Green Day, live at Parliament!

No bands sorry, but plenty of parties and tickets are free!

The parliamentary Order Paper for today, Member’s day, looks like this:


Yes, that’s right, all the bills to be debated today are Green bills! It’s Green Day at Parliament.

The Sustainable Biofuel Bill has the support of the National Party to select committee [newsflash!], and is the one recently drawn from the ballot. There’s a vlog about it here. It will require development and adherence to a sustainability standard for all biofuel, local or imported.

The Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill is one of the 2006 six-pack of bills launched in response to the dire lack of action from government to address New Zealand’s growing emissions, and it is still needed to complement a price on carbon. It will gradually alter transport funding priorities to support greater travel demand management and infrastructure and services supporting buses, trains, walking and cycling.

The Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill was drawn from the ballot in Nandor’s name.  It seeks to protect children and young people from the problems associated with pervasive alcohol advertising by regulating the marketing, advertising and promotion of alcohol products through the broadcast media.

The Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill simply amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 so that cannabis can be used for medicinal purposes. Ross Bell of the NZ Drug Foundation writes in the Dominion Post today in support of the bill. Metiria blogged it last week.

These last two bills will be an MP (i.e. conscience) vote, so MPs are not required to vote along party lines. You’ve got a few hours to give your local MP a call and encourge them to support the bills! Just email

And since some poor fans of Green Day may have read this far hoping they are playing at Parliament,  here’s a nice song by Green Day and U2 for your troubles. Disclaimer: I do not endorse the militarism inherent in this video, or any implication that the Greens are Saints! 😉

65 Comments Posted

  1. I think it needs to be fronted by am MP who is associated with health issues, and who doesn’t have a permissive, libertarian image. The obvious choice would be Sue Kedgley.

  2. It was her bill by inheritance. Some folks were giving her a hard time for NOT releasing it, so she did. She knew what we were up against, but the clamor wasn’t going to go away.

    I never, ever, advocated for her to turn it loose. Not without the spadework and someone counting likely votes and coming up with a surplus. First. The people advocating should have planned ahead before they started.

    There was no PLAN and the people fronting the effort should be, as Nandor and I have both pointed out, the sick people who would benefit from the medicine. THEY should be the ones in Women’s Day.

    We do the grunt work. It is a LOT harder for an MP to picture kids hanging around the schoolyard inhaling deeply from someone who is suffering and asking for relief from pain. It is a LOT harder to say it is “just another lunatic fringe effort from the Greens” when it isn’t a Green, but a patient in a hospital who is doing the asking.

    Even if we help with the wording and the funding and the rest.


  3. Greenfly – sorry, I misunderstood. I think Met could be very effective in that role, and I am not critical of her work on this bill – the reality is that the movement was not organised and an MP cannot be expected to carry the whole of a difficult load. It needed a grassroots campaign around it.

    Actually the decision of who should front the Parliamentary bit next time should be decided at a later stage. It will entirely depend on the tactical situation of the moment.

  4. Then I am truely puzzled by the criticisms that were cast in the days leading up to the presentation of the bill in Parliament. If we had no confidence that Metiria could do the business, why did we berate her for not doing the business?

  5. Greenfly

    I don’t think Meyt can play the leading role here. The Green party is “tainted” in the eyes of a large segment of the population and anything like this coming from us directly WILL get the Nicky Wagner treatment.

    Nandor is better, but still will have “guilt by association” problems with some of them. He is probably able to get to enough of them.

    It is a numbers issue. Realistically changing the minds of 30 out of the 80 who voted reflexively. No small task… but targeting the more open minds can get us there. Meyt could and should work the Maori block as they appear to have had VERY little homework on this issue.


  6. Nandor – I explained myself poorly, it seems. I meant for Metiria to be the Parliamentary face, presenting the issue as a fate accompli, due to the background work already done by ‘us’. Hers should be the MP’s face that launches the 1000 ships (us) and drives home the advantage at the final confrontation – in the House. Her face should also be that on the pages of the Woman’s Weekly, as suggested by Phil, on Breakfast, on cereal boxes if necessary, with a clear, unsullied message.
    Perhaps we still disagree.

