Kiwiblog

One of may favourite podcasts is Skepticality, produced by the Skeptics Society.  They apply science and logic to a multitude of topics – from so called business success conferences, to health quacks, to religious claims to unusual occurrence odds.

The last episode I listened to have a great section on organic food. Their summary was:

• The most dangerous bacteria in America’s food supply is E. coli, which is found in abundance in cattle manure, a favorite “natural” fertilizer of organic farming.)
• The evidence for the superiority of organic food is mostly anecdotal and based more on irrational assumptions and wishful thinking than on hard scientific evidence.
• Organic food does not offer special protection against cancer or any other disease.
• Organic food is not “healthier” than food produced by conventional farming, using synthetic pesticides and herbicides.

A key useful line was that “natural” in no way equates to “safe” and “artificial” in  no way equates to “unsafe”. In fact often it can be the other way around. You can not generalise. Many poisons are natural, after all.

With that in mind, I saw this blog by Green MP Steffan Browning:

They do note, however, that the area of land certified as organic still makes up just 0.9 percent of global agricultural land. I am reading that as a good opportunity for a lot more growth in organics – the other 99.1%.

There is definitely demand for change. This month also saw 25,000 people demonstrating in Berlinagainst industrial agriculture. I particularly like their chant “If you persecute farmers, animals and bees, you won’t become MPs!”

I absolutely agree with the Association of German Dairy Farmers that only if “farmers and citizens stand up together for reform of agricultural policy can we keep our farms operating and ensure that at long last we produce healthy food under conditions of fairness.”

So Steffan Browning repeats the myth that non-organic food is not healthy. He also seems to imply he wants all agriculture in the world to be organic.

As is well documented (with scores of references) at the Wikipedia article on organic food, the vast scientific consensus is that there is little or any difference in taste, no significant difference in nutrients or heavy metals. A review of 50 years of evidence concluded “there is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content” and “There is no support in the scientific literature that the lower levels of nitrogen in certain organic vegetables translates to improved health risk”.

There is also no evidence that organic foods carry a lower risk of cancer according to the American Cancer Society.

Now when it comes to issues such as climate change, the Greens insist that we must follow the scientific consensus and act to mitigate against global warming. And, they are right. We should accept the scientific consensus.

But when it comes to other issues such as organic food, they point blank refuse to endorse the scientific consensus, and preach fear and doubt and cherry pick the odd study to back their near-religious view that organic is better.

Now don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against organic food. If you want to pay 40% more for your food, and it gives you peace of mind – good on you. but I object to MPs and parties denigrating science by insisting that organic is safer and better.

Kate Shuttleworth at NZ Herald reports:

The Green Party has announced ambitious plans for a shared-equity housing ownership model designed to help low-income families with dependent children into home ownership.

The plan was announced days after a report showing Auckland had among the most unaffordable housing in the world. The median price has reached $500,000 in the past few months.

Under the Greens’ progressive home ownership model, the Crown would build houses for up to $300,000 which families would live in, and eventually own if they chose to. The Crown would initially own all the equity in the house because families would not need to pay a deposit.

Families would make weekly payments, similar to rent, to cover the Crown’s investment cost – $200 a week on a $300,000 house at a government bond rate of 3.5 per cent. They would make additional weekly payments to buy equity in the property until it is owned outright.

The payments would be about $100 a week, but that figure would be flexible if circumstances changed.

Why don’t Labour and the Greens go the whole hog, wave a wand, and declare free homes for everyone?

Let’s even assume that the Government can magically construct a house for $300,000 in Auckland. They can’t but play along.

The NZ Super Fund says the long-term risk-free fate of return for the Government is 5.1%. We’ll use 5.0%. What this means is that sticking $300,000 into a house has an opportunity cost to taxpayers of $15,000 a year. You charge rent of $200 a week and that is a $5,000 a year subsidy to the lucky Lotto winners whose names get pulled out of the ballot for a house. And it is a subsidy for life. Doesn’t matter how wealthy they become. The poor slob earning $30,000 a year will be subsidising the dinkie couple on $200,000 whose name got pulled out of the ballot. And far worse than that as chump taxpayers also pay for rates, maintenance ad the likes.

Why would you buy equity in the house? You’d be mad to. Take their example of $100 a week. Over a year you pay $5,200. This is 1.7% of the $300,000 equity. So the weekly rent would drop from $200 to $196.53. That means you have paid $180 less rent. You’ll get more than that if you put the $5,000 into even government bonds.

The Labour policy is shonky.. The Greens policy is nutty. Combining them together will mean the Government taking on over $3 billion of extra debt a year.  And all this money would not go to the poorest familes, or families most in need. It would be like Lotto. They will draw names out of a hat, as demand will of course exceed supply. Yes that is Labour’s official policy – to determine these taxpayer subsidised houses on the basis of a random draw. And to make it worse, the Greens will make those lucky Lotto winners a winner for life – subsidised rents for ever and ever – no matter how much you earn.

The Greens have put out a nine page discussion paper on some ICT issues. Good to see some policy discussion occurring. Some of the challenges they cite are:

New Zealand is reliant on a single fibre optic cable system connecting us to the rest of the world. This vulnerability is an issue for the entire New Zealand economy, not just the ICT sector.

Reliance on a single provider for our internet means higher prices, data caps, and less innovation for services. In time, international capacity will also become an issue. And a single cable system means that our link has less resilience. If the cable breaks or a technical fault occurs (as it did on November 9, 2012) then New Zealand may remain disconnected from the rest of the world until the connection is repaired.

