I do not understand why National will not commit to a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas levels by 2020 as an attempt to combat climate change. As the Greenpeace ad on tv says “it just makes sense really”.

The Green party spell it out really well over here:

http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/08/05/nick-smith-doesnt-get-it/

The Government has relied on macro-economic analysis about emissions prices instead of analysing opportunities. Smith had made it clear that it was up to NGOs and volunteers to work out how to meet a target, not the job of the well resourced government departments he controls.

…he attacked the idea of reducing farm animals by a third. That would mean reducing dairy farm stocking rates from 2.83 cows/ha which is the current average to 1.86. Our proposal was to reduce them to 2.3, which is the intensity that research has found is most profitable for the farmer if milk prices are below $5.50. The current price is $5.20, which is also the average price (inflation adjusted) over the last ten years. The extra return from additional animals per hectare just doesn’t pay for the huge increase in urea, bought in feeds, off farm grazing of animals not in milk and animal health costs that are needed to cram more animals on to the same land. Dairy farmers could be making more money and reducing emissions.

So the greens are releasing ideas, good ideas, factual ideas. And how does the Government respond? Like This: Greens want to shoot the cows

…a reduction from the business as usual case of 57%, and that to do this one would need to ban every car, bus and truck in NZ, close down every fossil fuel power plant and on top of that hire vigilantes to shoot every third cow.

…the little fruitcakes are serious. They do want us to shoot the cows. They just use the nice Orwelllian term of “de-stocking” instead.

In 1999 we had around 3.5 million cows. So the Greens policy is to exterminate around 700,000 cows.

I encourage you to read both articles and decide for yourself who is playing scare tactics.

The other really strong part from the Greens blog was this:

Then, he set about rebutting things we had not said – like proposing 100% renewable electricity, which he said would raise power prices 30%. That’s the reason we didn’t propose 100%. When I was leadng EECA’s work under the last government, we had some robust analysis done by EECA and MED  to determine the costs of various levels of renewability in the electricity system. We found 90% renewable by 2025 was entirely achievable and hardly raised prices at all, as there is a lot of low cost geothermal and wind energy waiting to be built.

Going to 100% is costly because you have to build a huge amount of capacity which just sits around unused until there is a very dry winter, given that people don’t like power cuts. Much better to have a couple of gas peaking stations that are cheap to build and only run a small proportion of the time. The greenhouse gases are negligible in the scheme of things and the saved capital is much better used to make significant reductions in transport or agriculture which are a much bigger worry than electricity.

So it is really aparent that the Greens are playing with facts while the Nats are playing with fire. Liar liar pants on fire politics.

Visit http://www.signon.org.nz to sign on.

P.S. Don’t tell political activists like Keshia Castle-Hughes to stick to the acting, unless you also want to stick to the currency trading.

From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5068743.ece

Cleverer children are more likely to vote for the Green Party or the Liberal Democrats in a general election than other parties when they become adults, research suggests. The study, by the University of Edinburgh and the UK Medical Research Council and published in the journal Intelligence, indicates that childhood IQ is as important as social class in determining political allegiance. The IQs of more than 6,000 subjects were recorded at the age of 10, before any secondary schooling. Twenty-four years later they were asked about their voting habits.

This is a summary graph of the political polls over the past three years. Look at the recent end. National is dropping. But so is Labour. Who is rising? The Greens and Act. What does that mean?

a) The minor parties matter!

b) A vote for Act or National will result in a right wing government. A vote for the Greens or Labour will be a left wing Government.

The choice is yours! This election is not all over. It is not a done and dusted result. It is wide open and your vote matters.

Rock the Vote. November 8 2008.

