I’m looking forward to meeting the Steve Irwin and her crew when they arrive in Wellington tomorrow.

While life goes on as normal in Parliament it seems the Government has forgotten we have a Kiwi sitting, right now, in a Japanese jail.

I asked the Foreign Affairs Minister, Murray McCully, on Tuesday what he was doing to help New Zealander Peter Bethune. Mr Bethune did what our Government hasn’t done, which is to stand up to illegal Japanese whaling. He was detained by a Japanese whaling vessel as he tried to deliver a citizen’s arrest to the Captain who had allegedly rammed his boat, the Ady Gil.

In response to my question the Minister conceded jurisdiction in this case to Japan, essentially saying “not much”. I don’t think this is good enough. The New Zealand legal system could be dealing with this issue.

I’m urging Mr McCully to explore the legal opportunity in the Maritime Crimes Act 1999, to bring our man home. You can read the background and legal opinion here.

I think the Government should have looked down this avenue earlier, however I’m not surprised. The Government has been very quiet on the plight of Peter Bethune, and has switched to a very weak stance towards Japan on their whaling. The Government is supporting a position at the International Whaling Commission which would see Japanese whale hunting legalised. Ostensibly it’s an attempt to reduce the numbers killed – but I think Kiwi’s understand you can’t save whales by killing them.

Let’s do more than providing consular support and having the occasional chat with Japan’s Foreign Affairs Minister Katsuya Okada about Bethune. Let’s try harder to join with the Aussies who are already campaigning hard to bring home Bethune and return to our prior long standing anti-whaling stance.

Metiria Turei grills the Prime Minister on his government’s confused and contradictory statements about the mining of protected Schedule 4 lands on the conservation estate. Her question was:

Does he stand by his statement “Notwithstanding the public consultation process, it is my expectation that the Government will act on at least some of these recommendations and make significant changes to Schedule 4.”?

The government has no answer.

Yesterday the National Party shot down Sir Roger Douglas’ dreams of returning New Zealand back to Victorian England by saying they will not support his Members’ Bill which would have re-introduced youth rates.

It’s a rare piece of good news out of the Beehive, but let’s face it; the bill was a stupid idea to begin with.

A Treasury study in 2004, three years after the legislation removing youth rates was passed, showed increasing youth employment.

It’s kind of funny that the oldest person in parliament is trying to screw over the youth. Imagine a bill that seeks to pay older people a smaller minimum wage or Maori, or women? It would be outrageous.

However, I do have my own positive Private Members Bill which seeks to amend the Human Rights Act. Currently the HRA allows discrimination in pay based on age.

30 (2) Nothing in section 22(1)(b) of this Act shall prevent payment of a person at a lower rate than another person employed in the same or substantially similar circumstances where the lower rate is paid on the basis that the first-mentioned person has not attained a particular age, not exceeding 20 years of age.

By removing this section we also fix a contradiction in our law between the Minimum Wage Act and the Human Rights Act.

This amendment makes it harder to erode the rights of youth workers.

The last place we should see age-based pay discrimination is the Human Rights Act.

Update

A copy of my bill is available here [pdf].

This week a Ministry of Health Report came out on the health effects of the dubious remediation at the toxic site in Mapua. The way the Ministry of Health’s media release read, glossed over the risks to the community, which could now be declared negligible.

I only had to read the Executive Summary of the report to get a totally different picture.

The report slams the Ministry for the Environment for failing to protect public heath. It establishes that only a small number of substances—mainly heavy metals—were monitored; it says these would not have had serious health effects.

Scandalously the company and MFE did not monitor the site and its surrounds for the dioxins, PCB’s and other organochlorine compounds that were spread in to the air. Some of these toxic chemicals were actually created by the malfunction of an experimental “clean” technology.

These “chemicals of concern”, as the report calls them, are infamous because there is virtually no safe level of exposure and they bio accumulate in the food chain.

The local people have been told that because there was no monitoring data collected no one knows the level of risk they have been exposed to. Because Dioxins and other dangerous chemicals have a long half-life (some more than 30 years) in the environment and our bodies there can be a wide range of intergenerational health effects—from cancer to reproductive disorders, immune related disease, diabetes and heart failure. While the Ministry of Health is calling for further testing and is working with the community on the issue their media statement mimics the negligence during the clean up has had negligible effects.