I certainly agree it would be great to have competition for Southern Cross Cable, and lower prices and larger (or no) data caps. This is generally occurring anyway, but international cable competition would help further.

The technical vulnerability is somewhat over-stated as the Southern Cross Cable is a figure of eight loop and even if one portion falls over, service shouldn’t be significantly disrupted.

As fibre to the home gets rolled out, bandwidth needs will increase almost exponentially.  However against this cable technology improves and SCC has already increased their capacity by 700%.

The New Zealand Government is indifferent to the local ICT sector in its current procurement policies, resulting in the purchasing of proprietary software from foreign companies. For example, the first part of a $2 billion Inland Revenue IT contract was awarded to French firm Capgemini and was designed in a way to make it nearly impossible for any New Zealand provider or group of providers to bid for the contract.

When all other things are equal, of course you want NZG to use local firms. But all other things are rarely equal.  All oppositions always complain about overseas companies winning tenders, but never change anything much because it is both illegal to do so under many trade agreements, but also it is impractical. Do you put in place a rule such as go with a NZ company unless they are 5% more expensive? Why 5%? Why not 6% or 4%?

Anyway the proposals:

The Green Party proposes that the Government takes a $100 million cornerstone investment in a second fibre optic cable to ensure it is successfully constructed and stays in New Zealand control.

The NZ control part is silly xenophobia. Southern Cross Cable majority shareholder is a NZ company.

As to the substance, I am unsure that the reason Pacific Fibre failed was lack of capital. Many people were willing to invest in it. Their failure, to me, appeared to be an inability to get enough long-term customers to make it profitable. This was no fault of the directors. It is a very very difficult proposition to get long-term customers against an incumbent who already has customers at very high initial rates, and can lower marginal rates massively and still be competitive.

Competition would be good to set off such a price war, but merely having the Govt invest $100m into a company does not mean it could successfully compete.

While this is a significant investment, it amounts to 0.8 percent of the National Government’s $12 billion spend on new motorways. Reprioritising this spending would enable a $100 million investment in a second cable without adding to Government debt.

Oh this is nonsense. First of all the motorway spending basically comes from petrol tax. Are the Greens really saying they will use petrol tax to fund a part-share in a fibre cable? Secondly the Greens have already claimed all the motorway funding for rail and other projects.

There are pros and cons of a Govt investment into an international cable. However it is dishonest to claim it won’t lead to extra debt – of course it would.

We propose that government agencies be required to consider the wider economic benefits to New Zealand of supporting the local ICT industry when making purchasing decisions.

I think you will find most already do. This won’t change anything I’d say.

As a first step towards developing awareness, government agencies will have to measure how much of their current ICT spend is going to local companies and report on it.

That’s not a bad idea though. In fact I believe all government contracts quantums should be publicly disclosed

Government agencies will be required to use open standards for new projects and use open source software, where possible.

Many government agencies are already big open source and standards users. I’d be careful though about making open source software a requirement, unless impossible. That is a step too far. For example it would mean no school would be allowed to use Microsoft products.

Finally, we need to amend the Patents Bill to prevent the patenting of software

And here I agree.

Overall some good issues the Greens have touched on, but the solutions are very debatable. But that is what discussion documents are for.

You can provide feedback to the Greens on their discussion paper here.

A leftie reader e-mailed me:

I too was disappointed with the Green Party’s response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s review of fracking in New Zealand.

The problem with the Greens is that they are reflexively anti-science when it doesn’t fit their world-view. Their latest position on fracking is the second time in a row the Green Party has attacked the work of the Commissioner.

The last time was in July when Gareth Hughes had a go at her report on Evaluating solar water heating: Sun, renewable energy, and climate change. That report took an extensive look at whether subsidised solar-power units for household hot water actually helped reduce carbon emissions. Turns out the impact at peak times (when gas-powered reserve energy generation capacity is needed) is negligible. 

Ignoring that, Hughes said the evidence-based report was “unhelpful” and “has done solar water heating a disservice”.

Now, remember that the investigation into fracking was undertaken at the request of the Greens – back in March they presented a petition to parliament entitled “Frack No”, which expressly called for “the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to conduct an inquiry into the practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in New Zealand, and to report the results of the inquiry to the House.”

Talk about an own-goal.

In a speech in May, Hughes said: “The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is currently investigating fracking. This is the appropriate independent body to have a look at all the facts. Let’s wait for the research to come into effect”. Shame Hughes didn’t take his own advice and began trying to undermine the outcome of the report before it was released.

Well, Dr Jan Wright did have a look at all the facts. And while she says some of the rules governing fracking should be considered, she ruled out any knee-jerk response.

It’s just a shame the Green Party refused to do the same.

A timely reminder that there is a history of attacking the independent Commissioner for the Environment, when her conclusions and the scientific evidence doesn’t support their political campaigns.