Find out who you are most aligned to: http://pundit.co.nz/content/election-quiz

My Results:

Green Party 71%
New Zealand First 68%
Progressives 66%
Labour 59%
United Future 56%
National 41%
Act 29%

The detailed comparison with the Greens:

Crime and Punishment 0%
Economy and Taxes 100%
Education 50%
Employment 100%
Environment and Energy 88%
Family and Morals 38%
Foreign Policy and Trade 100%
Government and Leadership 88%
Health Care 75%
Race Relations and Immigration 88%
Welfare and Superannuation 75%

From Kiwiblog comments:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_least_surprising_decision_of_recent_times.html#comment-498529

Over the last few months National have rolled out policies to gut the Resource Management Act, abolish the energy-efficient homes initiative and oppose energy efficiency standards, build more new roads at the expense of public transport infrastructure, allow foreign insurance companies to compete with ACC, undermine collective employment bargaining, strip workers of most of their employment rights for the first 90 days in employment with a small employer, require domestic purposes beneficiaries to look for part-time employment, and provide tax cuts that deliver very litle for those at the bottom of the income scale. All these run contrary to Green policy.

And which of them are about creating wealth? Allowing foreign insurers to compete with ACC, undermining employment bargaining, stripping workers of their emplyment rights, and National’s tax cuts are all about redistributing wealth – from those who have less to those who already have more”. Gutting the RMA might create more short-term wealth, but at what long-term expense?

The Greens gave an undertaking to indicate a major party preference to the electorate – we think that is only fair so people know what they are voting for.

Frankly, with the policies National rolled out, Labour could have unveiled no new policy and still would have been the Greens’ preferred choice I think. Of the 12 criteria the Greens assessed Labour and National against, National beat Labour on only one – fresh water quality – and that was only because this has deteriorated so badly under Labour’s watch, rather than because National has any policy that will improve it.

If only those blind people following populist speakers would for once listen to sound policy and debate.

Yesterday the Green Party launched its billboards for the upcoming election. I particularly like this one:

The problem however is that New Zealand is not on the centre of the earth. It must be!

So in setting out on resolving this problem I decided to be inclusive of all and therefore put the entire globe, spinning behind it. And viola!

Powerful, powerful speech. The highlights:

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) :
I was elected to this Parliament in 1999, and my life changed. I knew that it would. Unlike most members of the public, I had a pretty good idea of what being an MP was like. It was one of the reasons I hesitated to stand. I say “It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it.” It is an intense, 24/7 job. We digest enormous amounts of information, which is sometimes boring, and then we have to make decisions—decisions that affect real people. It means being constantly available to the media, to the public, and to the party. It means scrutiny of every detail of our lives—particularly for a dreadlocked Rastafarian. I stood, I guess, to demonstrate that we do not have to be of this world to be effective in it. Be true to oneself, whoever one may be, and take one’s seat as an equal, whether it is here in the House of Representatives or in the dust of the streets. So when a kid grabbed my arm on the dance floor and asked: “Hey, bro, what’s up in Parliament?”, I considered that to be an honour, because my purpose here has been to represent those who have had no voice here—those held in contempt by too many of us.

I came to Parliament thinking that the members were all a bunch of bastards, and I was wrong. There are many good people here. The very notion that all politicians are dishonest is misconceived, because if we think that politicians are all venal, then we expect nothing from them but venality. We should raise our expectations. We should expect more from question time than a bun fight. I have avoided question time for years if I have not had to be here to ask a supplementary question, because question time is the time when I am most ashamed of being a member of Parliament—question time and general debate—and members all know what I am talking about. We should grow up. This is our national legislature. We should treat it and the positions we hold here with more respect.

But I do not blame just the MPs. The buzzards who sit watching us from up in the press gallery, waiting for the next political corpse to pick over, are also to blame, because they will always report a fight, which is why the pugnacious Mr Peters always gets a headline. But if we stand to talk about anything real, most of them flap their wings and fly away—most of them. I thank the journalists who are here today for being here, too. Maybe corporate media ownership is to blame for the lack of analysis prevalent in the New Zealand media, or maybe it is just contempt for the audience.

