Tuesday, September 2, 2008

785 Amendments! What a scam!

What's the bigger scam?
The Emissions Trading Scheme, I mean scam, that will give so much control of industry to government, to tackle a problem that probably don't exist?
Or is it that Liarbour needs to pass the legilation, of such far reaching consequences so quickly?
Or, that it is a good law?
I am sure many of them will be minor, but it shows the shambolic, haphazard nature of how the legislation was drafted.
Was it a rush job too?
Why do we need our Emmissions Trading scam before Australia gets there's?
Why not work together with Canberra on a Trans-TransTasman ETS?
But no! we must push it through now so Dear Leader can gan international kudos for the UN job she hopes to get.
She is putting her own global ambition before the best interests of the country that raised, nurtured and supported her.
And all for a scam that will cost New Zealand tens of thousands of jobs and add more to all our bills.
Dear Leader has upset Maori too, with the ETS likely to re-open supposedly 'settled' Treaty claims, due to its impact on Foresty.
And as the Hive also notes, ETS scams are unravelling in Australia and the European Union.
So let's recap: A badly written bill that will cost us all for a problem that doesn't exist, being pushed through to satisfy the narcissitic ambitions of Dear Leader!
What better crowning achievement for Liarbour to end its days!
UPDATE: Christopher Booker in the (UK) Sunday Telgraph notes 'The Catastrophe Behind Climate Change.'


bustedblonde said...

that is amazing - what is the legislation with the most amendments? it must be up there

BTW I have just found your site - v good - nice to know more on the side of right


Cheers Bustedblonde

Yours is a recent discovery too.
We must get psycho to put you on our blogroll.

I'm certainly not aware of any bill having so many amendments.
I heard on the radio they amount to 70 pages.
Can MPs comprehend them?

Anonymous said...

"Can MPs comprehend them"?

Are you serious FFM? That's the whole friggin' point. It is deliberately confusing and convoluted.

ZenTiger said...

We saw the exact same thing with the EFB. Bad legislation for bad reasons. No upper house, no real check on Labour's deplorable behaviour.

And John Key doesn't plan on riding to the rescue.

JC said...

To give you an idea of what it means...

If you own a pre 1990 forest on reasonable land, the ever hungry regional council is changing the land designation from forestry to dairying, thus forcing rates up humongously. That means that you need to get out of forestry and into some form of dairying. You might make $20-30,000 per hectare from selling your trees, but according to the Forest Owners Assoc this morning you might pay $65,000 per hectare for the loss of carbon sequestering trees.. plus you then have to pay to convert the land to a productive dairy type unit.

Parker and co are fucking mad, bad and dangerous.