James Henderson at The Standard blogs who he thinks would be the best Labour-Green Cabinet, based on portfolios. They are:

• PM – Shearer
• Finance – Norman
• Social Dev – Turei
• Econ Dev – Parker
• Health – Hague
• Education – Robertson G
• CERA – Dalziel
• Housing – Ardern
• Transport – Genter
• Justice – Chauvel
• Energy – Hughes
• Labour – Little
• Environment – Twyford
• Attorney-General – Chauvel
• Foreign Affairs – Goff
• Maori/Treaty – Mahuta
• Climate Change – Graham
• Police – Little
• Internal Affairs – Dyson
• Commerce – Cosgrove

I thought I’d blog a possible Cabinet also, but not base it on my preferences but on current rankings. It is based on if there are 60 Govt MPs, being 36 Labour, 17 Greens and 7 NZ First. I applied the St Lague formula to get a proportional allocation (that Shearer and Norman say would be their rough guide) and then allocated MPs from their current caucus ratings. They would be:

1. David Shearer
2. Russel Norman
3. Grant Robertson
4. David Parker
5. Winston Peters
6. Metiria Turei
7. Jacinda Ardern
8. Clayton Cosgrove
9. Kevin Hague
10. Nanaia Mahuta
11. Maryan Street
12. Catherine Delahunty
13. William Su’a Sio
14. Tracey Martin
15. Phil Twyford
16. Trevor Mallard
17. Kennedy Graham
18. Charles Chauvel
19. Lianne Dalziel
20. Eugenie Sage

At this stage I’m assuming Hone wouldn’t be a Minister, unless they needed his vote. Note this is not a prediction of 2014, just looking at what a left Government may look like.

Green Party leader Russel Norman is reported on 3 News:

The Greens and Labour are already fighting over how a left-wing coalition would work, following a 3 News Reid-Research poll that shows they could form a government together.

Greens co-leader Russel Norman wants to be Minister of Finance, and is demanding his MPs make up to a third of the Cabinet.

“It’s one of the portfolios that will be on the table,” says Dr Norman. “It will be part of the negotiating mix.”

Yes, that’s right: Dr Norman wants to control the country’s finances. He would be in charge of the Budget.

Quick go buy those shares in Xerox now, before NZ gives them the contact to start printing more money!

But Mr Shearer had a one word answer about giving him the job – “no”.

Shearer can say that now, but the reality is it will all depend on the relative vote of Labour and Greens, if they get to form a Government. If Labour gets 40% and Greens 10% then no they won’t. If Labour got 30% and Greens 15% then I’d say they would get it.

So Dr Norman’s demands go on. He wants a “proportional Cabinet” that reflects the Greens’ presence. That would mean five to seven ministerial roles.

“That would be the fair approach,” says Dr Norman.

“That would seem to be the fair way to do it,” says Mr Shearer.

So Dr Norman wants Finance, Metiria Turei could get Social Development, Kevin Hague may get Health, Kennedy Graham could go for Trade, Eugenie Sage for the Christchurch rebuild, Gareth Hughes with Energy and Catherine Delahunty with Education.

A welfare minister who believes every family, no matter how wealthy,  should be receiving welfare. A trade minister against trade. An energy minister against energy. That will be fun.

NBR (paywall) reports:

Quentin Duthie was project leader for the team which put together the report on fracking, released by the commissioner on Tuesday.

Mr Duthie was a Green Party candidate in 2005 and 2008 and has also worked as a parliamentary staffer for the party. More recently he has been a conservation advocate for Forest and Bird. …

Mineral industry groups welcomed the report but the Green Party, with MP Gareth Hughes calling it “half-baked”, condemned it, saying there should be a moratorium on fracking.

This just demonstrates that the Greens parliamentary wing are putting politics ahead of the environment.  They demanded this inquiry, and then rejected out of hand the main conclusion that there is no evidence to justify a moratorium (a Orwellian term for a ban).

People need to understand that many many people in political life care about the environment and conservation. The Greens political party pushes an extreme version of environmentalism which is basically opposition to any activity that impacts the environment in any way.

Steve Kilgallon at Stuff reports:

Rather proving Ballingall’s assertion that politicians have steered clear of population debate because it touches upon such sensitivities as immigration, the Greens remain the only party with a population policy.

Theirs is based on New Zealand’s “ecological carrying capacity”, basically how many people per hectare the environment can sustain. Kennedy Graham says 5.7 million has been suggested as a possible population limit.

Graham says the world’s ecological footprint is already 50 per cent over-capacity; New Zealand requires 4.9 hectares per person when we should need only 1.8, making us the 32nd worst country in the world. Therefore, says Graham, you could argue there are already enough of us.

Graham seems to be suggesting we should ideally have 2.8 million fewer New Zealanders. That’s an even more ambitious popullation reduction target than their climate change policy which is to shoot one in five cows  to reduce their methane emissions.

The Greens official population policy states we should have an upper limit for NZ’s population and “The population cannot be increased beyond its capacity to offset its greenhouse gas emissions“.

They also are worried not about NZers going to Australia but vice-versa:

With predictions of continuing drought and water shortages it is possible that there could be an increase in immigrants from Australia, who are not covered by the immigration quota.The ability of the environment to sustain the present and future population is not a consideration in current immigration policies. A surge in population could see the population pushed beyond a sustainable level.

No, no, the invasion of the Australians must be stopped!

But the Greens do have hope for us:

By reducing our ecological footprint through means such as more densely clustered housing and a simpler (low meat/ low dairy) diet, we may be able to increase our population levels while remaining within the carrying capacity of the land.

Yes, if we all become vegans and give up dairy then you may be allowed to have children!

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

As Hobbit fever builds, the Government is touting job creation as the biggest win from incentives that add up to hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies for movie producers.

But Green Party co-leader Russel Norman says those jobs did not come cheap – and at tens of thousands of dollars a job, he questions whether the Government should be backing other industries instead.