…

Some people say that Guy Fawkes was the only politician to enter Parliament with honest intentions. I do not think that is true. Many, perhaps most, MPs enter with honest intentions, but we are compromised by this institution. How many times have Green MPs spoken in this House and had other MPs sidle over and tell us quietly: “We agree with you.”, but have then seen them silenced by their hopes for advancement, for promotion, or sometimes just to stay where they are? My mum used to say that we have to get into the system to change it, and it is true that we need good people working within it, but the danger is that the system changes us as much as we change the system, if not more. And that is why I am leaving after 9 years. For those members of the public who judge the behaviour of others by their own standards, I want people to know there are no perks coming to me. After 9 years it is time to cleanse my soul.

To all members of this House, from the most senior to the newest entrants, I pray for them that they remember the light that shines from within them so that they can light a path for themselves and for others. The problem is not how many people enter this place with honest intentions, but how many people leave with them intact. It is easy to slip. We become bloated by self-importance. People open doors for us, they clean our offices at night, they provide us with advice and support, and they wait on our decisions. I say many thanks to all the people who do that—the friendly security, the select committee staff, advisers, and cleaners. And my thanks go to the fantastic Green Party staff up there in the public gallery who are so critical to the work we do as MPs. You guys rock!

…

One of the first things I did on entering Parliament was buy a watch. Since then I have been shackled to the system. I have been cuffed to the prison bars of time, or at least to the prison that we make of time. This arbitrary Roman calendar disconnects us from the natural rhythms of life and of the planet. So today I remove that shackle, because when I look at the state of our rivers, our atmosphere, and our people I do not need a watch to tell me what time it is.

[Watch smashed with a panel-beating hammer.]

Don’t know if I like it or not. It runs along a similar theme to the NZI Ad. I don’t think it is clear though. It should be focusing more on the Greens rather then others. What matters is that you should be advertising yourself not putting others down. This may back fire on them.

Go the Greens and New Zealand First! Good on you for standing up for students!

Tomorrow is going to be huge. Student Debt hitting 10 Billion is already in TV3 News as the third story, New Zealand Herald, Stuff, Scoop. And probably lots more.

http://tinyurl.com/3mw9zc

9. Debt, Student-Increases

[Uncorrected transcript-subject to correction and further editing.]

9. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Has he received any reports that student debt will reach the milestone of $10 billion this week; if so, what, if anything, does he plan to do about it?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) : Yes, I have. Next month’s Budget will contain some measures to further increase student support, just like each of our first eight Budgets have already done. I acknowledge in passing the Green Party’s consistent support for progress in this area, and I also acknowledge that the National Party has consistently voted against such progress.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister stand by this statement, which he made in January of this year: “Each year under Labour-led governments student support has strengthened,”; if so, how does he reconcile that comment with the fact that the latest figures show that fewer students received a student allowance in 2006 than when Labour came to power in 1999?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The proportion of eligible students who are receiving the allowance now is well over half-it is about 57 percent-about three-quarters of whom are receiving the full allowance and one-quarter of whom are on the cusp, if the member might see what I mean. That is a great many more students than when we first came into office. I cannot express the difference in a percentage, however, because I do not have the figures with me.

Hon Mark Burton: In the light of the Minister’s response to the primary question, does he expect that total student debt will go on to reach $11 billion or even $12 billion; if so, why is the total debt still rising?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is a very good question. The total debt continues to rise because, apart from inflation, there are more students, and more students are studying to a higher level. That is a good thing. It is a good thing. The question is what is happening in the life of an individual student, and what is happening there is that conditions continue to improve. They would say “too slowly”, but conditions do improve. The average debt is now rising more slowly than the average wage, with the average wage being the way that one pays the debt off. For that reason the average repayment of the debt has reduced from where it was in 2001, at 9½ years, to where it is now, at less than 6 years. So there is an improvement for students. The Greens have assisted with that improvement. We need to make more improvement.