  7. greenfly – i totally disagree with you. Not that I think I should front the campaign. I don’t. I am strongly of the view that it needs to be a medipot users who can speak for themself. What well people (I mean that in a relative sense) can do is facilitate and support by doing the grunt work. For example Phil’s library will be v useful.

    But by the same token Met can’t do it IMHO. In addition a politician is the last person to run it. A politician will polarise the issue along party lines, and is not equipped for the grassroots activising that campaigns need. Politicians are for end game.

  8. Nandor – is it improper to ask which causes you are championing now? I read your article in Organic NZ on the food gardens on marae etc. and am delighted that you are a figure in that movement.

  9. I don’t have to say anything more Phil.


    It is up to Nandor if he is game for it … and since this is not going to be an easy little hobby for him to take on in his copious spare time, I suggest that it is up to us to help in some tangible ways.

    Establish a fund for this purpose? We still need a fulcrum in the Nat-ACT camp. We can’t count on a member’s bill getting drawn.

    If it is an idea of THEIRS, they can’t just pull a Nicky Wagner.


  10. Oh look! There’s an elephant in the room! It’s Metiria (sorry about the graphic image!)
    Despite yesterday’s result and the accusations that have been leveled, Metiria is the one to do the business. Her ‘indications’ that there were aspects/support/preparation lacking in this particular asault on the ramparts should not be dismissed. Arm the woman, for pity’s sake! Get in behind! Nandor’s tautoko would be invaluable but Metiria’s the Amazon for this cause. We didn’t do our homework, didn’t know what was preventing a successful campaign here and didn’t plug the holes to stop success leaking away.

  11. “Sorry Nandor… you are probably smarter about this than anyone else, but we have to sell it to the (empty) suits. They have prejudices.”

    doesn’t Nandor believe Hailie Selasie is God ((the Almighty)- even though HS responded to the suggestion in the negative))?

  12. um..!..b.j..

    i am not advocating any role for myself..

    ..(in general..i loathe most of humanity..

    ..and prefer to keep my distance..)

    (all i can offer is the resource of the four + years of collecting/collating the health-news about whoar.. am able to bury their bullsh*t in links/reputable/credible-evidence)

    and i totally disagree with yr dismissal of nandor..

    ..why try to find/train someone else..(let alone build a media/public-image from scratch..)

    ..when we have nandor..

    ..freed from the constraints of the green party..

    ..and when he was in parliament..

    ..he was one of the mp’s of all political persuasions.. gets on/got on gangbusters with the media..

    ..(their doors are already open to him..)

    ..and ..y’know..if you’ve ever seen him ‘work’ a room.. know he is the silver-tongued orator/charmer of all who encounter him..

    (.if he was oirish..we’d say he ‘has the gift of the gab’..)

    ..and when i wrote before about ‘re-evaluating-assets’..

    ..nandor would be one of the biggest/most valuable of those assets..

    ..if he were willing..there would be no-one better..

    ..(plus..he would get to take care of ‘unfinished-business’..)

    (ahem..!..sorry to talk about you in the third person..when you are (sorta) in the’know..!)



  13. On second thought, maybe Nandor IS the person to front it. He probably can get access to folks in parliament more easily.

    I don’t think I can guess the who… I know too little and I withdraw my objection. I had not thought of the countervailing advantage.


  14. Phil

    As angry as you are, you are NOT the person to be organizing. You can be effective behind the scenes, supporting communication and providing links to information but this is going to take someone with more subtlety and less confrontation in their style to make it happen.

    Confrontation will not make this happen, though it will get press. Any press coverage will not be meaningful unless it focuses on sick people.

