Young Labour Incident: Has Obstruction of Justice Taken Place?

Source: ACT Party

Headline: Young Labour Incident: Has Obstruction of Justice Taken Place?




The Labour Party has relied on reviews for every real and imagined problem it faces, from housing to education to mental health, however using a review to duck responsibility for the Young Labour scandal is a new low. The questions it needs to ask are actually very simple ones:

Who knew about the alleged incidents that took place at the Young Labour camp and when did they know them?

Did they follow the law in dealing with those allegations?

Did they discourage young people from approaching Police?

These questions are of critical importance. There is no need for a review, Jacinda Ardern should be a leader and demand answers to these questions.

If the Prime Minister or Andrew Kirton are aware that those who knew about these allegations prevented them from coming to light, those individuals must be referred to Police so they can be investigated for obstruction of justice”, says Mr Seymour.

Megan Woods should stop re-announcing R&D programmes

Source: National Party – Headline: Megan Woods should stop re-announcing R&D programmes

Science and innovation Minister Megan Woods should stop re-announcing the previous Government’s R&D programmes and come up with some of her own, National Party Science and Innovation Spokesperson Parmjeet Parmar says.

“Ms Woods has attempted to fool the media by re-launching the MBIE Innovative Partnerships programme which was previously announced and launched by the National Government in 2016,” Ms Parmar says.

“It is clear that she has nothing new to say on research and development.

“The Ardern-Peters Government have spent so much on its bribe to university students that the word around town is that there will be no new funding available for research and development in this year’s budget.

“Labour has set a big target of lifting research and development spending to 2 per cent of GDP but they have no plan on how to get there.

“Ms Woods needs to stop re-treading the previous Government’s programmes and announce the detail of her own policies.”

Working group lines up more taxes

Source: National Party – Headline: Working group lines up more taxes

New Zealanders will be deeply suspicious and rightly so about the Labour Party’s plan for new taxes as signalled today by their tax working group, National Party Finance Spokesperson Amy Adams says.

“What we’ve seen today from the Tax Working Group is a dressed up version of the old Labour Party plan to add a raft of new taxes,” Ms Adams says.

“A financial transactions tax, capital gains tax, a land tax, wealth taxes, environmental taxes; they all have one thing in common. It’s the return of Michael Cullen with his hands deep in the pockets of hardworking Kiwis trying to think of new ways to get more money from them.

“If the Government was serious about the stated aim of the Tax Working Group proposals being revenue neutral, the discussion document would include specific proposals to reduce the tax take in other areas. The document instead talks about the need for taxation to increase.

“Tax revenues are already going up because of the strong New Zealand economy. Three years ago the Government collected $66.6 billion in tax, it’s forecast to be $78.2 billion this year and $93 billion by 2021. That’s more than enough of an increase, even for a tax and spend Labour Party Government.

“Adding new taxes would only discourage savings, investment, and slow down the New Zealand economy.

“The public will be worried about the direction that the Tax Working Group appears to be taking. It’s hard enough for mum and dad investors to get a small nest egg together over their lifetime without it being subject to even more tax.

“With Sir Michael’s penchant for taxing people and Grant Robertson’s determination to spend a lot more money, storm clouds are gathering for hardworking Kiwis who already pay enough tax.”

Politicking seriously risking Metro Sports Facility

Source: National Party – Headline: Politicking seriously risking Metro Sports Facility

It is time for the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration Megan Woods to stop deliberate holdups and political engineering and just get the Metro Sports Facility underway, National’s spokesperson for Greater Christchurch Regeneration Nicky Wagner says.

“Media reports that official information being sent to the Minister showing her politically-motivated search for cost cutting measures may take the whole thing back to the drawing board are deeply troubling.

“Every day the clock and the dollars are ticking over on the Metro Sports Facility project. The delay is now the Minister’s, and I urge her to act now,” Ms Wagner says.

“Christchurch residents have put too much time and energy into this project for the Minister to dither. A lot of time has already been spent identifying community needs, ensuring that the project fulfilled a wide range of needs, and designing the facility for construction.

“The building, if it follows the current design, will be fit-for-purpose and it is expected to be one of the best sporting complexes in the Southern Hemisphere.

“However, I am concerned that ‘cost saving measures’ that are reportedly being considered by the Government will not only downsize this project but also trigger substantial delays.