The only good thing is that the secret is out. People living through that noise and dust suspected they were being exposed to dangerous chemicals without monitoring, and they were right. What I don’t understand is why the Ministry of Health press releases would pretend this wasn’t true. Who are they trying to protect? Public health or perhaps the agencies responsible for a failed chemical clean up?

Misc links:

Nats to pay miners to dig up national parks

Video: what we know about climate science

Lehman Brothers: the next Enron

Israeli envoy sees “historic crisis” with U.S.: report

National Rules Out Supporting Roger Douglas Youth Rate Bill

Tip of the pen to the Cycling Advocacy Network who provided me with most of these links.

First off – welcome to the Nubrella – a hands-free umbrella you can wear while cycling. So long, as CAN says, “you don’t mind looking like you’ve been partially devoured by a giant transparent caterpillar”

So will the Nubrella revolutionise cycling in NZ? Well, I don’t like to be pessimistic about its chances but a lot of cycling advocates believe strongly that the perception you can’t “cycle and look normal (or be normal)” is one of the main barriers to cyclists getting started. That’s why bloggers like Unity Finesmith and groups like Frocks on Bikes are so keen to push the message that cyclists can be stylish.

Would you wear a nubrella?

In other cycling news

* The British government has just released an Active Travel strategy which aims to make 2010 -2020 the “Decade of Cycling”. Among other initiatives they want to provide cycle training to every child in Britain. Isn’t that a great aspiration?

* In possibly related news John Key recently had a good time on his bike at St Mary’s school in Hastings. He was there because Paul McArdle, a wealthy donor, has just given 62 new bicycles to the school and installed several cycle tracks around the school in an effort to encourage cycling. While right now this new Bikes in Schools initiative is being driven privately perhaps if it is successful the government will take the plunge and decide to invest in rolling it out to more schools around NZ.

* And finally, a new study just published by NASA suggests that on-road transportation is/will be the biggest global contributor to climate change in the short-term. A compelling argument for more investment in the active modes (cycling and walking) you might think…

Tip of the pen to the Cycling Advocacy Network who provided me with most of these links.

First off – welcome to the Nubrella – a hands-free umbrella you can wear while cycling. So long, as CAN says, “you don’t mind looking like you’ve been partially devoured by a giant transparent caterpillar”

So will the Nubrella revolutionise cycling in NZ? Well, I don’t like to be pessimistic about its chances but a lot of cycling advocates believe strongly that the perception you can’t “cycle and look normal (or be normal)” is one of the main barriers to cyclists getting started. That’s why bloggers like Unity Finesmith and groups like Frocks on Bikes are so keen to push the message that cyclists can be stylish.

Would you wear a nubrella?

In other cycling news

* The British government has just released an Active Travel strategy which aims to make 2010 -2020 the “Decade of Cycling”. Among other initiatives they want to provide cycle training to every child in Britain. Isn’t that a great aspiration?

* In possibly related news John Key recently had a good time on his bike at St Mary’s school in Hastings. He was there because Paul McArdle, a wealthy donor, has just given 62 new bicycles to the school and installed several cycle tracks around the school in an effort to encourage cycling. While right now this new Bikes in Schools initiative is being driven privately perhaps if it is successful the government will take the plunge and decide to invest in rolling it out to more schools around NZ.

* And finally, a new study just published by NASA suggests that on-road transportation is/will be the biggest global contributor to climate change in the short-term. A compelling argument for more investment in the active modes (cycling and walking) you might think…

Gerry Brownlee will release the mining discussion paper “soon”, he said in Question Time today. But when is “soon”? Is it tomorrow, is it next week, next month, next century? Lindsay Tisch was filling in for Lockwood today during Question Time so he tried to help me understand what “soon” meant.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question I have is about the use of the word “soon”. The question was on notice; it was not a supplementary question. The use of the word “soon” is not, I think, an acceptable answer-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member-

Dr Russel Norman: -in the light of the fact that the question was on notice.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down; I am standing. It may not be acceptable from the member’s point of view, but “soon” reflects a timeframe of shortly, or whenever that may happen.

It seems that if something will happen “shortly or whenever” then that is soon. Yeah whatever.

Save Radio NZ meeting – a packed St John’s in the city – Wellington

 150 people showed up last night to a Save Radio New Zealand meeting organised jointly by myself and Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson.