    Nandor would be MUCH better, but he still suffers from an “image” problem with some segments of the population. Sorry Nandor… you are probably smarter about this than anyone else, but we have to sell it to the (empty) suits. They have prejudices.

    You need to find that person and recruit him/her. Then run a reasonable lobbying campaign… no I am NOT available for this. I have to set priorities too, and the climate-change consultation is next Monday.

    Don’t make the sick person see the MP. Make the MP go to see the sick person.

    Make sure to keep them on point. The “decriminalization” smoke screens are bullsh!t and easily argued. I reckon I beat both those and the actual medpot arguments but I chose to allow the arguments to be made so they could be aired and answered.

    However, when you go one-on-one with any MP (or their staff) you have to keep them on point. NOT get drawn on the irrelevant arguments. They have absolutely no ability to do that themselves… the evidence of their comments is clear on that. The method is to cut every one of them off short with the fact that this is about medicine, not decriminalization. They will be able to find nothing to say that does not draw that response.

    It tends to force people to stop and think that does. Not telling them they are wrong, but that they aren’t arguing the proper point.

    Convincing staff is almost as good as convincing the MP him/herself. Don’t be afraid to spend time on them.

    Sapient… I am not offended… the other side of this argument has been doctoring the ball since 1937.

    Just curious…

    Is there anyone at the party level who does this sort of planning – thinking?


  15. and the media must be ‘worked’.. galvanise public opinion..

    ..and i disagree with fly.. the contention that the nandor-brand is somehow tainted on this issue..

    ..i think you are the best possible person to front it.. will have no problem differentiating to the media/public the differencees between the ‘political/freedom-rights around full legalisation..

    ..but is one of commonsense..

    ..and more importantly..


    ..and you have been ‘gone’ long enough for the media to want to ‘have you’ again..

    ..and hey..!..’grassroots-activism’..

    ..feel the power..!


  16. i hope so..

    there need to be some re-grouping.. of assets..

    ..and judicious use of those assets..

    ..that these are so mired in ignorance on this issue..

    ..must be changed..

    ..(as a first step.)


  17. I agree Greenfly that my own advocacy can add confusion. Nevertheless while I think medipot users need to front the campaign, that shouldn’t stop other parties, even those seen as too partial, from expressing ourselves, especially in accusing the Parliament after the fact. But it remains a problem.

    To be effective maybe greencross needs healthy people to shoulder some of the more tedious work, but leave the public voice to the sick.

    As for the failure of NORML / ALCP? Well its a hard one Phil. I think that the movement has lost a lot of momentum after the failure to achieve reform under the last Labour Govt (for which I accept some blame). Maybe its time for another wave? Maybe this defeat can galvanise us – because it is so transparently wrong.

  18. Maybe Greenfly… but I wasn’t writing for the general public that time. I was deliberately being insulting to the parliament itself without descending into the invective they truly deserve.

    I have no doubt that they DO read the opinion pages… even if some of them move their lips as they do so… and if they have no time for it their staff does it for them.

    I don’t fancy my chances, “the moving finger writes and having writ moves on”… but inflammatory speech is good for circulation.


  19. i agree with what fly and kevyn say..

    ..this is a time not for crying..but for anger/action..

    ..that they refused further discussion..

    ..just further indicts them.. is time to stop piss*ng around..

    ..there needs to be a meet of some sort..(a/la post ge-attempts..)

    ..we need to fuse this anger into a coherent campaign to push these facts in theses ignorant m.p’sfaces..

    ..and to generate a public further pressure these ‘representitives of the people’.. do just that..


  20. I think a lot of people went “well if the problem is that Sativex is too expensive and difficult to get hold of, then surely we can solve that problem by subsidising it and making it easier to get hold of.”

    It meant they could oppose this bill yet still feel like they weren’t condemning these people to further suffering. I’m not saying I support that point of view, because I do not, but I’m just saying that is probably how many justified voting no.

