can make or break the South Island and arguably the country economically and socially.

This story from Campbell live is just one example of the tens of thousands of cases where Brownlee’s team has failed to deliver from September. and since then the problem has got much much bigger.


Gerry (builders) slip reveals view

Posted by Trevor Mallard on March 7th, 2011

On Radio NZ interview (9 – noon) this morning Gerry Brownlee described people who had been forced to leave East Christchuch as deserters.

He did correct himself but I reckon he revealed his attitude to poor people who decide to live with others because they find it too tough to stay without power, water or toilet facilities.


If the lights go out, blame Gerry

Posted by Chris Hipkins on January 13th, 2011

If New Zealanders are asked over the next few years to reduce power use or face blackouts, the responsibility will fall squarely on Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee. Just days before Christmas, while everyone was distracted by other things, he announced that the Whirinaki power plant will be sold and the reserve energy scheme put in place by the previous government will be abolished.

In other words, if we have a dry winter and the hydro lake levels fall too low, there won’t be a back up generator. Brownlee is placing his blind faith in the market, just as Max Bradford did before him. The market failed to deliver in the past, there is no reason to think it will behave any differently in the future.

An effectively functioning market will match supply and demand as closely as possible. That works OK when everything is operating normally, but it doesn’t leave much in the way of a ‘reserve’ should unforseen events happen, such as a dry winter. It wouldn’t make economic sense, what commercial operator looking for a profit would invest in a reserve generator that would only be needed in exceptional circumstances? That’s why the last government put a back-up system in place.

The announcement that the Whirinaki plant will be sold also amounts to another broken promise from the National government. Before the election they promised Kiwis they wouldn’t sell any state assets during their first term, yet now they’re putting a multi-million dollar power plant on the auction block.

National’s decision to sell Whirinaki and abolish the reserve energy scheme is short-sighted and foolish. It’s ordinary kiwis who will pay the price if things go wrong. If we have a dry winter and electricity generation can’t meet demand, prices will sky rocket.


Brownlee privilege letter

Posted by Trevor Mallard on December 24th, 2010

While most of us will be easing down today thought a few nerds will still be interested in the fact that I have written to the Speaker following Brownlee’s Hobbit comments and the release on the facts.

Will continue to look at Key’s comments but to date his most blatant misleading appears to be of the media.

Letter below (more…)


Government to push power prices up again ?

Posted by Trevor Mallard on December 19th, 2010

 

Interesting little press statement on Friday.

Genesis Power Limited, trading as Genesis Energy, is considering making an offer of up to $300 million unsecured, subordinated Capital Bonds to the New Zealand public.

The proceeds of the offer are intended to be used as part of the funding for the acquisition of the Tekapo power stations.

Whether it pushes prices up will depend on what happens to the cash that Meridian gets. If it is used to pay down their debt then it is all neutral and will make no difference to prices.

If Bill English is successful in his attempt to withdraw capital from Meridian then the overall indebtedness of the companies will increase and power prices will go up to cover the increase in interest costs.

We will be watching.


Government abandons Tolley – protections to stay

Posted by Trevor Mallard on December 11th, 2010

Thanks are due to Simon Power and Gerry Brownlee for helping Anne Tolley see sense and having the government support a Labour Amendment to ensure that police checks are retained for employees in short term early childhood facilities including at gyms and shopping malls.

Not sure if the change was based on principle or the possibility of sitting through to Monday as the Labour Party settled in for a filibuster – in the end it doesn’t matter because the level of protection for little kids won’t be reduced.

Thanks to my team for all their support.


Another “Urgency” shambles

Posted by Chris Hipkins on December 9th, 2010

Parliament went into “Urgency” this afternoon. This is totally due to Gerry Brownlee’s incompetent management of parliamentary business. It also shows a total lack of good faith and a lack of respect for our most important democratic institution. There is nothing “urgent” about the legislation that we’re going to be debating for the next 48 hours, and if Gerry Brownlee had been a more competent manager it could have all been passed during normal sitting hours anyway.