“It is appalling that this important project may fall victim to Labour’s over-promising in other areas. If money is stripped away from the project it will have huge implications on the facility.

“As is often the case with such big projects, potential risks were identified in the middle of 2017 but a peer reviewed solution was requested and delivered to the Minster. Instead of following this advice, the Minister ordered yet another report that confirmed the previous advice that this is the right option.

“The only reason the next phase in August 2017 wasn’t signed off was because it was within the election period, and if authorised, the project would be proceeding by now.

“This facility will boost our community health, continue the revitalisation of the central city and provide our high-performance athletes and sports clubs the facilities they need.

“The people of Christchurch, our children and families, along with our sports people are all waiting to see progress on this project and there is no reason for the continued delay,” Mrs Wagner says.

Cut Corporate Welfare Before Going After ‘Rich Pricks’

Source: ACT Party

Headline: Cut Corporate Welfare Before Going After ‘Rich Pricks’




“The Government should be focussed on reducing wasteful spending before introducing new taxes”, says ACT Leader David Seymour.

“$1.6 billion of corporate welfare is doled out to politically-connected businesses each year. If Grant Robertson was able to do away with this expenditure, he would be able to cut the corporate tax rate by 6 percentage points – boosting wages, jobs, and growth – rather than increasing it as he intends.

“The outcome of this Tax Working Group will be to increase the complexity of the tax system and the burden faced by hardworking New Zealanders. This will do nothing to boost our economic fortunes.

“National’s criticism of the Tax Working Group is particularly hypocritical for two reasons. One, the Nats didn’t cut taxes when they had the chance. Two, they couldn’t control wasteful spending which would have taken the pressure off for new taxes to be introduced.

“What Mr Robertson should do is glance at the International Monetary Fund’s recent study on the best way for countries to reduce their level of debt. It found cutting spending is less harmful to economic growth than raising taxes.

“In other words, the Labour-NZ First-Greens recipe of higher taxes and higher spending will deliver lower economic growth and wages, and fewer jobs.

“Mr Robertson can start cutting waste by sacking Michael Cullen”, says Mr Seymour.

Labour Must Refer Youth Wing Incident to Police

Source: ACT Party

Headline: Labour Must Refer Youth Wing Incident to Police




ACT Leader David Seymour has challenged the Labour Party to refer allegations that minors were drinking alcohol at a Young Labour camp to Police.

Section 241(1) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 stipulates that a “person who supplies alcohol to a minor commits an offence”. 

“In 2012, Labour MPs were incensed over National’s supposedly weak approach to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Bill, including provisions relating to the supply of alcohol to minors”, says Mr Seymour.

“At least 11 Labour MPs including David Clark, Andrew Little, Phil Twyford, Iain Lees-Galloway, Aupito William Sio, and Louisa Wall drafted amendments aimed at beefing up minimum pricing, advertising and sponsorship, warning labels, trading hours, and local alcohol policies. 

“Labour’s minority report on the Bill said that an ‘historic opportunity to address the problems that alcohol contributes has been lost.’

“Iain Lees-Galloway called the bill ‘insipid’ and accused then-Justice Minister Judith Collins of doing a deal with a “very well-resourced supermarket lobby” to weaken the bill. 

“Galloway said that supermarket shoppers should be able to shop without being exposed to alcohol. 

“I would suggest that teenagers should be able to attend events organised by political parties without being exposed to alcohol. 

“It beggars belief that the Labour Party – so strong on alcohol reform in opposition – has not referred this matter to Police. It must do so now”, says Mr Seymour.

Have your say on international climate change guidelines

Source: Green Party

Headline: Have your say on international climate change guidelines

Hon JAMES SHAW
Minister for Climate Change

MEDIA STATEMENT

The Government is inviting input as it sets the priorities for New Zealand at international climate change negotiations.

At Paris in 2015, 174 countries, plus the European Union, committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global temperature rise this Century to well below 2 degrees Celsius.

At the end of this year (2-14 December), international negotiators meet in Katowice, Poland, for the 24th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP24) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The purpose of COP24 is to work out the guidelines for how countries work together to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

From today, New Zealanders are invited to have their say on what they think New Zealand’s stance on those guidelines should be.