  21. Yes Nandor disinterested and vicious cruelty of this vote.
    That’s what I’m talking about.
    With all due respect, if statements from Norml will be seen to muddy the waters, so will, to the obtuse, yours.
    Our best advocate, compromised! Aue te mamae!

  22. Really though, the slamming down of a proposal that would relieve physical pain in our own population should be a powerful platform to build a substantial attack from. These people have said “NO” to something that everyone can ‘feel’. I think that this should be a time for furious and pointed attack, not wound-licking. Those who opposed the bill should be shamed. It is an ‘open and shut’ case, providing the response is accurate and pared to the bone.
    Bj – your knowledge is deep and wide, but your audience somewhat more shallow. The letter you wrote is too complex imho.

  23. Nicky Wagner,

    Current Parliament Responsibilities: Select Committees & Caucus Committees 2009
    Member, Health Select Committee
    Deputy-Chairperson, Local Govt & Environment Select Committee
    Member, Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee
    Chair Arts, Culture and Heritage Caucus Select Committee
    Chair BlueGreens Caucus Committee
    Member Economic & Commerce Caucus Committee
    Member Law & Order Caucus Committee

    She has a teaching degree, an MBA and was an Ecan councillor when Ecan back when Ecan was rated as the worst regional council in the country!

    Most MPs have facebook pages and websites so their plenty of avenues for educating them other than just writing to them. In fact, using these forums where other politicaly involved people can see what you are saying to MPs is probably much better than just writing to the MP or the local paper.

  24. and it’s a strange world..

    ..when you have to give ‘ups’.. for two reasons.. david garrett from act.. for voting for the bill to go to select committee..

    ..and his tidy encapsulating of the reasons why he voted for a bill he didn’t necessarily support..

    .that reason was one of democracy.. that he feels any private members bill drawn should go to select committee stage.. the interests of democracy..

    ..and that is anothr aspect of this that insenses..

    ..that this vote was only to continue the discussion/examine the evidence.. select committee stage..

    ..wither open democracy/free-speech..?…


  25. unfortunately Green cross is pretty much defunct as I understand. They would have been the perfect organisation to coordinate an extra-parliamentary lobby, as it is already hard to distinguish medipot from recreational use in the minds of the obtuse without NORML fronting this campaign. The problem is, most of the activists are too sick to be really effective. Greg Soar was very good I thought but I think that he just couldn’t keep it up and cope with his illness at the same time.

    I have a column in the Waikato Times this friday, and I am devoting it to the disinterested and vicious cruelty of this vote.

  26. did any green mp’s vote against it..?

    I doubt it.

    What would be more interesting to see is the split of Labour MPs. I know Lianne Dalziel was voting against, but Ruth Dyson voting for.

  27. bj – NOT THE ISSUE is exactly the concern I had, not only in the House, but amongst the rank and file who expressed themselves here. Too many were involving the decrim issue with the medicinal use issue. While may have been a good game to razz Metiria for various things, ‘we’ seemed not to have our sh*t together at all. Your sojourn into Kiwiblog airspace turned up the same confusion. Clear objectives and all troops briefed thoroughly for success is what is needed (along with other strategies

    Jonathan Coleman – give that man a cigar!

  28. Phil

    It almost doesn’t matter WHICH lie he was telling. They were arguing, all of them, against decriminalization which WAS NOT THE ISSUE.

    If I had been there I’d probably been booted out by asking how it was relevant to the law at hand… forcefully and repeatedly, as no general argument serves against a medicinal use.

    Particularly with the vaporizers available.


  29. It needs to be brought back of course, but it almost HAS to be done by someone in National or ACT. There has to be at least one semi-intelligent human in that mob.

    That’s the strategy part of this. WE have to concentrate on finding a fulcrum in the mob to the right of us. We can then bring pressure through the potential patient’s community, on the rest of them. We stand back a little and provide the talking points, the supporting information and the rest.

