Maori Party too little too late

Written By: - Date published: 11:21 am, October 25th, 2012 - 9 comments
Categories: climate change, ETS, maori party - Tags: , ,

According to Maori Party policy:

We aspire to work together to make the economy great but not at the expense of our environment. Climate change affects us all and the biggest emitters must take responsibility to change the way they do business. Any cost they pass on to consumers must encourage environmentally responsible choices. The principle must be that polluters pay.

They have so far completely failed to live up to this policy, supporting National’s systematic weakening of the ETS, even though they know the cost. The taxpayer and the environment pays, the polluters get the corporate welfare.

Perhaps the shame of it has become too much for them:

The Maori Party has withdrawn its support for a bill that changes the emissions trading scheme (ETS), cutting the Government’s majority to a single vote.

The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill weakens legislation introduced in 2009 to make industry sectors pay for pollution under an ETS. …

The Maori Party voted for the bill on its first reading in August, and it passed by 63 votes to 57. It says that since then a flood of cheap carbon credits from overseas has distorted the local market and the ETS isn’t strong enough to shift the behaviour of the big polluters.

United Future leader Peter Dunne has confirmed he will continue to support the bill, which gives the Government 61 votes against 60 from all the opposition parties.

As usual Peter Dunne is personally responsible for propping up the worst of the Nats’ agenda. For the Maori Party – credit where it’s due for finally taking some action. A pity that it is too little too late.

9 comments on “Maori Party too little too late ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    25 October 2012 at 11:46 am

    57 to 63: if the MP had voted against, it would’ve be 60 to 60 and failed at first reading?

    • One Tāne Huna 1.1
      25 October 2012 at 12:02 pm

      Ayes 63 New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
      Noes 57 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1.

      Source – Hansard.

  2. Murray Olsen 2
    25 October 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Dunne is so obviously useless I can’t see him being voted back in, but if he wasn’t there, which party would Ohariu have gone to? If it would have been Tory anyway, his being there doesn’t change anything. The organ grinder is still the enemy, not his monkey.
    Does anyone have any idea who would have got Ohariu without the hairdo?

    • bbfloyd 2.1
      25 October 2012 at 12:58 pm

      Dunne is so obviously useless to YOU Murray… i’ve had to learn the hard way never to underestimate the stupidity, and bigotry of the average kiwi….

      Charles Chauvel was within a sniff of taking the seat, so the odds are, it would have gone to labour…Going by polling results published….

      • Murray Olsen 2.1.1
        25 October 2012 at 1:30 pm

        This is true, bb, but I live in hope. Maybe I have a savage breast?

        • Ed 2.1.1.1
          25 October 2012 at 10:41 pm

          From electionresults.govt.nz, we have:
          Party Vote: National 18764, ACT 286, Conservative 636, total 19686 which is 51.8% of the total party vote. The candidate vote included Dunne 14,357, Shanks 6907, compared with Chauvel 12,965, and Hughes (Green) 2160. I suspect most Dunne votes would have otherwise gone to the National Candidate – the days of his being seen as close to Labour are long gone. Chauvel was coming through a split vote for the right. There is likely to be a swing away from National, but without Dunne it would be a fight between a Nat candidate against a split Labour / Green – and National may still even get the highest part vote in that seat.

    • outofbed 2.2
      25 October 2012 at 9:13 pm

      yes it would ve changed things . If National had taken the seat they would be one list person less
      and therefore it would be 60/60

  3. Rogue Trooper 3
    25 October 2012 at 3:46 pm

    Bridges collapses defending this nonsense; transferring the cost of carbon pollution onto “the poor and struggling”. He always comes across as a snakes’ belly. One can see what attracts these confidence-trickster types to a party like National!

  4. Steve Wrathall 4
    26 October 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Haven’t you guys got the memo? Not even Obama is touching the maggot-ridden corpse of global warming alarmism.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.