Back Benches 4 June 2014

June 2nd, 2014 at 4:30 pm by David Farrar

announces:

THIS WEEK ON PRIME TV’s “BACK BENCHES”: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

CARBON TAX vs. ETS:  The Green Party has proposed replacing our ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) with a carbon tax to better combat climate change. Instead of the ETS-all sectors would pay $25 (agriculture pays $12.50) per tonne on carbon emissions. While the new tax will see all of us paying more for petrol, food and electricity an accompanying tax cut would leave us, according to the Greens, $319 better off every year. Unless, of course, you’re a dairy farmer. Currently, farmers don’t have to pay for carbon credits despite being responsible for nearly half of our yearly emissions. National’s Climate Change Minister Tim Groser questions the Greens inclusion of our farmers, one of our largest export markets, into the scheme. Is it time to re-evaluate our ETS? Does the Green party have the answer? And will any of these programmes actually save the environment?

MMP: IS IT A RORT?: The Internet Mana Party alliance is the latest political deal, similar to the Government’s deal with United Future & ACT, that has some calling the MMP system a rort. Are they right? Are these smaller parties gaming the system in order to squeeze into Parliament when the ballot box would never, otherwise, get them there. Do we like MMP? Is it the best way to make sure all voices in Parliament are heard? Or is it too easy to game the system? Are deals like these dirty deals? Or just the way it is? Do they turn the average punter off voting? Do we need to get rid of the “coat-tail” rule? Or change the threshold?

There are two ways to get in on the political pub action:

First, you can join the live audience in Wellington’s iconic Backbencher Pub on Wednesday, 4th of June at 6pm. Filming begins around 6:15pm.

Or watch us that night on PRIME TV at 10:30pm!

http://www.primetv.co.nz/

Plus, Follow us on Facebook (BackBenchesTV) or on Twitter @BackBenchesTV.

Our Panel: Green Party MP Julie Anne Genter, Labour MP Andrew Little, and National MP Paul Foster-Bell.

Tags:

12 Responses to “Back Benches 4 June 2014”

  1. deadrightkev (399 comments) says:

    These MPs on the panel are all left wing C listers.

    I wouldn’t cross the street to listen to them even for a free pint.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Presumably National would be free to send along higher calibre performers than the likes of Paul Foster-Bell.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Yvette (2,761 comments) says:

    Do we need to get rid of the “coat-tail” rule? Or change the threshold? Or both?

    The particular feature of MMP that really pisses me off is List Members, expelled from their Party, remaining in Parliament as independents.
    They are only there to make up numbers for the party vote and have no other right.

    This would seem to be made more difficult by the case of NZ First and Horan ,since Horan appears to have been expelled from the Party for something that is still being investigated by the Police.

    And I suspect this may be further complicated in the case of an umbrella or component party like Mana / Internet where any of their joint List members will be their to make up numbers for the umbrella party, but with no indication whatsoever of individual party support.

    I would like to see that discussed.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. big bruv (13,664 comments) says:

    Get rid of MMP entirely. I know why people wanted to change the electoral system, the voters were sick of governments not sticking to their manifesto however with the implementation of the Fiscal responsibility act there are no excuses for a government not to stick to their manifesto. The whole idea of MMP was to keep the bastards honest, well MMP has failed miserably in that goal.

    It is now perfectly acceptable to promise the voters anything you like safe in the knowledge that you can easily walk away from that promise by saying that it was not able to be implemented due to coalition negotiations.

    Let’s have 120 MP’s all fighting for a constituency seat under FPP, the result would be stable government and with 120 seats it would still leave enough scope for the stinking Greens to pour their resources into what they perceive to be winnable seats.

    No tail wagging the dog, no need for dodgy deals and no scope for wankers like Dunne and Winston to hold the nations to ransom.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. big bruv (13,664 comments) says:

    Yvette,

    “The particular feature of MMP that really pisses me off is List Members, expelled from their Party, remaining in Parliament as independents.”

    So you would like to see Winston Peters deciding who will be in the house?

    While expelled members remaining might not be ideal it is far more preferable than having somebody like Peters decided the make up of our parliament, that is and will always remain the job of the voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Yvette (2,761 comments) says:

    big buv – So you would like to see Winston Peters deciding who will be in the house?

    The matter should be subject to the Privileges Committee

    Althought you are right – Winston is not interested in that…

    The [NZ First] party is changing its constitution to stop its MPs staying on in Parliament after they have resigned or are expelled from caucus.
    The new constitution states that any new member who agrees to become a New Zealand First candidate will have to sign what’s intended to be a legally enforceable contract.
    That stipulates that if they resign from, or are expelled from, the New Zealand First parliamentary caucus, they must quit their seat in Parliament within three days. If that contract is broken, the new rules say the member would be liable for $300,000 in damages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. OneTrack (2,966 comments) says:

    Did Wallace get any early release of the Greens Carbon Tax policy? Why would that be?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Why does this CRAP program deserve a note? To be avoided at all costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Crusader (300 comments) says:

    Is it time to re-evaluate our ETS? Does the Green party have the answer? And will any of these programmes actually save the environment?

    “Save the environment” my arse.
    I would be interested to see if anybody can produce any feasible mechanism by which the taxing of “carbon” in New Zealand (thus resulting in higher transport costs and inflation, and negative economic pressures in this small and remote country) can affect in any way whatsoever the temperature of the Earth’s troposphere. If not, what on Earth (pardon the pun) is the purpose of the proposed tax?

    Yes, human beings have had huge negative impact upon the Earth. Our numbers are massively increasing. We have caused widespread destruction of natural environments, rain forest clearing, over-fishing, depletion of water tables, industrial pollution and wholesale extinction of species all over the planet. These are real issues. We seriously need to address them. But CO2 is a huge red herring. All the fuss made about this trace atmospheric gas is distracting from the real issues as above.
    The ignorant masses have been sold a huge lie. They have been conditioned to feel guilt about their “carbon footprint” and non-agrarian lifestyles, like the Catholic concept of “original sin”. And like the purchase of indulgences, they are told they must pay a “carbon tax”, drive an electric car, buy a whole range of consumer products with the prefix “Eco-” and vote “Green” in order to assuage their guilt. Meanwhile the destruction of the planet continues apace. And it’s got nothing whatsoever to do with CO2.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dog_eat_dog (773 comments) says:

    And no mention of Green candidates in electorates campaigning for the Green party vote a tick for the red candidate? Funny how that little rort is never mentioned in the same breath as the ACT/National ‘cup of tea’.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ChardonnayGuy (1,197 comments) says:

    However, DeD, at least the Greens poll well over five percent of the vote. They are now New Zealand’s third largest party and display exemplary stability. I don’t think the retention of the coat tail provision of MMP is defensible. It has led to lapdog microparties for Labour and National alike with minimal electoral appeal, which poll well under MMP’s five percent threshold, yet are entitled to top-up List MPs merely because they have a bolthole constituency MP. And on top of it, these List MPs may well then jump the shark, as did several Alliance and New Zealand First MPs, or else form unelected and probably unelectable microparties like the aborted fundamentalist Kiwi Party. Most assuredly, I do not want to see MIC represented in Parliament, despite the fact I’m a centre-leftist, if it means retaining the anti-democratic coat tails provision of MMP as it currently stands.

    For the same reason, I am also opposed to lowering MMP’s minimum representation threshold to four percent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. deadrightkev (399 comments) says:

    “Did Wallace get any early release of the Greens Carbon Tax policy? Why would that be?”

    That guy is the worst dribbling wet leftist I have ever heard. I cannot stand him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.