Gaylene Preston and Jon Johansson also spoke, along with many members of the audience, all voicing their concern that the government’s decision to freeze Radio New Zealand’s funding indefinitely will undermine the quality and independence of Radio New Zealand.

Dr Jon Johansson

It’s odd that conservative governments the world over seem to dislike public service radio. George Bush targeted public service broadcasting and John Howard spent years attacking Australian national radio. It was only a public revolt that saved public service radio in Australia and I suspect it will be the same here.

Reading an exchange of letters between the Minister and Radio New Zealand’s Board, it appears that the Minister is using the funding crisis that he has created to try to force Radio New Zealand to adopt a more commercial model –just as he did to TVNZ.

He is demanding a ‘change of mindset’ on the part of the Board, and an exploration of ‘other revenue models’ –which is obviously code for demanding that Radio New Zealand take a more commercial approach. He has also floated loopy ideas such as reducing or shutting down the Auckland office of Radio New Zealand and introducing sponsorship (how about McDonald’s Morning Report, or Charlie’s Checkpoint?). And he is now floating the idea of Radio New Zealand sharing its news office with Maori TV and TVNZ 6 and 7!

The Minister is trying to create the impression that New Zealand can’t afford Radio New Zealand in its present form. But clearly, it is all a matter of priorities. If any project is called a motorway the government can’t bend over far enough to find an extra billion dollars or so. And now we learn its about to give a $4 million subsidy to mining companies to help them explore mining in our precious national parks! And somehow the Government just managed to find $30 odd million to fund private schools and the America’s cup!

The Minister does not seem able to grasp why it is important that we have one public service broadcaster left in New Zealand that is free from commercial pressures; that is not beholden to advertisers and sponsors, but only to its listeners; and that can hold corporations as well as governments to account, without fear or favour. Or perhaps that’s what he is worried about.

As Brian Edwards has pointed out in a recent blog, it is almost impossible to have quality broadcasting in a commercial radio environment, because the saturation level of advertising required to keep a commercial radio station viable makes in depth coverage of complex social and political issues almost impossible. Everything is reduced to bite sized chunks that fit around advertisements and there’s no room for extended interviews or in depth discussions of complex ideas, which are the daily fare of Radio New Zealand.

 

 

It was great to see a Radio Zealand reporter turn up to cover the meeting, because clearly there are moves to stop Radio New Zealand staff from discussing the funding cuts. The Acting Chief Executive of the Department of Culture and Heritage advised the Minister of Broadcasting recently –‘you may wish to indicate your concern to the Board about continued public comment by Radio New Zealand about funding.’ In other words, you may wish to gag Radio New Zealand. So it’s great to see that they haven’t bowed to this pressure yet.

Georgina Morrison added a video
Gareth Hughes Maiden SpeechThe Greens' newest and youngest MP, Gareth Hughes, delivers his maiden speech in Parliament on Wednesday 24 February 2010.

Last month I blogged on Justice Minister Simon Power’s kneejerk dismissal of the Law Commission’s report proposing our drug laws be reformed to reflect the principle of harm minimisation.

Now we see a similar head-in-the-sand approach being taken by Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne in response to the Ministry of Health’s Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs’ recommendation on the classification of the drug LSD.  The EACD found:

Members also noted that LSD’s potential to cause death is very low and that the few reported international cases were generally from accidents or possibly related to over-activity of the adrenal gland.  Members were advised that there is no evidence that LSD can create dependence.

There was discussion around the appropriateness of New Zealand’s classification of LSD as a Class A controlled drug and whether this is proportionate to the risk of harm or danger associated with the substance.  The Committee agreed that with regard to the risk of harm, a Class B or even a Class C classification may be more appropriate.  The Committee discussed the fact that a Class B classification would provide Police and Customs with sufficient enforcement powers for surveillance and monitoring any involvement of organised crime in supplying LSD. Changing LSD’s classification could mean that a stronger focus can be placed on more problematic drugs.  Members agreed that the current classification of LSD in New Zealand could have been influenced by historical and international classifications and the Committee was advised that LSD was included in the 1960s drug conventions and classified under psychotropic substances in 1971.

Based on the evidence of the risk of harm associated with LSD in New Zealand, the EACD agreed that LSD is inappropriately classified.

Peter Dunne’s reaction:

…Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne says he has met with the committee and made it clear the government has absolutely no interest in pursuing the matter. He says the arguments for change were theoretical and were not agreed on by the full committee.

