…we brought changes to the ETS…
We decided that we had to support the amended Emissions Trading Scheme. This decision comes after extensive negotiations and a lot of thought. See the New Zealand First press release below.
Media Release
27 August 2008
NZ First Supports amended ets BILL
New Zealand First has decided to support the amended Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) after several months of consideration and negotiations with the Government.
Rt Hon Winston Peters said today that New Zealand First was faced with having to decide whether to support a scheme over which it would have some influence, or to leave the country in a situation of uncertainty.
“We have secured a package that will ensure that all households will receive a one-off payment to mitigate the impact of the ETS,” said Mr Peters.
“As well, all those on low incomes, including New Zealand superannuation, will receive a front-loaded CPI adjustment to ensure that they keep ahead of the projected cost of the ETS to their households.
”We have ensured that within the one billion dollar energy efficiency fund available to all households, a dedicated portion will go to SuperGold Card holders which will reduce their costs and create warmer, healthier homes.
“New Zealand First strongly supported the establishment of an innovation fund, particularly for those who are trade exposed and would have not received any other form of free allocation.
“The most critical aspect secured by New Zealand First was the introduction of a new requirement for the agriculture and industry allocation plans to be further scrutinised by a select committee and Parliament to ensure that as circumstances change, the ETS has the ability to meet these.
“We brought about considerable changes to forestry and agriculture in the ETS and the Government has accepted these changes,” said Mr Peters.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I wonder where I can get a pen with a nib fine enough to enter New Zealand’s share of emmisions on a pie chart of the planet?
August 30th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Shame on you for supporting a fraudulent bill which puts massive costs on our economy.
Its very sad.
Winston says “Read it again. This agreement was signed by National in 1996. It was better to do something we had control over than do nothing.”
August 30th, 2008 at 11:13 am
In view that policies to reduce harmful emissions and the establishment of various special purpose funds require a higher savings rate for the increased investments to make it all possible (not to speak of the need for higher productivity to make it all sustainable at a reduced taxation rate) - it is high time for NZ First - putting NZ first regardless of potential voter popularity - to publicise a higher domestic savings rate with its priority policies, and the most effective and least disruptive, public debate attracting proposal, would be a substantial tax rebate converting our collectively owned NZ Super Fund into a permanent institution of personally owned accounts, i.e. a tax rebate converted directly into personal wealth.
Would all those NZ First supporters not enthusiastic about that please come forward with their reasons for why they think it should not be a publicised prioruity policy?
August 30th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
you mean The Emissions Trading SCAM!
September 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
No,Michel, I don’t mean the ET (Whatever), a relative side issue which can always be amended or given up, if unworkable or with no results towards achieving the purpose it was designed for, or bankruptingly expensive - but the socio-economically more basic allocation of the NZSF to Personal Accounts, or Ownership Democracy.
My point is, we should not get sidetracked by at present still issues of marginal importance like ET (or say, the death penalty) at the cost of evading or ignoring the still unsolved basic priority issue of sustainable economic growth acceleration.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am
Does not matter what it is called, the ETS is taxation, taxation, taxation. Nothing more, nothing less. We are to be happy with a one off payment of $112 (perhaps)? No matter how you dress it up it is a tax. Note how Global Warming no longer exists, the proponents now call it Climate Change. Why - the earth is actually cooling!!!
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
Yes, Sam - there is a cost to everything you want to have…
And in principle, aren’t the costs of preventing damage (up to a point) preferable to ignoring potentially high cost damage altogether, e.g. as with fire insurance?
September 5th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Why do politicians always resort to tax increases to get their pet projects in place. I would like to see incentives for us to do our bit for climate change. How about we all get a 100% subsidy to intall wind generators and solar panels on our own properties. That would be better than building another dam in the south island, when we do not have the infrastructure to send power from one end of the country to the other. One leaning power tower in Marlborough is all that stands in the way of total failure of the Cook Strait link.
Jens Meder - I am doing my bit for climate change, more than you think.I want to know why we let the politicians rip us off with another bureaucracy when it is not necessary.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Sam - you can call me Jens - I am all with you regarding your concerns. The question is: Where else could the 100% subsidy for wind generators come from, if not through taxation?
But if we have a substantial NZSF savings rate and adequate funds, what about a low interest loan from the NZSF?
If we get widening support & agreement on a higher rate of domestic capital formation to be invested in productivity, then eventually we will be able to build not only more wind generators, but possibly even have it all at a relatively reduced redistributive taxation rate. (Through a higher savings & investment rate.)
Would you agree, that to have our prosperity dreams come true, this would have to be an influential election issue?
September 8th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Jens - yes let’s make it an influential electionl issue.
Why do we need another layer of bureaucracy, costing more tax dollars, when we could have “think small” projects administered by an existing bureaucracy. We could spend 2.5% of GST income on this sort of project, still leaving the government with 10% GST as is NZFirst policy?
We need to change political thinking about taxation and savings. Less taxation, more savings.