Sunday, March 2, 2014


but I guess when you have no balls, such a kick where they should be, wouldn't hurt that much.

From the Office of Minister Amy Adams;

"David Cunliffe latest attempt to rewrite history on oil and gas exploration highlights an on-going, casual relationship with the truth, Environment Minister Amy Adams says.
“As a minister in the previous Labour Government, David Cunliffe knows there was no environment oversight and certainly no public involvement in the exploratory drilling process under his watch,” Ms Adams says.
“Once again he has been caught out being tricky with the truth. He is trying to create a distraction from Labour’s woeful environmental credentials.
“Under his government, 36 wells were drilled in the EEZ between 1999 and 2008 with no legislation in place to protect the environment.
“In fact, the Labour regime only required the Minister for Energy and Resources to sign a permit and required no formal environmental assessment at all. That’s it – no public comment, no submissions, no consideration of environmental effects.
“The ridiculous thing about David Cunliffe’s argument is that the EEZ Act introduced by this Government actually replaces a non-existent environmental regulatory regime for drilling in the EEZ, where the public had no say.
“Under this Government, the public will for the first time get a chance to have a say. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can call for submissions from the public prior to granting a consent for exploratory drilling, if the EPA feels it is required. And before any production drilling can take place, a full public process must be held.
“This means before an oil company can make a single dollar of profit, they have to go in front of the people of New Zealand and make sure everyone has a say in the full process.”

Absolutely no shame,  "Fulla" Silent "t" should face a mandatory Drug test whenever he opens his duplicitous gob.

As for all those pathetic tossers in the melon party indulging in flying, motoring and in every which way burning carbon with their  totally hypocritical pseudo protesting, where were you standing while master manipulator of fact and truth was living his fairytale.
Yes Boy Wonder, Tuatara, And XXXXCommie stink bomb, where were you then, just sitting around singing Kumbya and telling each other how valuable you were to Comrade Helen.

Great job Amy, give the useless git another one while he's hurting.

1 comment:

Marc said...

Great summary GD. I agree you have to draw the line somewhere with "democracy", and decide at what point do we actually make decisions and get on with the job. Where there are compelling reasons, then public imput should be, and is, normally sought. I don't think exploration permits cross this threshold, and I agree with you that the National Government have got it right in this case. The chicken littles of this world will of course always exist, but their constant clucking is tiring even some of their usual supporters. As we keep pointing out, the sun still rises in Taranaki each day, and the country and region are benefiting.

Here's a thought - for certain proposals, a new category of submission: Opposing parties may make objections to the application, but they must meet all their own costs, a relative proportion of the costs of the hearing (50:50 if they are the only applicant), and if unsuccessful, all the costs of the defending applicant too. A significant deposit into a legal trust will be required that will cover at least their proportion of the estimated costs of the hearing when an opposing application is lodged plus a fixed amount of at least $10,000.

This type of submission would be suitable for this type of Exploration Licence application - that is, it can be reasonably decided by a competant authority, and would sort out the time wasters and congenital protestors. The requirement for costs up front will cut out the McCready's (and others as above) in our system.