So what’s Gerry’s rationale for this un-urgent Urgency? He claims that because Parliament is about to go into recess for the Christmas break we should sit almost around the clock for the next few days to ram through new laws without giving them the proper scrutiny and debate they would normally get. It just doesn’t add up. I love Parliament, and I love parliamentary debate, but sitting from 9am to midnight for days in a row doesn’t make for good, considered law-making.

We owe it to those who send us here to give all legislation before the House proper scrutiny. The government has been rightly critiscised already this year for passing new laws without allowing select committee scrutiny. They’ve also been critiscised for passing laws that give exceptionally broad powers to individual ministers. It all starts to paint a picture of a born-to-rule Tory government gorging itself on power after 9 years in the wilderness.


“Kickstarting” the biofuels industry

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 29th, 2010

Yesterday Pansy Wong put out a press statement lauding the National government’s move to “kickstart New Zealand’s fledgling biodiesel industry”. Coincidentally, I’ve been visiting biofuel companies over the past few weeks and they’ve been telling me that the policies of the current National government are doing the opposite – they feel like the rug is being pulled from under them.

Before the last election the Labour government put in place a biofuels sales obligation. It would have required fuel retailers to mix a small amount of biofuels into their blends, thus guaranteeing a market for biofuel producers and ensuring the development of the fledgling industry, whilst at the same time also reducing our carbon emissions from transport.

For reasons known only to them, National repealed the sales obligation as soon as it took office and replaced it with a subsidy scheme for biodiesel. It was an odd move for a government that claims it wants to cut government spending – the sales obligation wouldn’t have cost the government anything, it would have put the cost back onto the oil industry, unlike their subsidy.

Biofuel producers I’ve spoken to have all said the same thing, as soon as the sales obligation was removed the oil companies walked away.Their slick marketing may try to convince us they care about sustainability and the environment, but in reality the mighty dollar rules.

The biofuel sales obligation wasn’t perfect, and I think companion legislation ensuring the sustainability of the feedstock (the material the biofuels are made from) was also needed. But recent history has shown that left to its own devices without any sort of government regulation, the oil industry has no intention of supporting biofuels. Gerry Brownlee’s biodiesel grants scheme has been a flop. It’s time to go back to the drawing board.


Electricity Industry Bill

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 24th, 2010

Yesterday the National/ACT government pushed through the Electricity Industry Bill. It will do nothing to deal with rising power prices, fails to address issues around sustainability, and despite the rhetoric, doesn’t increase the security of supply. The evidential base for many of the changes the Bill imposes simply isn’t there.

The Treasury, the Ministry for Economic Development, and the Institute of Professional Engineers all raised concerns about the SOE ‘asset swap’ that will see the Tekapo A and B generators switched for Meridian to Genesis, thus breaking up the Waitaki hydro system. Treasury argued that the government hadn’t put together a business case to justify the swap, yet they went ahead and did it anyway. Given these are multi-million dollar state assets we’re talking about, that’s pretty concerning.

The Institute of Professional Engineers argued that splitting up the Waitaki hydro system could lead to water being used less efficiently given the competing generators would be encouraged to maximise their market position. They argued that no evidence had been presented to demonstrate that the benefits of the (small) increase in competition the swap is designed to create will outweigh the risks.

The government has also dodged some of the real issues. National claims to be committed to the goal of having 90 percent of our electricity generated from renewable sources by 2025, but they’re doing nothing to achieve that. It’s just more hollow rhetoric. In fact, Gerry Brownlee’s obsession with mining and mineral prospecting suggests they actually want to see less of a focus on renewables.

Then of course we come back to the biggie – power prices. Brownlee’s advice to those concerned about the increased cost of electricity is to switch companies. Does he really expect everyone to jot down their meter reading everyday and work out which company they should switch to? Perhaps if they set a common standard for smart electricity meters that might help consumers keep track of their electricity use and make it easier to switch, but they’re not even willing to do that.