Taxpayers have reportedly shelled out more than $500 million in the past decade subsidising Hollywood productions like Sir Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Hobbit is expected to snare as much as $60 million in subsidies.

Hollywood Studios have pressed the Government to raise the subsidies even higher – and Hobbit director Sir Peter Jackson reiterated that call yesterday.

Prime Minister John Key suggested that was unlikely, but said the Cabinet would be looking at extending them to television productions.

The Hobbit had created 3000 jobs, he said.

But Dr Norman said there needed to be a cap on the cost of producing those jobs. If 2000 jobs were created over a year at a cost of $100 million that was a cost of $50,000 a job.

“If the Government is willing to pay $50,000 a job for a Hobbit job, it does beg the question why they won’t give any support whatsoever to the manufacturing sector and are happy to see us lose tens of thousands of jobs there and do nothing about it.

Firstly it is good to see Russel Norman concerned about inefficient job subsidies. I hope his concern extends to his proposals for massive investment on “Green Jobs” as these tend to represent a subsidy of over $100,000 a job.

I’m not a huge fan of the film subsidies, but as I understand them they are close to fiscally neutral. They basically represent the a refund on the GST spent by the production. Now as the movies can be made anywhere, the argument is that if there was no subsidy then they would not be made here and the Government would not gain the GST on the production.

This is a reasonable argument. It is also quite different from subsidising a particular industry over another, where the investment would be happening regardless.

So the argument is that the taxpayer doesn’t actually lose money on the subsidy, as they gather it back from the increased GST take. And on top of that you have the wider economic activity from the production.

While the Greens still insist fracking should be banned (until it is *proven* safe – an impossible test to ever meet), other green groups are less reactionary.

The United States Environmental Defence Fund is a non-partisan environmental group. So they are worried abotu the environment, not about getting elected to anything. They have over 700,000 members. Their achievements include getting DDT banned, the Safe Water Drinking Act, getting lead out of gasoline, banning ozone depleting CFCs, marine and ecosystem reserves and many more.

The EDF has blogged why they think that fracking overall is beneficial for the environment:

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is often called upon by those opposed to natural gas development to support a ban or moratorium on drilling.  They argue that fighting for tough regulations, as EDF is doing, helps ensure that natural gas development will take place.  Some of our friends in the environmental community have questioned why we are working on natural gas at all.  They suggest that we should simply oppose natural gas development, and focus solely on championing energy efficiency and renewables.  We understand these concerns, and respect the people who share them.  And for that reason, we want to be as clear as we can be as to why EDF is so deeply involved in championing strong regulation of natural gas.

Our view on natural gas is shaped by three basic facts.  First, hydraulic fracturing is already a common practice in the oil and gas industry.  Over 90 percent of new onshore oil and gas development taking place in the United States today involves some form of hydraulic fracturing, and shale gas accounts for a rapidly increasing percentage of total natural gas production—from 16% in 2009 to more than 30% today.  In short, hydraulic fracturing is not going away any time soon.

Second, this fight is about much more than the role that natural gas may play in the future of electricity supply in the United States.  Natural gas is currently playing an important role in driving out old coal plants, and we are glad to see these coal plants go.  On balance, we think substituting natural gas for coal can provide net environmental value, including a lower greenhouse gas footprint.

This is the hypocrisy of the Greens. They moan about job losses on the West Coast, at the same tide as they try to close mining down. They  complain our greenhouse gas emissions are too high, yet oppose fracking for natural gas.  Underneath the slick marketing, you have a fundamental belief system that any industry that use natural resources is wrong and must be stopped.

I reccently heard one person, who must be a Green member, advocate against trade that requires transporting of goods further than can be done on a bicycle. No, I am not kidding – this was in New Zealand.

Our analysis has led us to conclude that there are many ways to eliminate hazards and reduce risks from hydraulic fracturing and related ‘unconventional’ oil and gas production practices.  Strong rules that require these steps to be taken are needed, backed up by effective oversight and enforcement with the necessary financial and human resources to make these efforts real. 

There is where the debate should be.

Demand for natural gas is not going away, and neither is hydraulic fracturing.  We must be clear-eyed about this, and fight to protect public health and the environment from unacceptable impacts.  We must also work hard to put policies in place that ensure that natural gas serves as an enabler of renewable power generation, not an impediment to it.  We fear that those who oppose all natural gas production everywhere are, in effect, making it harder for the U.S. economy to wean itself from dirty coal.

Natural gas production can never be made entirely safe; like any intensive industrial activity, it involves risks. But having studied the issue closely, we are convinced that if tough rules, oversight and penalties for noncompliance are put in place, these risks become manageable.

This is the difference between a true environmental group, and between politicians who spout slogans to attract support, such as banning fracking.

On the one hand the Greens rail against lobbyists, yet on the other hand they say they should be able to be tax free charities. I guess the difference is whether or not they agree with them.

Green MP Denise Roche blogs::

Community organisations already spend much of their time advocating. They shouldn’t be excluded from getting charitable status (and tax exemption) because of this. Organisations of long standing repute including the National Council of Women have been denied charitable status on the basis that advocacy is their primary purpose. Advocacy  is not currently deemed a ‘charitable purpose’ under the Act, and therefore they are denied  tax exemption for donations.