Not good enough!

The only bit of Dunne’s statement that is confirmed by the minutes of the EACD meeting (MSWord, 76kB – extract quoted above) that discussed reclassification of LSD is that he met with them – he is recorded as a “guest present” at the meeting.  The minutes confirm the EACD took an evidence-based, rather than theoretical, approach to its work.  They also make no mention of any EACD member dissenting to or abstaining from the recommendations.  I can only assume what Dunne means by “not agreed on by the full committee” is that two committee members gave their apologies for the meeting, so their opinions on the issue are unknown.

It all makes me wonder why the Government bothers to have expert advisors at all if it is just going to dismiss the evidence-based advice they provide.

You know your plans are not being well received when one of the major players in the sector speaks out against them. Mr Hide has already faced widespread public opposition to his plans for the Auckland Super City, as well as from other politicians, the current Auckland councils and now the President of Local Government New Zealand, Lawrence Yule.

Last week Mr Yule sent out a letter to elected members which was highly critical of Mr Hide’s plans to take away residents’ rights to have their say on the future of Auckland’s jewels.

Mr Yule gets behind Bernard Orsman’s sustained campaign in the Herald to raise awareness and present complex and important issues to Aucklanders saying that “The Herald has thrown down the gauntlet, let’s pick it up.”

Challenging words indeed especially when you look at the rest of the letter.

The logic behind the Government’s CCO proposal is unfathomable. ..under the proposals, unelected government-appointed technocrats and bureaucrats will have the power to decide on the future of billions of dollars worth of Auckland’s assets – from land to infrastructure to property.

This statement, coming from the President of what is generally a fairly non-confrontational body, is pretty direct language that reinforces what we have been saying. Auckland and its assets need to be in the control of Aucklanders, not ministerial-appointed technocrats and bueauracrats.

The proposed new regime will take away Auckland Council’s right to decide on which services should be run by a CCO, thus stripping ratepayers of yet another level of accountability and transparency.

Surely this is anathema to the principles of TAFM [Transparency, Accountability and Fiscal Management in local government] developed and driven by Minister Hide? Surely the Government and the Minister must see some irony here?

Especially since Mr Hide’s stated goal is “to put the ‘local’ back into local government”. This goal is obviously secondary to corporatising the assets of local government.

But wait here is the most damning passage about Mr Hide’s machinations:

Local Government will be working on a variety of programmes encouraging New Zealanders to vote in this year’s local government elections for a range of reasons, not least of which is do ratepayers want Auckland to be a model for the future of their assets. Watch this space.

You can read the full letter here [PDF].

Sounds like Mr Yule is worried that Auckland will be the model for any future local body amalgamations. He should be because this is a bad model. The mega-CCO system is fundamentally undemocratic and I will be pushing for amendments and supporting amendments that curtail their power.

When will Mr Hide start listening?

In November last year the Canterbury DHB completed a review of its alcohol and other drugs (AOD) treatment and rehabilitation policy.  Here’s an extract from its minutes (PDF):

Justice Clients:

Legal pressure can sometimes result in people reflecting on their situation. Information, education and brief intervention is appropriate at this point and should be provided by primary care, probation officers, prison staff etc. with the support of AOD specialists. AOD assessment and treatment will be available to those who require it and are able to engage.

People waiting for sentence will be able to access community groups (education, building motivation etc) and collaboration with corrections may result in joint initiatives for this group.

Once sentencing is completed entry into specialist AOD services will be viable for those who remain in the community.

Long‐term treatment programmes to provide sentencing/prison release options for people in prison is not viable. AOD services funded by corrections to meet the needs of the prison population are supported and linking is required to ensure adequate transition planning for release into the community.

As per the agreement that exists between health and corrections, reports required for Courts and Parole Boards will be funded by these bodies. AOD services will provide support for prisoners due for release, although this is unlikely to be the provision of direct access into containment type facilities. The support may be best provided through collaborative work with prison release staff and will not necessarily involve comprehensive assessment and subsequent reports.

That is a disgraceful policy.  It flies in the face of the principle of harm minimisation and discriminates in the provision of AOD services against people whose drug and/or alcohol problems have resulted in them falling foul of the criminal law.  Often these are the very people who are the greatest danger to themselves and others in the community and are most in need of help.  The policy has now been labelled “bizarre” and “grossly inequitable” by the National Addiction Centre.  The National Committee for Addiction Treatment has also expressed concerns.