    I have to concentrate on the climate change for the next week. It appears that I have already registered. I don’t think I will get a lot of time to speak, but I can I think, talk pretty damned fast at need. Have to prepare a couple of sample argument scenarios so as to make the best effective use of a limited moment.


  30. the ‘big lie-award’ in this fiasco must go to the national party associate health minister…

    (what’s hisname..?..y’know..!..the one with the permanent crick in his kneck..?

    from looking down his nose at the rest of us….?

    .the one who ran that wildly successful melissa lee campaign in mt albert..?


    ..he stood up in parliament and put out the howler:

    ..that ‘cannabis smoke is twenty times more dangerous than tobacco smoke’..

    ..and i know i am attempting an ad hominem-free month/july..

    ..but surely ‘lying bast*rd’ applies here..?


  31. and you are correct that norml/greencross/alcp all performed as poorly as the green party..

    ..really..when you boil it all down.. was just anembarrassment..that metiria turei just wanted to ‘go away’.. that she has succeeded..


  32. I do want that list. I will have to go through some hell to get at the member’s individual arguments, but that would make it more effective.

    Nicky Watson? sheezh… an excellent example of the purblind fools without any neural function more organized than a knee-jerk who represent us in parliament.

    They clearly have NOT been educated. NORML and Green-Cross and the ALCP have not done any needed spadework here. Obviously neither has this party.

    This isn’t my fight. I can’t smoke because my lungs won’t take it (asthma) and I am too busy to “relax”… as the Doonesbury strip quips “I feel better tense”.


  33. Oh, i like the style in the first two paragraphs. Has a sort of spin-doctory elegance to it; Though that comparison be prehaps unflatering.

  34. My letter to the Dominion Post… I was angry this time… it usually has an effect on my style.

    The witch doctors of parliament yesterday prescribed pain and suffering
    for the substantial subset of patients in NZ who need treatment for
    glaucoma, cancer, parkinson’s disease, crohn’s disease, MRSA…(100
    words omitted).

    In a triumph of superstition over sense, these witch doctors argued:
    “Increased chance of schizophrenia” (irrelevant to medical use). “It
    isn’t effective” – a LIE trotted out by a former MD now at odds with his
    profession AND his medical oath.

    “It sends the wrong message?” – Alcohol is not even a medicine, 4 times
    more damaging than cannabis, and we allow it to be ADVERTISED. This
    bill was NOT about decriminalization – but bad effects of drugs on
    society are easily seen to be less damaging than the prohibition.
    Examine Portugal’s SUCCESS with decriminalization.

    “We need less drugs, not more” – On the street – but that market isn’t
    medical, controlled or supplied through pharmacies.

    The ample street supply is provided by the Mongrel Mob and Black-Power.
    THOSE are the people actually helped. Perhaps the witch doctors need to
    be investigated for payoffs from the gangs.

    The people hurt are patients needing these medicines.

    They will hurt for a long time apparently – Superstition IS easier than

    Shoddily drafted is a first draft and has to be expected of any first draft… that is why a committee looks at it and tightens it up. True of any legislation. Voting to kill it on the first reading is an indication of powerful opposition to the principle.


  35. Yes, BJ, well done, particularly on Kiwiblog. My dick award for the night goes to Nicky Wagner, who said she wouldn’t vote for the bill because kids at high school support the Greens so they can smoke pot more easily. For this she would condemn all those who would benefit from medpot. Should send her a copy of the Portugal report aye BJ.

  36. Good effort BJ.

    I saw Simon Bridges on Breakfast this morning saying he voted against because it was ‘shoddily drafted’ but also because ‘marijuana is bad mmkay’, though I do wonder if the first reason was completely valid or not…

  37. That’s about as much as I can do. I pushed the folks at Kiwiblog pretty hard and I think that except for BB, they saw at least some of the truth. They aren’t all that bright over there… but I must say that idiots are overrepresented in parliament no matter which party is in power.

    When we see the list of those voting against perhaps I shall write a letter to them.