The Electricity Industry Bill fails to address the big issues. It’s another case of National reverting to their 1990s ‘the market knows best’ mantra. Not surprising, therefore, that the loudest interjector in the House during the Third Reading of the Bill was Maurice Williamson. It was Williamson and Max Bradford who hacked up and partially privatised the electricity network in the first place, promising us that competition would lead to lower power prices – how did that work out in the end?


Armstrong lambasts National

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 7th, 2010

John Armstrong has unusually harsh words for National in today’s Herald column.

“Shame on National. That party’s behaviour in Parliament over the past couple of weeks has on occasion veered close to being a disgrace both to itself and the institution … National has ended up being done like a dog’s dinner over one of its most fundamental planks – the closing of the gap between what New Zealanders earn in comparison to Australians … such has been the comprehensive mauling of the concept by Labour over the past week or so that National will now be loath to resurrect it. It is now a loser for National and looks like remaining so through to next year’s election”

“What has been disturbing in this debacle, however, has been the way National has responded to parliamentary questions about the income gap. The low point came on Wednesday when Steven Joyce briefly deputised for Brownlee … A week earlier, Brownlee had told the House in response to a question from Labour that “yes”, the Government did have milestones by which it would measure the progress it was making towards closing the income gap … So eyebrows shot through the chamber’s ceiling when Joyce made the startling admission that there were, in fact, no such milestones. Even more startling was what Joyce said next. Brownlee had given Labour what was technically known as a “brush-off”…”

“Brownlee’s gaffe about the income gap having narrowed since National came to power prompted a desperate search by National for anything that served as evidence, however questionable, of that being the case. Much of the evidence is to the contrary – including some of the material National has dug up. The upshot is that Labour – almost by accident – has given National an old-fashioned hiding on that most fundamental of all questions: which party can be can best trusted with the reins of economic management. The one compensating factor for National is that all this has happened largely out of public view.”

The government have had an easy reign so far, but as Armstrong has pointed out, the shine is starting to come off. National is reverting to type with their ‘born to rule’ attitude. They brush off serious questions by making wise cracks. Up until now that strategy has served them well, but people (particularly journos) are getting a bit sick of it. Questions are now being asked about what exactly National’s plan for New Zealand is. The answer seems to be they don’t have one.


The Wage Gap

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 28th, 2010

Before the last election the wage gap with Australia was John Key’s #1 issue. Key even went as far as to say that the ‘fundamental purpose’ of his government would be to narrow the gap. Listening to Gerry Brownlee and John Key in the House today and yesterday, apparently the problem has been solved already.

Yesterday Brownlee claimed that the gap ‘is certainly a lot less than it was when Labour was in office’ despite the fact that it has blown out by more than $50 a week since National took office. In the last quarter, according to official statistics, Australian wages have increased by $17 a week, compared to $3 for Kiwi workers.

Kiwi workers will fall even further behind from October when they will be paying a consumption tax (GST) that is 50 percent higher than in Australia. We have caught up with Australia in one respect though, when National took over we had a lower unemployment rate – they’ve managed to turn that around in 18 months!

So where is John Key’s plan? Smiling and waving for the cameras won’t get us there. As Annette King said in the House yesterday, “It’s time for the Government to stop kicking the tyres, put some petrol in the tank. start the engine and go somewhere!”. Couldn’t have said it better…!


Got no ideas Gerry? Well here’s one.

Posted by Charles Chauvel on July 28th, 2010

Last week’s release of the Government’s Energy and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy contained a lot about fossils, and very little else. Reading their document, you get the sense that they have no new ideas on how to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, or to move to a lower-pollution economy.

I think Gerry needs a bit of help, so here is an idea.

Labor in Australia is mooting a cleaner car rebate, offering a $2000 boost to new car buyers trading in pre-1995 cars.  The scheme is aimed to get 200,000 older vehicles off the road, cut transport sector emissions by nearly 3 million tonnes, and allow for tough new mandatory vehicle emissions regulations to enter into force in 2015.  Their rebate would take effect from 1 January 2011.