And this is how it should be. Lobby groups should not be escaping tax. The National Council of Women is one of the most prolific lobby groups in New Zealand. It puts in a submission on almost every single bill before Parliament. Now good on them for being politically active, but allowing them to be a registered charity would be allowing any organisation to be a charity. Would we accept Business NZ being a registered charity?

On the back of the government’s announcement I have drafted a simple Private Member’s Bill to write advocacy into the definition of charitable purpose in the Charities Act as an ancillary purpose. I’ve been holding off for ages because I kept hearing that there would be a review and this would be the main focus of it.

That will make it open slater for every political lobby group in New Zealand to gain charitable tax status.

Personally I think the guidelines should be even tighter. As a secular country I think churches should lose their general tax free status. If they have subsidiaries that do charitable work (such as homeless shelters) then that should be charitable. But why should donations to Scientology be tax deductible?

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

Northland-based Labour list MP Shane Jones has again hit out at the Green Party for opposing development of the regions’s resources, including oil and gas, which he says could help reduce spiralling Maori unemployment.

Energy and Resources Minister Phil Heatley this week announced which areas, including a large section of seabed off Ninety Mile Beach, would be opened up for oil and gas exploration next year. He said the Government had begun consultation with relevant iwi.

Green Party oceans spokesman Gareth Hughes said the Government was “gambling with New Zealand’s economy” by allowing the exploration in deep water, “because if there is a leak there is no sure way to stop it”.

This is just exploration, not drilling. The Greens are against us even knowing what it down there.

But Mr Jones, who has clashed with the Greens before over the prospect of mining in Northland and also over the party’s criticism of the fishing industry, said Mr Hughes’ opposition was premature.

“Let the information be uncovered first. It may be that the area is commercially barren, not unlike the minds conceiving that Green rhetoric.”

Mr Jones did not think the prospects of any significant oil and gas industry in Northland in the short term were high, “but in the absence of information you can guarantee you’ll never see it up there”.

“Let these decisions be made in a rational fashion, not this kneejerk emotionalism that one comes to expect from the Green Party.”

Decisions made on science, not kneejerk emotionalism? That would be a good thing.

If only Shane was speaking for Labour. Alas. Spokesperson Moana Mackey tweeted:

No it’s his personal view

Labour needs a couple more MPs who are pro-economy and pro-science.

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

The final reading of a bill which amended the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) drew impassioned speeches from MPs, in particular Green Party climate change spokesman Kennedy Graham.

Dr Graham levelled mock criminal charges at the Prime Minister and Minister for Climate Change.

“I charge the leaders of this Government with the moral crime of ecocide. I trust that in due course that they stand accountable before the children of this world, the children of John Key, the grandchildren of Tim Groser and mine.”

He went further: “The leaders of this government … are committing us to purgatory and thence to hell. Purgatory is the next decade, and hell the decade after.”

What insane hysteria. Purgatory and hell?

China’s daily growth in greenhouse gas emissions is greater than the total emissions put out by New Zealand.

I actually think agriculture should start to come into the ETS, but Kennedy Graham does his cause no help at all with such hysterical blather.

From The Nation:

Rachel         Okay you said that you’re open to potentially, you know helping to form a coalition.  Presumably you’d want a ministerial position in that coalition.  What do you think you’d be best suited to?

Russel         Yeah I mean I think the Green team would want ministerial positions.  So you know we come as a package, so we’ve got co-leaders, and we’ve got some really talented MPs, so we’d be looking at some of those key portfolios, both economics and finance portfolios, but other social and environmental portfolios as well.

Rachel         Okay so what would sit well with you?  Minister of Finance?

Russel         You know obviously that needs to be sorted in a post-election negotiation.  Obviously we are interested in positions like that, but in terms of the detail you couldn’t really sort it out until you know what the vote were.  It’s up to the voters to decide how much influence the Green Party has.

Rachel         Would you rule it out?

Russel         I wouldn’t rule it out, I wouldn’t rule it in. You know at the end of the day we’ll go to the election, the voters will determine the level of influence we have, and that will determine the outcome.

In 1996 National got 34% and NZ First got 13% and that was enough to get Winston Peters Treasurer. If there is a change of Government, then the Greens are looking will placed to demand the same. They are currently polling around 12% and Labour 32%.

We’d be the first country outside Eastern Europe I suspect to have a former Marxist (or was it a Maoist – always get them confused!) as Minister of Finance!

With at least three parties needed to form a centre-left Government, it would be a fascinating thing to observe. On current polling it could be Labour gets only 12 – 14 Cabinet Ministers, with the Greens getting 4 – 6, NZ First 2 – 3 and possibly Mana 1.

From a political observation point of view, it would be fascinating. From a taxpayer point of view, it would be less fun.

What hypocrites. The Greens rail against US-style political finance consistently, using it to justify their support for the now deceased Electoral Finance Act and proposed Lobbying Transparency Bill.

Pete George blogs:

The Greens have been accused of using child poverty to mislead people into donating to them.

But a spokesman for New Zealand’s third-largest party said they were simply adopting fundraising techniques used by the likes of United States President Barack Obama.

A spokesman for the Greens said there was nothing suspect in the request for donations.

All donations received would go towards the party’s campaign to end child poverty.

“Ending child poverty requires political action. Our campaign is about getting rid of the political causes of poverty,” he said.

“Our fundraising appeals are consistent with recent developments in email fundraising. Many people now prefer to fund specific campaigns rather than parties.”