    Which is sort of the point that was made earlier.

    IF we had known earlier, such arguments could have been made at length and debated at length.

    I suspect that at least SOME of the chamber is susceptible to reason at some level, though it is pretty clear that in general it can’t be trusted with sharp objects and has to pull off the gumboots to count past ten. I am however, confident in my ability to argue the case.

    I suggest that if this party expects to get better results it had BETTER start performing more like an organized party. I suspect that I understand the reasons this happened and the reasons it was done. However, I am NOT satisfied with those reasons.

    There is this. We know who the opposition is now. It is not time to relax, but to howl at these morons until they wish they’d thought about facts instead of voting their superstitions.


  38. Not yet jarbury. I was quick off the mark this morning re the oral question – oops, that was on Kiwiblog – only because I was actually in the Parliamentary precincts at the time, which is a rare ocasion for me.

    No such luck tonight I’m afraid.

  39. and now..surely..

    ..that non-performance/selling of this to the general public must be scrutinised..?

    in awarding political tactics/acumen points out of ten.. would have to be zero..

    (the speech tonight was the only high fact..the only point.. is time for many to hang their heads..

    ..and they know who they are.. zealanders continue to suffer..

    ..a tv3 commissioned poll found 63% of new zealanders supported medical marijuana..

    ..for shame..!..


  40. stevie chadwick is also giving a good/passionate speech..

    (garrett also (surprisingly) supports it going to select committee..


  41. kevin hague also gave a powerful/potent speech..

    waggoner from national.. now trotting out/echoing the fallacies presented by the national party doctors’..


  42. Phil; Q2 on the Referendum should be about the Decriminalization of THC.
    Else Fear will continue in Place of Government on this issue – those of us without highly paid/conspicuous Public Service jobs ain’t that scared – imo this is @ 40 years overdue in the Great Nation (how much longer Jah Ras man?)

  43. i concur on the quality of the speech from metiria..

    ..and further bemoan those potent/skilled arguments weren’t taken to the court of public opinion..


  44. Fantastic speech by Metiria Turei on the Medicinal Cannabis Bill. I certainly hope it goes to a select committee at the very least.

  45. I hope it does make it as far as the select comittee stage. It’s time we had a funding change that is radical and heavily debated after nine years of changes being dribbled through so that they mainly stayed below the msm and public’s awareness threshold.

    I wonder if we can get a guest post from Dr Pita Sharples on how this Bill might be expected to impact the rural communities the form such a substantial part of the Maori Party’s constituency.

    Perhaps if the Bill is expanded to place school buses under NZTA funding and subject to PT bus quality standards there might even be suppurt from Fed Farmers and, more importantly 😉 ,the New Zealand Federation of Country Women’s Institutes.

  46. I agree with your second paragraph. Note that if the fuel tax/RUCs is doubled to maintain maintenance funding, or quadrupled to allow an aggressive ‘world’s best’ target for the Road Safety 2020 Strategy the value of the 75% diverted to PT etc is also going to be doubled or tripled. Is it actually physicly possibly to ramp up PT/walk/cycle/coastal shippin spending by that much that quickly, or will we just see Ontrack going on land buying spree to future proof corridors that they might possible want to develope some time this century?

    I think it is definitely possible to ramp up the PT etc. funding quite quickly, although I agree that the bill is probably a bit extreme in how fast it is implemented. If this ever gets to a select committee (which I bet it won’t) I would submit saying it’s a great idea but slow it down a bit.

    Regarding “what to spend the money on?” I have about $10 billion of rail projects lined up 😉

    If the time frame was stretched to ten years instead of five with a FARS increase included as a seventh output class then I would have no problem with the BIll.

    Agree there, as I said above 10 years is a more realistic timeframe.

    As a transport planner, what was your immediate response to the use of the term “gradual” to desrcibe the five-year time frame to go from the current percentage to 67%.

    Great idea, a bit of an extreme timeframe.

