And Aotearoa is responding. Opposition to this risky extreme form of oil extraction has been building steadily, and this weekend folks are coming out all over Aotearoa to draw a line in the sand and say no to deep sea oil, and yes to a more sustainable future.

Hands Across the Sand is a global day of action and there are events popping up all over the place. Check out the list below, and there may be more to come!

The movement against deep sea oil is growing stronger every day, and I’ll be getting along to the Wellington event this weekend to join with other kiwis drawing a line in the sand against deep sea oil.

Auckland North Shore: https://www.facebook.com/events/158426560993768/

Ohope: https://www.facebook.com/events/474087352660025/

Wellington: https://www.facebook.com/events/360254350743502/

Golden Bay : https://www.facebook.com/events/362837330494867

Motueka – https://www.facebook.com/events/564546143568206/

Nelson: https://www.facebook.com/events/453304271417629/

Kaikoura: https://www.facebook.com/events/459355244142855/

Christchurch: https://www.facebook.com/events/371511899631561/

and Dunedin: https://www.facebook.com/events/520755497982218/

I will also be holding a stall on Cuba street to let other Wellingtonians know about the threat to our very own coast and give out some information, I’d love for you to join me! I’ll be at the bucket fountains at 11am, or check out the Facebook event here:

https://www.facebook.com/events/600491843296018/?ref=25

Source: https://www.greens.org.nz/energy

As you can see in the New Zealand context current generation the renewable generation is on average cheaper.

If we look at building new generation then we can see a similar picture. This, of course, ignores that there are many energy conservation measures that would be cheaper before we even think about commissioning a new plant.

Source: New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050

This is why we are happy to advocate for renewable generation. It is cheaper, and will not further destabilise our climate.

It’s good to see another marine reserve created, even if it was shrunk by Smith, because it’s only the second on the east coast of the South island. It only took 17 years and taking the Government to the High Court to see it finally achieved!

Many of the locals including the tourist sector will be over joyed, and I’d like to congratulate the Akaroa Marine Protection Society and in particular Brian and Kathleen Reid who advocated for the reserve since 1996. It’s incredible the amount of commitment, patience and fortitude they have demonstrated.

It was disappointing when then-Conservation minister Kate Wilkinson originally declined the reserve and I thought grossly insensitive to then go on a pleasure cruise of the area with the Blue Greens which I protested…underwater. A High Court judge then found Wilkinson had made an ”error of law” in rejecting the 1996 proposal which has led to Smith reconsidering.

It’s good to see a small sliver of conservation coming from this Government, which this term has been toxic to the environment: cutting DoCs budget and slashing staff; walking out of the Kyoto 2 climate agreement; and focusing on a ‘drill it, mine it’ frack it’ agenda. To put it in context though, this reserve plus the five West Coast and Subantarctic reserves yet to take effect, take the percentage of New Zealand’s waters in marine reserve to only 0.41% – far short of our 10% target.

Local iwi were against the reserve and would have preferred a taiapure management regime. This highlights the conflicts between full no-take reserves and traditional fishery management tools.

The local conflict, the length of time and mammoth undertaking just to see this small reserve enacted highlights the urgent need to improve law. The Marine Reserves Bill seeking to update the original act 1971, languished in select committee there since 2002 till late last year earning a place in NZ political history as the second-longest bill ever before a  select committee. It’s time to hurry up and modernise our marine reserves laws and take greater account of traditional management tools in a conservation context.

Customs Minister Maurice Williamson says he is extremely worried about what 3D printers will do to border security.

Mr Williamson says the printers are actually manufacturers of products and 3D computer files can be emailed or downloaded from the internet.

He says household printers will soon be able to produce drugs and weapons, and the country’s borders are extremely vulnerable.

Here’s an exciting, positive, potentially transformational technology and dear old Maurice’s first thoughts are, but what if people at parties print sheets of ecstasy and guns? I imagine him racing back to his office from the studio to start drafting legislation to ban them.

The amazing thing is, Toby Manhire is probably right, it is terrifying he is one of the most qualified people in National to comment on tech issues.

Leaving aside the whole question of how a printer would print psychotropic chemicals or the fact that anyone can now fashion a homemade gun it is good at least someone in Government is aware of 3D printers and starting to think of their impact. For example we should be discussing how we can utilise them in a revival of New Zealand domestic manufacturing, in developing innovative new products and we should start a national discussion on how our intellectual property laws written in a pre-Internet age will deal with this new technology.