I accept that there is usually little to be achieved by forcing a person with an alcohol or drug dependency into rehabilitation if they are reluctant, and that there will also be people who will cynically play the system by feigning a desire to be rehabilitated in an attempt to get a lighter sentence.  But the Canterbury DHB’s policy is just a short-sighted exercise in cost-cutting that denies adequate rehabilitative services to “justice clients” irrespective of their motivation to be rehabilitated.

For many people with an alcohol or drug problem, a brush with the law is the trigger that makes them first acknowledge they have a problem and accept they need to do something about it.  The Canterbury DHB, by providing “justice clients” with only minimal rehabilitative services, is denying them the opportunity to do something about it.  “Justice clients”, even if imprisoned, eventually end up in the community.   If they end up in the community without their dependencies being adequately addressed, it is not just them and their families but society as a whole that suffers.

As I noted last week, Granny Herald has finally woken up to the dangers of Rodney Hide and Steven Joyce’s plans for local government in Auckland. They’ve been running a useful series of articles about the proposed council controlled organizations.

In particular, the Herald (and mayors) are concerned that all responsibility for transport issues, will be placed in the hands of Council Controlled Organization governed by unelected, unaccountable directors appointed by Hide and Joyce.

In response Joyce and Hide have published an article trying (unsuccessfully to date) to reassure us about their vision for Auckland. (Question: Will Joyce soon become the Associate Minister of Local Government too as National tries to fix up Hide’s mess?).

In this article they assert that CCOs are nothing new – after all Auckland already has plenty of them. That’s true, we do, and some of our current CCOs, like ARTA and Watercare, are quite powerful.

But none of our CCOs currently wield anything like the extraordinary powers that the new Auckland Transport and Water agencies will hold.

It’s a little disingenous for Hide & Joyce to compare some of our CCOs like the not so mighty Edge theatre to a transport agency that will have an estimated budget of $630 million/year and be responsible for every local road and public transport service in Auckland. Even ARTA has scarcely a third of the power the new Auckland Transport agency will hold.

And here’s the $630 million question: Is Auckland getting a transport CCO (whose directors will be handpicked by Steven Joyce) because it will really be the best thing for Auckland as he claims?

Or is it because last year almost all the possible mayors of Auckland publicly declared that their priority projects for Auckland are public transport projects, rather than the motorways so beloved by our Minister for Trucking Transport?

To the CEO of Solid Energy:

Dear Sir,

I understand that your corporation is sponsoring an essay competition for schoolchildren in Southland, West Coast, Canterbury and Waikato.  The essay, up to 1500 words, must address “The Role of Coal in Sustainable Energy Solutions for New Zealand.”

I am not sure if there is an age limit this year, but as a mature New Zealander I am excited at the chance to participate and would be most grateful if you’ll allow me to submit.  Any opportunity to stimulate young minds – any old mind – towards sustainable thinking is a priceless contribution to this country’s future.  It should be appreciated for what it is – a selfless act of communal service on your part.  I plan to alert the Minister of Energy to this example of corporate supererogation. I know how pleased he will be.

I shall keep my contribution under 1000 words – discounted for age, as it were.  Here is my submission:

In this essay I consider the role of coal in sustainable energy solutions for New Zealand.  As an aspiring young leader, I shall summon people – future followers of whom I know many – to support my vision.  To do that, I must combine intellectual rigour with emotional appeal.  So I begin with a definition of the main concepts in the essay title.

Sustainability is the capacity to provide for our present generation’s needs whilst ensuring that future generations can meet theirs.  An eco-centric perspective requires that we humans act as custodians of the planet for the sake of all species.  But the prevailing anthropocentric view is that other species are here on Earth to serve human needs, and if they appear not to be doing so, they become dispensable.  This applies particularly to those of small size – snails for example – but it can apply equally to larger creatures, including all higher primates.

A solution is defined as an answer, a ‘key’, to a problem.  In this essay, the problem would appear to be the implied lack of sustainable energy scenarios for New Zealand.  This excludes the rest of the world.  I am having difficulty with this since we have traditionally been import-dependent on heavy oil from overseas.  So it comes as a relief to know that the Government is encouraging the exploration of oil here, both on-land and off-shore, and that it sees one future scenario of New Zealand as a potential net oil exporter.  Bravo!