“Tackling climate change is the greatest environmental challenge of our time,” says the Minister for Climate Change James Shaw.

“I’ve been clear that New Zealand will show leadership on climate change on the world stage, which is why we want to refresh our approach to international climate negotiations, and to hear from you about what you think is important in those negotiations.

“We need to lead by example at home and we also need to be clear about what we’re working towards at the international negotiating table.

“Having signed up to the Paris Agreement, the next step is to agree on guidance for countries as they go about implementing their national contributions to reducing greenhouse gases and limiting temperature rise, and that is what will happen in Katowice in December,” Mr Shaw says.

“There are a number of areas New Zealand has focused on already, including transparency, effective mitigation, integrity of carbon markets, agriculture, as well as gender and indigenous people’s issues,” he says.

Public submissions can be made by clicking here for more details.

Submissions are due by 3 April.

 

Contact

James Shaw MP

Article Type

Intro

The Government is inviting input as it sets the priorities for New Zealand at international climate change negotiations.

Portfolios

Speech at Downstream: The Energy Sector’s Annual Strategic Forum

Source: Green Party

Headline: Speech at Downstream: The Energy Sector’s Annual Strategic Forum

14 March – Sky City Convention Centre, Auckland

Kia ora koutou, ata marie

Nga mihi nui ki a koutou

Well, good morning! And thank you for the rare opportunity to perform a double-act with Dr Megan Woods, my colleague, the Minister of Energy and Resources.

Those of you who I have met over the years may have heard me say before that my first professional job was at a wee outfit called the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand, back when there was such a thing.

When I was there we erected New Zealand’s first every wind turbine on Brooklyn Hill in Wellington.

At the time, a number of Wellingtonians objected. But eventually, amid public polarisation and debate, it got built.

Fast forward twenty-mumble years, when the turbine was completely worn out, 85% of Wellingtonians said they wanted it replaced.

No one was going to take away ‘our’ wind turbine. It had become a part of the city, and a part of the skyline.

And now we have a new one, which cost half as much money to build and yet generates four times as much electricity as the original.

A lot has changed in the last few decades.

But I want to talk today about the changes coming in the next few decades.

 

The Prime Minister has now famously referred to climate change as the nuclear free moment of our generation.

And I am the lucky chappie tasked – along with Dr Woods and others – with laying out the architecture of how we become a net-zero emissions economy by the year 2050.

A thirty-year economic transformation and, I believe, the greatest economic opportunity in at least a generation.

 

Every country on Earth is obliged, under the Paris Agreement, to reach net zero emissions in the second half of this century.

And according to the work undertaken by Vivid Economics for the cross-parliamentary climate change group GLOBE NZ, we are able to do this by 2050.

Our view is that, because we can, we should.

As a comparatively wealthy OECD country we have the opportunity to lead the world in the fight against catastrophic climate change – and that leadership position is what creates economic opportunity for New Zealand.

 

Your sector is at the heart of that.

We are incredibly lucky to already be at around 80-85 percent renewable electricity generation.

We are blessed with abundant renewable and clean energy resources in New Zealand.

Although, as you know, when we include transport and industrial process heat in the energy landscape, it’s quite a different picture.

Minister Woods, and our colleague Julie Anne Genter, the Associate Transport Minister, are putting a lot of effort into shifting the dial in those areas in particular, where some of the greatest transformations will happen to meet our 2050 goal.

Those areas, and of course other sectors of our economy, like agriculture.

We’re all in this together and every sector needs to play its part in this transformation.

It’s a transformation that will turn New Zealand into a nation which utilises and manages its resources sustainably, cost effectively, and responsibly to meet our obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s a transformation that aims to ensure we continue to enjoy that world class quality of life well into the next Century and beyond, and to share that with more New Zealanders.

Thirty-odd years ago another government put in place the architecture for an economic transformation.

Some of what they did was necessary, some of it visionary and progressive, but some of it left communities reeling.

As a country, we’re still dealing with the consequences today.

So we want to make sure that the coming transition is just and that it is effective.

We do not want the kind of economic transformation that our country saw in the 80s and 90s, which left communities and families in shock and did not support them to adjust.

But at the same time, it needs to be effective, because a just transition cannot be an excuse to slow down or dilute the changes that are coming.