We weren’t filibustering, but took every opportunity to criticise the Bill and there’s a lot in it to be critical of. Catherine, Eugenie, Steffan, Kevin and I all gave speeches arguing the Green’s point. Sadly Energy Minister Simon Bridges and Attorney General Chris Finlayson gave nasty speeches that avoided the real issues and criticised some highly respected Kiwis including the current ‘New Zealander of the Year’ which I think was highly unbecoming. What do you think?

I’ve been highly critical as have a large number of prominent New Zealanders of Amendment 205 that establishes five new criminal offences against New Zealanders protesting deep sea oil drillers didn’t have any select committee or Bill of Rights Act vet. I’ve called it law making at its worst. Prior to the debate I moved that the Andarako amendment should be recommitted back to the Commerce Select Committee so that the public and experts could submit on it, and it was disappointing the Government refused this opportunity.

I think this raises the need for more human rights consideration of substantive amendments to legislation. Currently introducing large changes in the committee stage of the legislative process is a tactic to avoid select committee and statutory Bill of Rights Act analysis by the Attorney General.

Currently under section 7 of NZBORA the Attorney-General is required to notify the House of any provision in any Bill introduced into the House that appears to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act and I think this should be extended to included substantive amendments.

In Andrew Butler and Petra Butler’s The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: a commentary (2005) they write “There is no statutory obligation on the Attorney-General to report BORA-inconsistencies that appear in amendments to the introduction copy of a Bill be they proposed before a Select Committee, proposed by a Select Committee in its report back, proposed in a Supplementary Order Paper.” They suggest “Possible ways of remedying these deficiencies would include establishment of a dedicated parliamentary select committee [and] the expansion of the vetting duty beyond the introduction stage …”

In 2003, submissions to Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee from the Clerk of the House and from Wellington District Law Society Public Law Committee they called for the extension of the s7 reporting obligation to amendments proposed to a bill during its passage through the House. I’m privileged to sit on Parliaments Standing Orders committee who triennially review Parliaments rules and I will seek to extend bill of rights analysis to substantive amendments to try and improve the law making practises of our country

There are heaps of opportunities to save money and energy and I am going to start posting tips to make it easier to be energy efficient. This week I’m looking at hot water.

Hot water is a cost we often don’t think about, but it makes up around 30% of households energy bills. Avoiding wasting hot water is a great way to cut down on your energy use and electricity bills. There are a few different ways that you can do this, but one simple approach is to have good hot water habits. Switching from using hot to cold water where you can is a great way to make savings, another is to get into the habit of using cold water for washing. At four loads a week, cold water washes instead of hot could save you up to $50-$75 each year.

Another good tip is to rinse dishes in cold water, and only wash your dishes or (if you are lucky) run your dishwasher when it is full and on an ‘eco’ or ‘fast wash’ setting if available.

Other options to be even more efficient include solar hot water heaters to use the power of the sun to help heat your water or install a hot water cylinder wrap to keep the heat in.

Another energy saving solution is sharing showers!

With simple, everyday hot water habits you can reduce environmental impacts, energy consumption and save money.

It turns out Japan only caught 103 minke whales this summer in the Southern Ocean, far less than the 1000 they have caught previously and were hoping for again this season. It’s testimony to the brave protest actions of the Sea Shepherd activists who went into this whaling season with more boats than ever and put their bodies on the line to protect the whales. It shows protest actions do work and that’s why the Government is cracking down on anti-deep sea protesters here.

Activists are doing more to stop whaling than the New Zealand Government, who tried to promote a return to legal commercial whaling a few years back and have been conspicuously quiet on opposing Japan’s illegal whaling.

This very poor result will hurt even further the economics of Japan’s official whaling programme which a recent report estimates requires around $10 million annually to survive. Facing significant economic challenges domestically and needing to rebuild earthquake damaged parts of the country, subsidising a loss-making making whaling programme that just earns negative internationally publicity and pressure, surely isn’t in the interests of the Japanese Government. Japan calls it ‘scientific whaling’ but everyone knows its commercial whaling and Australia with New Zealand as a party are challenging this at the International Court of Justice.