I suggest that oil and coal should not be seen as mutually competitive.  Each draws from past solar activity and remains predictable in its proven reserves.  If peak oil is as early as 2014 – the latest IEA report – then we must rely further on its older sister whose reserves are believed to last for several centuries more.  This will give us time to successfully deal with any climate change, and adapt to whatever extent we may need.

The emotional appeal of coal is, I submit, self-evident.  My grandparents used to speak wistfully of cosy evenings of times past with the open-hearth fireplace casting a warm glow around the living-room, generating human conviviality and good cheer on a dreary night.  Today’s clinically-modernised global community could do with some of this.  If the ensuing heat-loss of 85% warmed the heavens, then surely this was a cosmic good.  I do not begrudge my ancestors their simple pleasures; in fact, we should seek to recover them.  Solid Energy has a moral role here, I believe, in uplifting our flagging spirits.

But, it must be asked, is such a role sustainable?  I realise that the world’s coal reserves are finite, so at some future stage we must switch to renewable energy resources.  But in the meantime, there is more coal to extract and consume than any other fossil fuel source.  Oil and natural gas are, together, insufficient to double the carbon concentration in Earth’s atmosphere – with the goal of 800 ppmv.  We can only achieve this through coal-burning.

That is estimated to result in an average global temperature increase of some 8 to 10°C and a sea-level rise of 5 to 15 metres over the next two centuries.  Some timid souls may see this as a negative consequence of my energy solution.  But several qualifying considerations are, I think, relevant here.

First, a global average does not mean that New Zealand will necessarily share in those figures – our temperature increase could well be lower, at a congenial level perhaps, particularly for those of us in Southland.

Secondly, the time-span of two centuries raises the question of how far out the concept of inter-generational justice that underpins sustainability just has to stretch.  For my part, I think it is sufficient simply to worry about one’s children and theirs.  Beyond that, our mokopuna are just gleams in a fossil-burner’s eye.

We can, moreover, be confident that human ingenuity and technological prowess, of the kind that has generated such an economic miracle over the past 250 years, will see us through.  In the same vein, we should believe that humans will have learnt, over the next 3 billion years, to take leave of the solar system on which we currently rely, and bid our dying Sun adieu, when the time comes.  Nothing is beyond us, now that technology has allowed us to break free of Nature’s primitive grasp.

New Zealand has its part to play in all this, punching as always above its weight.  A hungry China is installing two Huntly-sized coal power stations each week.  GHG emissions are correlated with GDP on a per capita basis.  Ours are about 17 tonnes per annum.  Theirs are 3.5.  They have a right, and must be encouraged, to reach our level.  We must help.  It is our bounden duty.

Besides, if we do not supply them with the coal they need, someone else will.  So let us compete.  Solid Energy has a role to play in meeting China’s needs.  The export income we earn from this will allow us to focus here on climbing out of the economic recession and making our national economy grow again, as it has in the past.

Annual growth of 5% – surely a credible aspiration – enables us to double our economy within about 12 years.  As our population grows to the projected 5 million and Earth’s to 9 billion, we shall need all the coal reserves we possess.  Meanwhile, our Government will ensure that we balance economic opportunity with environmental responsibility.

Some are terrified that an atmospheric carbon concentration above 450 ppmv and a modest temperature increase above 2°C will spell disaster for humanity.  But I say, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.  We shall balance economic opportunity with environmental responsibility.

A sustainable New Zealand is a wealthy New Zealand.  A wealthy New Zealand has the capacity to ensure that we are sustainable.  Wealth thus equates with sustainability.  Coal and oil equates with wealth.  It follows that coal and oil equate with sustainability.

Sir, I trust these thoughts meet with your approval.  I hope to win a prize for this essay from Solid Energy that allows me to consider a career in your company.  Give me a child of seven, as they say, and I will show you the man of seventy.  That will be around the year 2075.  I foresee a bright future for New Zealand, with coal as the Key to its sustainable energy needs.

May Solid Energy grow from strength to corporate strength, delivering power and happiness to the people of New Zealand.

A preferred alignment for an underground rail loop to run through Auckland’s CBD was announced yesterday by ARTA. This is exciting news as it means this crucial project is coming one step closer to completion. You can see that there will be three stations, one near Aotea Square, Karangahape Road, and Symonds Street.