Mr Obama’s campaign team has employed similar tactics in the US presidential campaign, including asking for donations to fund a website dedicated to rebutting political attacks on the him.

The donations do not necessarily go directly to that cause but rather into the wider campaign fund.

Obviously the Green Party can adopt United States political techniques if they wish. It could be seen as smart and slick politics.

Shane Jones appeared on Q+A at the weekend to defend the Government’s position on fishing in the Ross Sea, from the Greens. This was notable for several reasons.

• Jones is currently suspended as a spokesperson for Labour, so shouldn’t be agreeing to go on TV shows unless he no longer regards himself as bound by caucus discipline
• He was (again) attacking the Greens
• He was implicitly defending the Government’s position

Shane said:

I actually think the Kiwis are in a fantastic position of leadership, etc. They used a science-based approach. The science around that particular fishery is considerable, not only based on published papers from our own scientific community, but acknowledged by the Aussies and a host of others. Now, if it comes to pass that we completely lock it up, etc, well, that will be a decision that’s made on the basis of values. The fishing industry are there at the moment. I don’t think that their impact is anywhere near as destructive as Gareth would have it. I mean, if you take that money out of the industry, and it’s vastly more than $20 million, I mean, what is the industry to do? It can retire back home and find fresh activities. They’re not going to find activities with Gareth’s approach where they’re banning aquaculture and they’re banning fish farming.

And on the Greens and Greenpeace:

Um, I think Gareth ended up doing the bidding of the green priests, otherwise known as Greenpeace. They are an international franchise organisation, and they raise a great deal of money from our country, and they should expect to be criticised, as we are. Did the workers deserve to be dissed by the Green Party? No, they didn’t. I mean, I think it’s hypocritical at one level. Russel, someone I considerably respect as their leader, is up in a manufacturing inquiry, and Gareth is out there acquiescing with the deprecation and humiliation of New Zealand workers. You can’t have it both ways.

So what does this mean. It certainly fist my theory of Shane being happier in NZ First. NZ First love the fishing industry (especially their cheques).

Claire Robinson noted on the panel:

Interestingly, you know, Shane Jones – that could have been a government representative sitting up there talking to you. He was so much along the lines of what the government might say.

Imagine what the rest of the Labour caucus feels, having a Labour MP on the coveted Q+A show defending the Government.

Scott Yorke blogs:

 Despite not being Labour’s spokesperson on conservation or fisheries (he’s not the party’s spokesperson on any issue, after being stood down pending the Auditor General’s investigation of the William Yan matter), Jones appeared to endorse the government’s approach to the marine reserve issue. He made no attempt to distance his own views from the official Labour position.

Labour hasn’t actually determined its position on the issue. So why did Jones appear at all? Did he get clearance from David Shearer before appearing?

Labour having no position at all, is confirmed in this story:

Labour says it has not taken a position on whether to back the United States proposal for a large reserve in the Antarctic’s Ross Sea or the Government’s proposal for a smaller reserve that are about to be debated in Hobart.

Conservation spokeswoman Ruth Dyson confirmed yesterday that the party had not taken a formal position, after colleague Shane Jones appeared on TVNZ’s Q&A supporting the Government’s reserve.

“Our consistent policy has been to make sure we always use the best science,” Ruth Dyson said, as it had done to support the net bans to protect Maui dolphins.

Saying our policy is to use the best science is a slogan not a policy. The question is quite simple – does Labour back the US proposal or the NZ proposal?

Scott continues:

Labour needs a leader who will bring wayward MPs into line, because the voting public will not enthuse over a party that does not have a clear and consistent message. If some MPs won’t accept that then they need to be encouraged to consider their futures.

Or maybe he already has. Either way, the ball is in Shearer’s court.

Today’s “jobs” conference organised by Labour Party affiliate member EPMU was of course a media stunt. I did however expect they would have pre-arranged something of substance to merge from it, but instead it is just another stunt – an inquiry by Labour, Greens and NZ First into the manufacturing sector. This inquiry will of course shock horror conclude that their policies to increase prices and inflation are what NZ needs.

I’m glad Labour, Greens and NZ First are all working together to support a policy of printing more money.

Former Reserve Bank Chief Economist David Mayes writes in the Herald:

Printing money is usually a last resort that seriously troubled countries use to stave off collapse, and not some mysterious trick that other nations have conjured up to achieve quick riches.

I never though a so called serious political party would advocate it, since Social Credit were killed off.

New Zealand has definitely not run out of opportunities to use conventional monetary and fiscal policy if it feels the economy faces a lack of demand. So why move to the unconventional now?

Quantitative easing is used when short-run nominal interest rates have been lowered to zero and it is still necessary to expand the economy.

And our cash rate is 2.5%

Quantitative easing is used when short-run nominal interest rates have been lowered to zero and it is still necessary to expand the economy. If the central bank then buys longer dated bonds or other financial securities (including commercial paper or mortgages from the private sector), it may continue stimulating the economy.

Evidence from a symposium being published by The Economic Journal suggests that this is achieving a little in the United Kingdom, the United States and the Euro area.

The problem is that it only works well if people fear major inflation and rush out to buy before prices rise. Once growth re-establishes again, the central bank sells all assets and mops up the extra money before inflation gets out of hand. That of course explains why it doesn’t really work. If inflation is going to be headed off, then why buy now? Hence the weak effect.

Thus quantitative easing needs to be on a massive scale if it is to work.