While I believe the slaughter of 103 whales is 103 too many I’m heartened that this worst result ever will be another nail in the coffin of Japan whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Governments like New Zealand’s need to keep up the diplomatic pressure on Japan to do the right thing and stop whaling.

The so-called ‘Petrobras Amendment’ establishes new laws to deal with protests in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ):

• Up to one year prison term or $50,000 fine for people who damage or interfere with mining structures or vessels (fine of $100,000 for organisations).
• Up to $10,000 fine for breaching no-go zones of up to 500m around mining vessels
• Police and Defence Force get new powers to board ships, arrest and detain protesters.

It is law making at its worst. By introducing it as a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) amendment instead of contained in the original bill, it avoids having any hearing at Select Committee or public input and completely avoids having a Bill of Rights Act compliance analysis. A Select Committee process involving submitters and legal experts helps anticipate tricky questions and clarify the intent of the proposed law and should have been used. I think for example there is a legitimate question about what exactly constitutes ‘interference’? Would a light projection on the side of a drillship for example land an activist in the brig facing up to one year in jail?

This SOP targets only one activity – oil drilling, setting it up as a special case with its own legal protections which opens up the Government to allegations it’s a law written by and for a specific industry. I for one think it’s clearly a SOP to Petrobras. One has to ask why on earth these proposals are being included in the Crown Minerals Act, which deals primarily with minerals programmes, mining permits and land access, and not in the more appropriate criminal statute. Because it is creating a standalone offence against protesting mining in the EEZ we now have the odd situation where under s11 of the Summary Offences Act (1981) person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who intentionally damages property on land but up to one year prison term or $50,000 fine for people who damage property belonging to oil drilling companies at sea. New Zealand isn’t a petro-state and doesn’t need one law for oil companies and another for everyone else.

Lastly the SOP extends Police powers such as arrest and detention to the NZ Navy, which blurs the important civilian/military domestic criminal enforcement boundary. Empowering and using the military to arrest New Zealanders should only be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances and I don’t believe peaceful protest should be that threshold. I still think it was outrageous the Navy was called out over the Petrobras protests in 2011 and the NZ Navy shouldn’t be used as private oil security.

All in all, it’s a very bad amendment that ultimately avoids the most important question facing the Government: if they are so concerned about ‘dangerous and reckless’ activity at sea, why aren’t they prohibiting dangerous deep sea oil drilling which they can’t guarantee won’t leak and cause a spill?

I’m going to seek leave in the House next week to try and return this to Select Committee so that it can have a fair hearing there and the public can have a say. What do you think?

The Commerce Commission in December proposed to reduce unbundled bitstream access by 27% which would have seen copper-based Internet costs drop considerably but to protect the main Ultra-Fast Broadband (UFB) contract winner, Chorus, the Government has threatened to legislate to keep copper prices high and Communications Minister Amy Adams has brought forward the broad post-2019 telecommunications review in response to the Commerce Commissions decision.

Today the Commerce Commission released its decision to continue its review of copper broadband pricing even though the Government has brought forward its own review. Good on ComCom for pushing through despite the National Governments threats and heavy-handedness.

I urge the Government to listen to the Commerce Commission and not keep Internet prices artificially high to benefit financially an individual corporate. All New Zealanders shouldn’t be paying higher-than-needed Internet bills to subsidise Chorus’ earnings to the tune of $150-160 million.

The Commerce Commission plays an essential role in our telecommunications market and is a key check and balance in the Government’s opaque UFB rollout. It was cited by Steven Joyce repeatedly as a reassuring factor over consideration of his rushed Ultra-Fast Broadband legislation.

I’m excited about the big opportunities for New Zealand from greater UFB coverage but I don’t believe the Government should be keeping current Internet costs high to force greater UFB uptake but more importantly to keep Chorus’ share price and profits up.

The IMF have come out strongly against fossil fuel subsidies, saying that they are threatening both the environment and the stability of the global economy. The IMF has calculated around $1.9 trillion worldwide, or 8 percent of Government revenue is spent on energy subsidies the vast majority of these contributing to climate change.

The paper has included the negative health and environmental externalities of fossil fuel consumption in the total of $1.9 trillion, and states that fossil fuel subsidies are now growing so large that they’re destabilising economies. Other estimates such as the International Energy Agency have put fossil fuel direct subsidies at $623 billion and others have put it at $1 trillion, but what’s clear is when you also account for externalities our fossil fuel addiction comes at a huge cost.