    The changes to GPS to divert future increases in funding for local roads and SH maintenance into building roads of National significance was bad enough. Without including a guaranteed minimum allocation for maintenance this Bill will be a disaster, because of the political point scoring battle that will inevitably erupt during it’s implementation.

    That’s the point of the select committee process though right? And anyway it’s a private member’s bill, where the purpose is often to put pressure on the government to come up with something similar themselves. It was introduced in 2006 to put pressure on Labour to make their transport policy match with their climate change rheteric.

  47. this is a comment at kiwiblog.. response to bj doing his ‘erudite-dude’ number on the med-pot argument..

    “..# AG (762) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
    July 1st, 2009 at 2:33 pm


    That was a dangerously reasonable and well argued comment. I am concerned you are raising the bar to a level that will exclude 99% of commentators here. Please desist from such behaviour in the future..”



  48. Only one third of the billion annual road maintenance cost is caused by traffic wear and tear. Halving the amount of traffic will only reduce maintenance costs by 15%. Whilst the number of motorists benefitting from that spending will have fallen by 50% the number of property owners/occupiers benefitting from will be largely unchanged.

    Their are no technical issues to be sorted out. There is just the straightforward fact that, as the Bill is currently worded, either maintenance spending has to be cut from $1bn to less than $300m in five years or road user fees need to increased to generate upwards of $4bn to allow 25% of that money to be spent on essential maintenance. Transit identified the looming rehab/renewal bubble for it’s ‘baseline’ future maintenance estimates in the 2001 truck dimension study.

    I agree with your second paragraph. Note that if the fuel tax/RUCs is doubled to maintain maintenance funding, or quadrupled to allow an aggressive ‘world’s best’ target for the Road Safety 2020 Strategy the value of the 75% diverted to PT etc is also going to be doubled or tripled. Is it actually physicly possibly to ramp up PT/walk/cycle/coastal shippin spending by that much that quickly, or will we just see Ontrack going on land buying spree to future proof corridors that they might possible want to develope some time this century?

    If the time frame was stretched to ten years instead of five with a FARS increase included as a seventh output class then I would have no problem with the BIll.

    As a transport planner, what was your immediate response to the use of the term “gradual” to desrcibe the five-year time frame to go from the current percentage to 67%.

    The changes to GPS to divert future increases in funding for local roads and SH maintenance into building roads of National significance was bad enough. Without including a guaranteed minimum allocation for maintenance this Bill will be a disaster, because of the political point scoring battle that will inevitably erupt during it’s implementation.

  49. Obviously roading maintenance still needs to happen Kevyn, I don’t think I’ve ever argued against that. These technical issues could be sorted out of course.

    The most important thing here is that bill would actually get our transport spending reflecting what’s actually happening – with public transport use rising and state highway use falling. It would actually prepare us for the effects of peak oil and reduce our transport CO2 emissions.

  50. If only the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill ever became law – it would be fantastic – because the petrol tax and RUCs will have to be doubled within five years to ensure minimal standards of road and highway maintenance are able to continue. That completely ignores what will happen to maintenance costs if the Chinese economy booms again. It also ignores the fact that there is already a maintenance deficit and a looming pavement and bridge renewal “bulge” due to the bridge building boom during the first decade of the Main Highways Board and the boom in seal extension during the first two decades of the National Roads Board.

    Then there is the problem of the road toll being 50% above the target set in the Road Safety 2010 Strategy which can only be realisticly met by imitating the successful Scandinavian strategy of making existing roads safer.

    Not that quadrupling the petrol tax – to $2 – within five years is a bad things, at least not if you’re rich. With all the plebs priced off the roads congestion-free roads will be available for the bosses and the RTF to enjoy 😉

  51. Gosh if only the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill ever became law – it would be fantastic.

    It’ll be interesting to hear some of the speeches about it though – David Benett showed what a public transport hating fool he is quite clearly in a previous speech he gave.

Comments are closed.