Done properly, a well-managed shift to clean, renewable energy will ensure that sector can be profitable, can be prosperous, can be sustainable and can be resilient through the back half of the 21st Century and beyond.

Our goal is to build up the energy sector, to future-proof it – along with the other important sectors in our economy.

 

The legislative centre-piece of this thirty year transition is the Zero Carbon Act, which I’ll be introducing into Parliament in September or October this year.

The Zero Carbon Act does two things, primarily. It’ll put into law the goal of becoming a net-zero emissions economy and it’ll establish a politically independent Climate Commission to guide us down the pathway to get there.

The purpose of the Zero Carbon Act is to provide the long-term predictability and stable policy environment that industry needs in order to be able to make the kind of significant investment decisions that, so far, are being withheld because of the lack of such a clear operating environment.

At the moment, we’re gathering the evidence base from the Productivity Commission, the Biological Emissions Working Group, and the second report of the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group.

We’re also conducting new economic modelling about the costs and benefits to the economy of the transition.

Then in June of this year we’ll be asking for your input into the design of the Bill.

For example, what exactly do we mean when we say a net-zero emissions economy? And what will be the precise powers and functions of the Climate Commission?

The Zero Carbon Act should pass in mid-2019, setting our long term emissions target in law and establishing an independent Climate Commission to drive the transition to net zero emissions.

In parallel to all of that, we are also already working on the next stage of the Emissions Trading Scheme review.

This will put some meat on the bones of the in-principle decisions the previous Government made around things like the current $25 fixed price option, and aligning ETS unit supply with our emissions reduction targets.

Basically, what do we need to do to make the ETS do what it’s supposed to do, which is reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Now, in parallel to these two big legislative reforms, we also want to make some progress in some key areas of the economy.

And because we don’t want to wait until the middle of 2019 to get stuck in them, we’re also going to set up an Interim Climate Committee, to start to look at those issues.

That Interim Committee won’t have decision-making power, but it will get started on two pressing questions.

Firstly, whether or not agriculture should be included in an Emissions Trading Scheme and, if it is, how should it be included?

If it isn’t, what is a better way to reduce net agricultural emissions?

And what effect does it have on our economy overall if we keep some sectors excluded from paying for their climate pollution?

Secondly, how we can achieve 100% renewable electricity.

Yes, I know, some people in this room are sceptical.

And I know why. When we start talking about those last vital percentage gains to get to 100 per cent total renewables we are talking about potentially significant cost challenges.

And we need to be as mindful of affordability and security of supply as we are about the need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

If it was easy or simple, we’d have done it already. But I want you to know that this government is committed and that we want to know from you what you think it’ll take to get there.

Yes, we will need to settle on decisions and solutions… but those decisions and solutions need to be based on sound evidence, consultation and discussion – like the discussion that’s no doubt going to take place here.

These kinds of discussions will help inform the decision-making by the Interim Climate Change Committee, which will then pass on its advice to the Climate Change Commission.

I know the energy sector needs long-term stability and certainty to make investments in the types of technology and infrastructure that will lay the tracks to our 100% renewable goal.

The whole point of the Zero Carbon Act is to provide the kind of stability and certainty you’ll need.

Because leaders in the electricity sector are already certain change is going to change the way people access, use and pay for their power.

A couple of weeks ago there was an interesting podcast from Radio New Zealand that featured Dr Keith Turner, the former head of Meridian Energy, and Neil Barclay, the current Meridian boss.

They were asked to look into the future and say what they thought New Zealand’s electricity system would look like 10 or 15 years from now.

Dr Turner’s vision was more smart applications, smart data use and a lot of new technologies; principally around batteries and solar power.

Neil Barclay shared that vision but also sees an electricity sector in New Zealand that will be far more efficient. And, in his words, there will certainly be more renewables.

I couldn’t agree more with both of them.

New Zealand’s electricity industry is fundamental to our wealth AND our welfare.

Reliability, affordability, and security of supply are paramount to households and businesses alike.

What also now needs to be at the forefront of thinking, both in New Zealand’s energy sector and from us in government, is how those demands of reliability, affordability, and security of supply can be delivered in a low emissions, sustainable way.

I know that you in the energy sector have already been thinking about that for some time.

I’m here to give you my commitment – as Minister for Climate Change – to work hard with my colleagues in government, like Dr Megan Woods, to ensure we politicians apply a new focus to our thinking on those challenges too.