IMF First deputy Managing Director David Lipton said that removing the subsidies would strengthen incentives for ‘research and development in energy-saving and alternative technologies’ and has the potential to reduce global emissions by 1-2 percent.

This is a huge issue for our economy and our climate. I was heartened to see last year that the New Zealand Government came out at the Rio+20 summit supporting the reform of Fossil Fuel subsidies.

However, I think that the Government has a pretty loose take on what amounts to a fossil fuel subsidy and is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. While they call on countries to end consumption end subsidies, they also claim that they do not subsidise fossil fuels in New Zealand. If you look at how the Government directly and indirectly helps out the oil and gas industry it quickly adds up. The National Government has given away free seismic information costing tens of millions of dollars, funded overseas promotion trips and reports; ‘generously’ has the forth lowest royalty plus tax rate in the world and has pages and pages of tax exemptions. Then there is the $1 billion plus annual cost to taxpayers of picking up the carbon tab under the National Government’s woeful Emissions Trading Scheme.

It’s time instead that we invested in clean energy and clean jobs and levelled the playing field for renewable energy and a sustainable and more prosperous New Zealand.

Last week Russel Norman raised some questions about the new Speaker of the House David Carter’s performance in an open letter, particularly around his interpretation of Standing Orders referring to Question Time and the new Speaker’s insistence that Ministers need only ‘address’ the question as opposed to ‘answering’ it. I think there is a key difference between answering and addressing a question, as this blog post humorously points out.

As Russel said, ‘we can’t hold the Executive to account if the Speaker does not require Ministers to answer questions.’ Russel and I met with the Speaker last week to pass on our concerns and I see David Shearer met with Carter yesterday too. A week on, and I still have concerns about how Question Time is being handled and it is still, at times, fast becoming something of a farce.

This continued today with Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Chris Hipkins kicked out of the Debating Chamber for raising a point of order challenging the Speaker to enforce Parliament’s rules on the Prime Minister’s gross misuse of the point of order system. I hope this doesn’t become a trend. Video of the exchange can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXFglrDodM4.

Speaker Smith’s simple rule that a straight question would receive a straight answer was a good one and saw many more examples of clear, succinct and non-loaded questions being asked and Ministers having to front with real answers. We need bring order back to Question Time and to do this, is to make sure it is also ‘answer time.’

Some might throw their hands up in the air and consider this typical politics and unfixable but I disagree. In a Parliamentary system where checks and balances on executive power are few and far between, Question Time is an important channel through which we can make sure the elected Government is held accountable.

So what do you think?

Another game of cricket occurred on the weekend. A game only slightly less passionately fought out. The annual Parliament 11 vs MFAT cricket match.

This year I joined a team that also included a number of Green staffers.  In keeping with modern times the match was a 20-20 event played at Karori Park.

Getting ready to wield the willow after a 17 year break

I hadn’t faced a ball in about 17 years and in all honesty was never a particularly good battler (or bowler, or even fielder come to think of it) so I was understandably a bit nervous approaching the crease

I got a couple of singles on my first few balls then went after a wide delivery that I should of let go, nicked it, and it sailed into the keepers hands.

I thought about calling a ‘point of order’ and challenging the decision, being in the Parliamentary team and all, but thought the best of it.

All in all, I was just happy not to get out for a duck or injure myself badly like I had playing for the Parliamentary rugby team.

We made 124 and were in the game for a while. I even got rolled my arm over for couple of overs towards the end of the innings.  The MFAT staffers seemed bamboozled by the slowness of my pace but unfortunately worked out my leggies and off-breaks in the second over.

Sometime in the 19^th over the might of Parliament was trumped by MFAT.  Along the way Aaron Gilmore had been involved in a rugby league type collision with MFAT’s opening bowler.

Other than Aaron’s dented knees there no other major mishaps and I’m sure cricket was the winner on the day!

Note: Alastair Thompson  from Scoop also played and captured some key moments including Aaron Gilmores demise.

On the agenda were a number of proposals relating to elevation of the endangered status for some species of sharks. In fantastic news trade in the oceanic whitetip, three species of hammerhead, and the porbeagle will all be subject to increasingly stringent restrictions on their trade.