It is the kind of measure envisaged by the New Zealand Transport Strategy in the last Labour-led Government back in 2008.  One of the goals of the Transport Strategy then was to get New Zealand’s transport sector emissions down by 50% by 2040

A ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme is just one of the complementary measures, which could have been funded via Labour’s ETS. Before it was amended by National last year to subsidise emitters at the expense of households, the ETS would have made revenues available from the sale of emissions permits to pay for exactly this sort of measure.

New Zealand’s car fleet has an average age of 12 years.  A ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme would help kiwi households struggling with higher living costs to modernise their cars.  It would help them more easily choose safer, modern, lower-emission, cheaper to run vehicles that would be better for the environment.

Instead of rolling back proposals to lower pollution, like the biofuels obligation; hiding behind the recession to produce a temporary drop in emissions; or pretending that its watered-down ETS will make a difference, the Government should look seriously at schemes like the cleaner car rebate as a practical way to reduce emissions and give families a helping hand.


Not a strategy or a plan

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 25th, 2010

On Thursday Gerry Brownlee finally released his over-promised revised New Zealand Energy Strategy and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. Basically he’s taken two heavyweight strategies put in place by the previous Labour government, both of which were well-informed by evidence and soundly argued, and replaced them with a single, lightweight missive that’s full of contradictions.

Brownlee’s revised strategy places a lot of emphasis on extracting more non-renewables such as coal and gas, whilst at the same time committing to Labour’s goal of 90 percent renewable electricity generation by 2025. In the case of gas, explorers will be looking for a viable domestic market before they go drilling wells, the most likely being gas-fired power plants. How that squares with a target for greater renewable electricity is a mystery to everyone but Mr Brownlee.

Questioned on the lightweight nature of the new document, Brownlee argues detailed plans become ‘quickly out of date’. I guess that’s a telling commentary on the National government’s modus operandi. I wonder whether the draft strategy had to be re-printed at the last minute to accommodate National’s humiliating about-face on mining in National Parks?

After reading through the new draft my question for Gerry Brownlee is pretty simple: Where’s the plan? Aspirational goals are all very well (and the plan is light even on those) but if you have no idea how you’re going to achieve them they’re pretty meaningless.


A future for biofuels?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 24th, 2010

In the House on Thursday I questioned Gerry Brownlee on his disastrous Biodiesel Grants Scheme. Only about $230,000 of the $36 million set aside for the scheme has been taken up. Five companies have signed up, but no new companies have joined since July last year. It’s a long way short of Brownlee’s promise to create 240 new jobs and ensure that biofuels play a big part in our ‘energy mix’ of the future.

Brownlee chose to blame the industry for the scheme’s lack of success, despite the fact that he was warned from the very beginning it wouldn’t work. One of his first actions as Minister was to remove the biofuel sales obligation that was put in place by the previous Labour government. That would have generated sufficient demand for the biofuels industry to develop sustainably without the need for government subsidies.

Brownlee’s approach as Minister appears to be to ignore all the evidence about what actually works, only listen to the advice of those he agrees with, and then find someone else to blame when things go wrong. But I guess that’s what we should expect from the guy who thinks New Zealand’s future prosperity depends on digging up our National Parks and exporting them.


A bit of a stretch

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 17th, 2010

I sat through all of the hearings on Gerry Brownlee’s Electricity Industry Bill. A lot of submitters questioned his plan to take Tekapo A and B power stations off Meridian Energy and give them to Genesis Energy (both state-owned SOEs). The Institute of Professional Engineers argued that it could lead to less efficient use of water as competing generators tried to maximise their competitive positions against each other. The Treasury argued in a written submission to the Minister that there wasn’t a robust business case / analysis. Unfortunately the National MPs chose to block Treasury from appearing before the Select Committee to explain their concerns.

This morning Gerry Brownlee appeared before the Commerce Select Committee to discuss the estimates for Vote Energy. I took the opportunity to ask him what his basis was for concluding that the asset swap was a good idea. He claimed that because there had been several dry years in the past decade there was evidence that Meridian hadn’t been managing the Waitaki water catchment efficiently. Basically he tried to blame the lack of rain in the South Island on Meridian. I know they are the biggest generator, but I don’t think their market power extends to controlling the weather.

