by Gareth Hughes
As we count down to the International Whaling Commission meeting in June an interesting point has been raised – that New Zealand taxpayers may have to pay for a return to commercial whaling.
A number of Non Governmental Organisations have suggested that if the so-called ‘compromise’ proposal supported by New Zealand (that would see a return to commercial whaling is adopted) we’d be up for part of the bill:
“Instead of following a “user pays” principle, which would see the whaling nations – Japan, Norway and Iceland – bear the cost for management and supervision of the whaling industry, under the proposal, all countries party to the International Whaling Commission will foot the bill.”
Can you imagine that?
I think New Zealanders already have a problem with the National Government’s massive policy shift in our support for a legitimated commercial whaling outcome at the IWC, let alone actually paying for whaling management and supervision.
Hundreds of people are signing our “Commercial Whaling: Beached As!” postcard to send to the Government. If you’d like a few and some information drop me an email: gareth.hughes[at]parliament.govt.nz
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Gareth Hughes on Mon, April 12th, 2010
More posts by Gareth Hughes | more about Gareth Hughes
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
Isn’t it fairer if all in society contribute to the common good though Gareth?
User-pays is privitisation by stealth!
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Yet another of New Zealand’s cultural identifiers flushed away if we fiscally support a return to commercial whaling.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
“cultural identifier”?
I was thinking about writing something like pete’s myself
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We pay to have our rubbish disposed of, so it’s right that we should pay for the rubbish decisions we, as a country make. The more people that hear about this situation, the better.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Pete does raise a bit of a point I’ll admit, though I’m afraid I couldn’t help myself.
You’re right, greenfly, but it’s not the whole country making the decision. If Key and Co were to foot the bill for their decision, then that’d be a little more appropriate.
And the phrase I’m uncomfortable with in pete’s post is that reference to “the common good”. I have no qualms with everybody paying for public healthcare, education, or subsidising public transport because these services are actually beneficial (to more than a few fishermen and a couple of besuited business bods), but it’s a far cry to define whaling as the common good.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Our taxes should be going to support our man, who was defending our country’s damaged reputation in animal care when the pxxxpoor (just continuing the toilet-speak)government wouldn’t, out of Japan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Well theres the question. If reducing whale deaths costs us money, are we still in favour of reducing whale deaths?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)