 

It needs to start now.

Every dollar invested today in fossil fuels is a dollar that is not invested in wind, solar, or geothermal.

Every dollar spent building a new power plant is a dollar not spent retrofitting old buildings to make them more efficient.

Every dollar spent extracting oil and gas is a dollar not spent building fast charging infrastructure for electric cars.

We are living in a carbon constrained world.

We simply cannot allow our emissions to keep rising.

The time for investment in last century’s fuels is over.

Our goal of 100% renewable electricity is a bit like that first Wellington wind turbine.

To begin with, some people oppose it.

They say it’s unnecessary, it’s unproven, it’s expensive.

But like the tourists who flock to the top of Brooklyn Hill to see it every day, the rest of the world will look to us when we do achieve the goal of 100% renewables, or even, frankly, when we get really close.

And when we achieve that goal, I bet no one will look back.

No reira, tena koutou katoa

Contact

James Shaw MP

Article Type

Intro

14 March – Sky City Convention Centre, Auckland

Labour’s school donations policy expensive and unrealistic

Source: National Party – Headline: Labour’s school donations policy expensive and unrealistic

Labour will need to come up with more cash if it is to go ahead with its unrealistic plan to end school donations, with data showing that over $130 million in donations was paid in 2016 – almost twice the estimated cost of Labour’s policy, National’s Education Spokesperson Nikki Kaye says.

“Labour estimated the policy would cost $70 million, apparently based on 450,000 students being covered by the policy, with no detail as to how they estimated this uptake.

“Given Labour made big promises about ending school donations, it’s clear it’ll need to find more money in its already-tight budget or admit that the policy is too expensive and unrealistic.

“The fact is the Government has little ability to force schools not to ask for donations and in order to really incentivise them, it could cost twice as much as what it budgeted for.

“Giving schools that scrap donations an extra $150 per student will not be near enough. In 2016, the number of donations reported to Inland Revenue that were $150 and under made up just 21.5 per cent of all donations. What incentive will the Government offer to counter the 78.5 per cent of donations over $150?

“While the IRD data is only a snapshot of all donations made, because many parents are not claiming tax rebates, it is still a strong indication that the $150 promised by the Government will only incentivise a small proportion of schools.

“The Government needs to work better with schools and parents to ensure that they know that they could be eligible to claim back up to a third of their voluntary school donations.

“Education Minister Chris Hipkins will be under huge pressure after spending $2.8 billion on tertiary education students, leaving little money left for the rest of the education sector.

“What’s disappointing is that the Ministry of Education has withheld two key pieces of advice which would likely provide the actual costings of the policy.

“We all want to make education to be more affordable for parents but that process requires transparency and robust costings so that education priorities can be properly weighed up.”

Unions again hold weak Government to ransom

Source: National Party – Headline: Unions again hold weak Government to ransom

The unions are clearly taking the new Labour-led Government for a ride with yet another strike underway today led by the Rail and Maritime Transport Union, National Party MPs Michael Woodhouse and Jami-Lee Ross say.

“We are seeing another union power grab with strike action at Lyttelton Port from midnight last night. The culprit is again the Rail and Maritime Transport Union, the same Union behind the extremely disruptive train and bus strikes in Auckland,” Workplace Relations Spokesperson Michael Woodhouse says.

“This strike has the potential to be particularly significant, with warnings that it may shut down the port and that if it continues past a week, shortages of some critical supplies will begin to occur affecting thousands of people and businesses.

“This is not good enough. With union demands increasing at an alarming rate, these strikes are starting to become more common. This is now the fifth major strike within the first four months of a Labour-led Government.

“The unions know that the more disruption they cause, the more likely they are to force the Government to side with their excessive demands.

“I doubt this is the last time our transport industries will be held to ransom by unions. New Zealanders who rely on coastal transport need certainty of service, not strikes,” National Party Transport Spokesperson Jami-Lee Ross says.

“The transport sector is bearing the brunt of unions flexing their muscles with the new Government.

“Whether it’s commuters or exporters, they are all being inconvenienced by the Rail and Maritime Transport Union’s actions. 

“Strike action will only get worse when Labour’s pro-union law changes take effect later this year,” Mr Woodhouse says.