State Owned Enterprises aren’t toys. They’re multi-million dollar enterprises. Any changes the government makes need to be based on robust business cases and rigorous analysis. Gerry Brownlee hasn’t done that. Former National Party Minister Max Bradford made a real hash of his power sector reforms of the 1990s – which led to huge increases in prices. Sadly for price-wary Kiwis, Gerry Brownlee and National appear to have learned nothing from their past mistakes.


Aspiration needs more than lip service

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 9th, 2010

Gerry Brownlee is quoted in this week’s Listener saying that the government remains committed to an ‘aspirational goal’ of having 90% of New Zealand’s electricity generated from renewable sources by 2025. He states “What people don’t get is that this is a 15-year target and why would you be anything other than aspirational if you’re looking out 15 years?”

Unfortunately, this approach has become quite typical within the National government. Their approach seems to be: Identify a goal you think most people will agree with and then adopt an ‘aspirational’ target to be met at some very distant point in the future, by which time you’ll be long gone and nobody will be able to hold you to account for it. Then just continue on as you were before, or in Brownlee’s case, push policies that actually go in the other direction.

It’s hard to square Brownlee’s commitment to renewable energy with his passion for hydrocarbons. He seems to have made it his personal mission to find every ounce of coal, gas and oil in and around New Zealand and ensure that it’s extracted. In the case of gas at least, which is difficult to transport, that becomes economically more attractive to explorers when they know they have a growing domestic market – in other words, more gas-fired power plants.

I agree that we should be aiming for at least 90% of our electricity to come from renewable sources, but I think we need to do more than mumble ‘aspirational’ platitudes. My Electricity (Renewable Preference) Bill would prevent further non-renewable power plants unless they were essential for security of supply. That’s a firm step in the right direction. The next step is to look at how we promote the up-take of renewable, particularly on a more localised, smaller scale.


MPs should pay for their own court cases

Posted by Trevor Mallard on April 7th, 2010

The Herald reports that undisclosed amounts have been paid to cover at least part of Nick Smith’s $270,000 costs in one of his defamation cases to date.

It also reports the Gerry Brownlee made application for taxpayers funds to cover his costs, including the amount to be paid to the pensioner he assaulted and pushed down stairs at a national party conference.

Just to make it absolutely clear, I paid all costs (about $10k from memory) in the case where Tau Henare and I fought in the lobby of the house.

And in the Tuku Morgan defamation action, the amount of which has been knocked down from over $1m to $700k, about which I will be a bit circumspect because it is still live, I received about $15k of support from colleagues and one other generous individual (who also gave me excellent  non legal advice) towards expenses of about $50k. I also received substantial voluntary legal and factual research support the value of which was certainly over $100k.

In the Crosby Textor case I received pro bono support from a local QC.

That is the deal. MPs don’t represent the crown, they aren’t part of the government, and should take at least the same care as any other person when speaking out on an issue. Ministers are in my opinion in another category and hardly a week would go by without a threatening letter being received by a Minister, mainly from nutters who can be ignored, but often there needs to be legal advice sought and sometimes cases defended.

I’m sure I will get a call from Margaret on this but I just do not understand why the taxpayer is funding Nick Smith, and I’m very pleased that the National party rather than the taxpayer ended up paying for Brownlee’s assault.

The Herald cartoon below is a bit unfair as I assume there is no suggestion that the taxpayer is in any way indemnifying Smith.

Cartoon103


Pitcairn Island Council

Posted by Trevor Mallard on March 27th, 2010

Having a quiet coffee after ride this morning when I was approached by a woman who I had never met before, originally from Canterbury but recently returned from UK.

She had watched Parliament the other day and specifically mentioned how Bennett, Brownlee and Tolley had struggled and as she put it – “just aren’t intelligent enough to do the job.”

Then the line which I’m sure will become a classic – “they reminded me more of members of the Pitcairn Island Council than the New Zealand Parliament.”

I suppose we have become used to it and are too accepting.