ARTA estimate that the Aotea Station and related intensification could generate another 40,000 jobs in this area. But I’m especially excited about the Symonds Street station. I believe there is a huge opportunity to build more quality intensive housing and commercial development around this area – transforming it into one of the most vibrant parts of central Auckland.

This is a really cool project for Auckland, it will be great for Auckland’s environment and the economy and we need to get it finished as soon as possible.

However, we can’t start it without the funding. And right now the Minister is stone walling in response to written questions in the House. He’s saying he can’t dedicate any funding to this project until (another) study of the business case for the CBD rail loop is completed at the end of 2010.

However, he’s already put over $100 million from the National Land Transport Fund into investigating the Puhoi to Wellsford motorway even though the NZTA’s initial study showed that motorway hasn’t got a strong economic case. In fact, with a Benefit to Cost Ratio of 0.8 they’re predicting it will lose the economy $280 million.

I’m going to fight to get the CBD rail loop finished as quickly as possible. I hope you’ll join me.

Last night, the Roger Award For The Worst Transnational Corporation operating in New Zealand, 2009 was awarded to ANZ.

The Aussie-owned banks continue to rip us off, and the Green Party believes a bank is a worthy recipient of this award.  Along with Labour and the Progressive, we instigated the Parliamentary Inquiry into Banking.  The Inquiry found that lack of competition between the banks has cost their customers up to $2 billion of additional interest rate expenses.  They really are unscrupulous.

The Judge’s Decision on the Roger Awards reported:

During the year 2009 the banks were accused of: 

Distorted lending margins in their favour and against their customers

Tax dodging on a grand scale

Poor lending and investment practices

Overcharging and profiteering

Poor employment and customer service practices

ANZ was rightly singled out because of the ING scandal.

ANZ also finances logging of old growth forests in Tasmania, and provides financial services to Rimbunan Hijau, the Malaysian logging company that is clearing rainforests in PNG.

All in all, a deserving winner!  Cheers to Christine Dann and the other judges, and CAFCA and GATT Watchdog for a great night.

The current media attention on whaling provides still more evidence that the claim of ’scientific research’ is a lie.

Protestors are brandishing cans of whale meat outside the NZ embassy in Tokyo and there’s whale sushi for sale in Los Angeles.

It is a timely reminder that this is a debate about killing whales for their meat – always has been – and there’s universal agreement on that.

But what’s not clear is the best way to stop the practice in the Southern Ocean.

Call it what it is – commercial whaling – and try to control that trade as Geoffrey Palmer advocates? Or back a ban on whale hunting and bring to bear the weight of the international courts?

To support the Palmer position you have to believe it would work, first reducing the number of whales killed and then leading to total protection.

However Japan has shown through its cynical use of the “scientific” provision that it cannot be trusted to honour agreements on whaling.

In light of Japan’s behaviour, opening the door to commercial whaling and expecting to close it gradually is naïve.  A more likely result is that Japan will push it wide open into our faces.

With due respect to Sir Geoff’s diligence and good intentions, we disagree about the best way to the goal.

There’s not much room for nuanced debate in the mainstream media so when you say you’re against a compromise, you risk being painted as intransigent and impractical. But arguably it is the compromise that’s impractical.

Metiria has stated the Greens position below and will offer a whaling op-ed to the major dailies soon to give the argument a fuller airing- will any of them pick it up?

Metiria has a facebook group about whaling, for those that are that way inclined.

A few random links for ya

Facebook group about whaling

Send an ecard to save Radio New Zealand

Greece mayhem

French bread spiked with LSD

IEA Economist Predicts ‘Era Of Cheap Energy Is Over’

Mega Kites Could Pull Giant, Floating Power Plants

One good thing has come out of the furore over Auckland Super City: Auckland will be getting a new logo.

Gone will be the amorphous A of Auckland City only to be replaced with the fruit of your minds eye.

The world is Auckland’s oyster logo-wise and the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA), in their limitless wisdom, has decided—in perhaps the most democratic move of the whole process—to let anyone in Auckland design the new logo.

Aucklanders now have only one week to submit their entries to the ATA and be in to win the $10,000 prize and to have their logo emblazoned on everything from letterheads to the front of the Auckland Council building.

Bob Harvey, who is on the panel of judges said there have been many interesting entries. I wonder if he has seen this one which I got sent yesterday:

You can submit your own entries, serious or otherwise, here.