And this is what worries me. The Greens proposed printing $8 billion of money to stimulate the economy. Now what would they and Labour do, if that doesn’t work? Would they say it was a silly idea, or would they say the problem is they did not print enough money? They’ll then be printing another $10b, another $20b etc.

The Greens claim their printing money proposal (which Labour supports, so long as the RB decides to do it, not the Govt) is to benefit exporters.

Well the group that represents more exporters in NZ than any other, Federated Farmers, have said they think the proposal is lunacy.

3 News reports:

The country’s biggest export sector is strongly opposed to the Green Party’s suggestion that the Government should print money to bring down the value of the dollar.

The agricultural sector sells most of its products overseas and Federated Farmers says printing money, known as quantitative easing, would be “incredibly bad” for New Zealand. …

The Government has rejected the idea and Federated Farmers president Bruce Wills says it would “set off an inflationary bomb that risks returning New Zealand to the dark days of double-digit interest rates”.

Mr Wills says quantitative easing should be a “break glass in case of fire” policy option.

“New Zealand is nowhere near such desperate measures because our official cash rate is 2.5 percent versus 0.5 percent in the United Kingdom, 0.25 percent in the United States and 0.10 percent in Japan.”

This is what is so bizarre about the Greens policy. Those countries which are doing QE are not doing it because they want to. They are doing it as a last resort as they can not lower their cash rate any lower.

The Greens would have New Zealand as pretty much the only developed country in the world to print money and cause inflation, as a preference rather than a last resort.

The Dom Post editorial:

New Zealand should have learned from bitter experience that it cannot shield itself from the vagaries of the international market. Labour and National tried that in the 1970s and early 1980s and ran up debts that took a generation to repay.

New Zealand is a small trading nation a long way from its markets. The only way for it to survive and prosper is to be flexible, adaptable and resilient. If the balance of economic power in the world is shifting, there is no use pretending it is not.

The decline in the value of the US dollar and the euro is a reflection of the decline in the relative worth of the American and European economies.

The attempts by American and some European policy-makers to reboot their economies by printing money are acts of political desperation.

It makes no sense for a country which has weathered the global financial crisis better than most of its Western counterparts to emulate their risky tactics. Printing money – or quantitative easing as it is technically known – fuels inflation, devalues assets and reduces purchasing power. Once started it is difficult to stop, as Germans discovered in the 1920s when wheelbarrows replaced wallets as the most efficient means of carting cash.

The Greens plan will see shares in Mitre 10 and Xerox increase!

It is interesting that Labour has not ruled out printing money also – just that they don’t want their fingerprints on it. The summary is:

• Greens will force the Reserve Bank to print more money, driving up prices for all NZers
• Labour will amend the RBA, to encourage the Reserve Bank to print more money, driving up prices for all NZers

This image is from the National Library.

Interesting to see the same arguments then, that we still get today. Some are still in the 1920s though, with the Greens policy being to retain or impose tariffs to stop “unfair” competition. They also advocate “Support the option of using an across-the-board tariff to address balance of payments problems”.

China and India has delivered hundreds of millions out of poverty thanks to the reduction of trade barriers and opening up their economies, yet the Greens still support tariffs and protectionism.

Also a great comment by Alex Tarrant on Twitter:

BREAKING: Fuji Xerox approaches Green Party in early bid for printer procurement contract…

Heh. Also Victoria tweeted:

Brb, just getting a wheelbarrow to carry my notes to buy a loaf of bread!

Matt Nolan at TVHE blogs a very useful analysis of what the Greens have proposed (and Labour are semi-supporting):

 Russel Norman is completely misrepresenting QE by saying that the recent crisis is “evidence it isn’t inflationary”.  QE was put in place to fight the fact that policy was too tight overseas, and they were trying to fight deflation – in essence the fact that inflation stayed near the “target band” in these countries is evidence that QE is indeed inflationary as you would expect … just in the way they were intending.

Exactly. QE can be considered if you face deflation, and your official cash rate is as low as it can go. We are within our target band at 1% (which is what I think we should be aiming for) and the cash rate is 2.5%.

Remember how often Greens and Labour complain about increased costs such as electricity and food? Well this is a policy to increase their costs even more for families finding it hards to make ends meet.

Now you may believe we should fund the rebuild with a one-off tax – that’s fine, in that case get the government to put a tax in place directly (or to directly cut spending from other place).  However, taxation by stealth of this sort is likely to be worse in multiple ways:

1. We have betrayed RBNZ independence for virtually no reason … understandably a sneak tax by the RBNZ would make people less likely to believe them in the future about holding to their inflation mandate.  As a result, we run into the time-consistency issue in monetary policy again, and it will become more painful for economy when the RBNZ tries to commit to its inflation mandate again.
2. We have a relatively rough redistribution of resources due to this.  By putting in our sneak tax through QE, we transfer resources to those with assets, those doing the rebuild, and those who can easily adjust prices/wages – while hurting those on fixed income, and those who have saved.  It is an inflation tax – pure and simple – and as a result, it will initially transfer resources from those who can’t protect themselves (generally the poor) to those who can (generally the rich).  If we introduce the tax through fiscal policy instead we can sort out these distributional issues a little better.
3. A country that is willing to introduce QE as a clear fiscal transfer – when there is no monetary policy reason – will destroy its credibility with international lenders.  People will scoff at this, but such a policy will increase the level of “inflation insurance” lenders ask for – increasing the cost of credit in New Zealand.