Dail Jones: Does the Minister accept that the problem associated with student debt, with or without interest, can be substantially reduced by the introduction of New Zealand First’s policy, which for many elections has stated that New Zealand First will introduce a universal student allowance that does not require repayment?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Having a universal student allowance is the policy of a number of parties in this House. For my part, we are happy in our party to move towards, but not to, a universal student allowance, and this is why: I have other priorities. I need to pay attention to the quality of tertiary education. I need to ensure that the completion rates continue to rise. I need to ensure that the access-especially for Māori and Pacific Islanders, which is well below par-must be increased. These things all cost money and I happen to place them above the move to a universal student allowance. On the other hand, we make progress towards that universality in most years, and I hope we may do so again next month.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister disagree, however, that his inadequate student support policy, which includes interest-free student loans, has actually led to a 9 percent decline in the enrolment of students from poor backgrounds; and will he then make a real commitment to fulfilling the policy of the Green Party, the New Zealand University Students Association, and, obviously, New Zealand First, for having a universal student allowance, which would ensure that today’s students are able to have the same opportunity to learn, to buy homes, to choose when to have families, and to take control of their financial destiny, as he and most of the Labour Party leadership have also been able to do?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The short answer is no. I have no advice to the effect of a 9 percent reduction in whatever the member suggested might be occurring for New Zealanders who are from more modest backgrounds. On the contrary, there is documented evidence of higher access for Māori and Pacific Islanders, but not high enough, and of higher completion rates at level 7 and above, but not high enough. We have had some dramatic, outstanding improvements in education amongst Māori and Pacific Islanders in the tertiary sector in this country-especially in the years 2002 to 2006, which is the latest data available-but I would be the first to say, along with all of my colleagues, that progress is not yet sufficient.

Dail Jones: Is the Minister aware that student debt can begin to be decreased by increasing the current parental income maximum for a student allowance from $71,000 before tax, if one lives in a parental home to study, and just over $77,000 before tax, if one lives away from a parental home-the current rate-to, say, $100,000 before tax, if one lives in a parental home to study, and $105,000 before tax, if one lives away from a parental home, which would cost an estimated, and I emphasise “estimated”, additional expenditure of about $300 million to the Government, and surely this would be a good investment in education and in the future of New Zealand and it would encourage qualified people to stay in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I am aware of that, which is why, although the member was not able to be with us, this Government shifted parental thresholds three times in each of the last three Budgets-by 20 percent, 10 percent, and 10 percent-and we do not rule out the possibility in the future of a further shift in the thresholds.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Finance recently told the TaxAgents’ Institute: “We have real ambition for New Zealand and our economy. And we know that by refusing to burden our children and grandchildren with a legacy of debt, we are removing one of the biggest obstacles to realising that ambition.”; if so, does it worry him that the Minister of Finance is so ignorant of the $10 billion legacy of student debt left by this and previous Governments, which has a proven, disproportionate exclusionary impact on women, Māori, and the least well-off New Zealanders?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Just a couple of comments in response: first, the level of participation of, say, New Zealand Māori in our universities is still below that of, say, New Zealand Europeans, but it is getting better, not worse. The member shakes her head-she needs to go back and look at the statistics. Second, I did not have the pleasure of being in the room when the Minister of Finance made his quoted remarks, which is a shame, of course, but I would not mind betting he was talking about KiwiSaver, and that is a magnificent policy that will change the face of this country.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a chart showing that the numbers of students receiving an allowance in 2006 are 5,000 fewer than in 1999.

* Leave granted.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table an article describing how the under-35s are now effectively shut out permanently from financial security.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table “Freedom from debt, freedom to prosper”-the Minister’s speech to the TaxAgents’ Institute of New Zealand given in March this year.

* Leave granted.

Dail Jones: I seek leave to table a document to introduce a universal student allowance, being New Zealand First’s election policy.

* Leave granted.