That is a very good way to put it – the Greens have proposed an inflation tax – one that will hit fixed income households the hardest!

The Greens, and Ganesh Nana, are wrong in stating that the RBNZ has failed.  Distinctly and totally wrong.  Things like this:

”No system of monetary policy is perfect and New Zealand cannot remain the last devotee to a failed monetary theory while the rest of the world moves on,” Norman said.

Paint a complete and utter misrepresentation about the lessons from the Global Financial Crisis.  Our flexible inflation targeting framework saved us from a massive crisis at home – while the rest of the world fell apart.

Matt’s conclusions:

1. We don’t need QE in NZ, as we have enough monetary stimulus (and if not we can cut interest rates further).
2. What is being suggested isn’t even QE – its the monetization of government debt, effectively a inflation tax to pay for the rebuild in Canterbury.
3. It is unlikely that such a tax is the “best” way of raising the revenue to rebuild Christchurch – which should be the primary question.

Say no to the Green’s inflation tax.

Oh you must watch the video also, H/T Whale.

John Clarke as hilarious as always. He is also factually correct in this case.

I thought this madness died with Social Credit, but Greens (and Labour may not be far behind) have said that they want the NZ Reserve Bank to effectively start printing money. They think that NZ printing more money is a good way to increase the relative value of the US dollar. We might as well start burning our savings.

Make no mistake, what they are calling for is the value of everyone’s savings to be reduce, as inflation takes off. You know all how they say wages are too low for low income workers? Well they want the cost of food, goods and services like electricity to increase faster than they have been.

There are basically two sorts of countries that print money. Those that are bankrupt, and those whose economies are so stalled that the central bank cash rate is as low as it can go.  In the US it is 0.25%. NZ is at 2.5% so a fair way away from that.

Russel Norman claimed:

Secondly, when you look overseas at the use of quantitative easing – because all of our major— most of our major trading partners are using it

This is simply wrong. The US and the the Eurozone and Japan have done it (and sort of the UK)  - again because they are almost bankrupt or their central rate can not be lowered anymore. But they are not our major trading partners.

Our exports for the year to June 2012 came to $46.7b. Exports to the Eurozone were $2.9b, UK $1.4b, Japan $3.4b and US $4.1b. That is a mere $11.8b out of $46.7b – under one quarter. Australia is almost a bigger export market than those four combined.

And let me tell you if we started printing money, and Australia was not, watch the outpour to Australia get far far worse.

Some policies put forward are just silly, or ineffective, or wasteful. Some are very very bad and dangerous. This is one of them. The idea of printing money to grow the economy has never worked long-term. It gives you a short-term sugar rush at best. It puts up the price of pretty much all goods and services as inflation grows.

It is actually to our advantage long-term that the US and Eurozone are printing money. Proposing to follow them voluntarily is the worst thing NZ could do.

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

A Greenpeace spoof of a Sealord advertisement has brought an angry reaction from Labour MP Shane Jones, who has accused the environmental group as anti-worker and duplicitous towards Maori.

Mr Jones, a former Sealord chairman, also singled out the Green Party, “the political wing of the Greenpeace movement”, for its support of the stunt, which he felt undermined the company in a tough economic climate.

The Greens do seem to be against a lot of jobs. Against mining jobs. Against oil jobs. Against fishing jobs. Against roading jobs.

Mr Jones said it was “a step too far” and the equivalent of economic vandalism at a time when jobs were scarce.

“When the Green Party and the Green Priests [Greenpeace] take on a role of using that ad to humiliate, trash and parody not only the brand of the company but its workers, it’s a step too far.”

Imagine the fun we’ll have if we have a Labour/Green Government in 2014!

The Herald reports:

A major conference bringing together the world’s biggest players in genetic modification opened to the angry chants of protesters yesterday.

The week-long international agricultural biotechnology conference is being described by those on both sides of the genetic modification debate as a significant event for GM – but for opposing reasons.

Organisers hoped the Rotorua conference would foster collaboration and provide more answers on how GM could assist in feeding a world population expected to double by 2050.

Nope. Those extra people just have to starve as GM is evil.

The chief executive of event hosts NZBIO, Suzanne Bertrand, said GM was one “tool” to advance research.

“New Zealand is feeding about 19 million people out of its agriculture and it is using the latest technology … it’s been using biotechnology for the last 20 years – without it, we would be nowhere,” she said. “Some people say we shouldn’t even touch GE, but as a tool for research it’s very interesting.”

There is huge potential, and none of the scare stories are yet to come true.

Jerome Konescni, who chairs the body that organised the international conference, argued that could not be done using organic food.

“The question I would ask proponents of organics is: if we have to double the world’s food supply by 2050, how are you going to do with it technology that … reduces production rather than increases it?”

But Greens MP Steffan Browning, who hosted an afternoon seminar against GE in a meeting room a few hundred metres away, called the view “rubbish”.

“If our population goes berserk, no system is going to feed the world. But organic and traditional means are going to feed the world better until we hit that point … GE is not going to do it.”

The Green version of “Let them eat cake”.

If the luddites succeed in banning GE, it won’t be the first time their policies have killed huge numbers of people. For years they campaigned on how biofuels must replace oil and demanded big subsidies for them. So farmers all around the world dug up their food producing crops and starting growing biofuel crops instead.

The World Bank has estimated that the push for biofuels has pushed 35 million more people into absolute poverty and resulted in 192,000 additional deaths a year.