Over 90 countries agreed that these species all need far greater protections, and that the fringe interests of the shark finning industry weren’t sufficient to prevent efforts to save them. Good on New Zealand for supporting.

This is huge, especially as New Zealand has one of the highest porbeagle catch rates in the world.

Life is hard for the porbeagle. Populations around the world have declined between 66-99% in various regions. They’re not a pretty shark. They’re not quite as sleek and efficient as a blue shark, nor possessing the sheer indomitable size and terror of the great white. Instead, they are a bit dumpy, have large, Disney-esque eyes, and have an awkward smile. They really can’t sustain their current catch levels; they have a similar lifespan (65 years), similar age to reach maturity (around 18 years), similar gestation period (9 months) to humans, and give birth to only around 4 pups over their lifetime. This biological disadvantage means that it’s really exciting that New Zealand got behind them to support their enhanced protection too.

Could this be the start of a broader change of heart for New Zealand’s sharks? I’ve long voiced concerns over our shark management plans, and called for greater protection domestically from the wasteful practice of shark finning. With this vote for international support for a highly migratory species, I’m hoping that the current review of our domestic plans finally catches us up to the rest of the world in shark protection measures.

We have an excellent chance to do the right thing this year. Our current NPOA (National Plan of Action (Sharks) – our shark conservation strategy) is being reviewed for the first time since its implementation, and indications so far are that the approach that the Ministry of Primary Industries is taking is more scientifically informed, consultative, and environmentally sound than the process used to draft the first NPOA. This is the best way to stop shark finning, a practice most countries have already banned.

I’m optimistic the time has come. All parties except National, a political majority, demonstrated their support for increased shark protection measures at an event hosted by the New Zealand Shark Alliance, late last year. Public support, at home and internationally, is firmly behind stopping wasteful finning.

It’s been a good week for sharks, and we have the chance to make it a good year if we stop shark finning.

Deep, in the dark depths of the ocean huge quantities of methane gas are safely stored as ice crystals, held in place by temperature and pressure, and now plans are afoot to bring this gas to the surface. These gas hydrates are crystalline solid deposits that exist naturally on the ocean floor, and contain massive quantities of greenhouse gasses. The US Geologic Survey estimates that the worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth

In the quest to seek new ways to produce its own fuel, Japan has successfully tapped into underwater deposits of methane hydrate and successfully extracted natural gas. With the world on the verge of reaching the tipping points of runaway climate change going to the bottom of the ocean for fossil fuels is the last place we should look for energy. Japan has many energy challenges but opening up one of the largest sources of stored fossil fuels threatens the planet.

But it’s not just Japan that’s interested.

Last year, I revealed the National government had allocated $3.2 million funding for gas hydrate exploration in New Zealand. There is a massive quantity found in our waters, potentially 20 trillion cubic feet of hydrates.

Mining methane hydrates shows we currently are living in the age of extreme energy, where methane hydrates, fracking, deep sea oil drilling, lignite coal and underground coal gasification are seen as rational responses to increasing conventional energy prices.

A better option than this surely must be investing and developing in clean energy, that builds more jobs, brings more economic benefits and doesn’t fry the planet.

Petrobras left New Zealand and surrendered their drilling permits late last year after a concerted campaign by Te whānau a Apanui and others. The Government’s ‘extreme energy’ oil drilling plans are in tatters with Petrobras gone, Apache Oil gone, Anardarko delaying their activities and Solid Energy’s lignite coal plans kaput. Key is now resorting to desperate overseas pleas but should give it up and focus instead on real alternatives like clean energy and building manufacturing jobs.

I don’t know why Key would want to welcome them back when their risky exploratory deep sea oil drilling off the East Coast as we know that exploratory drilling is the riskiest phase and threatened to see oil washing up on the beaches.

It’s been amazing over summer watching the votes roll in on the Best Beach competition how we all love our beaches in New Zealand. Congratulations to the winner, Ohope Beach. They were so happy at winning around 300 of them did this great Harlem Shake on the beach. Check out the video.

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The Seafood Industry Council’s Lesley Campbel has an opinion piece in the Dominion Post arguing the Kermadecs do not need marine reserve status which shows the fishing industry lobby are their own worst enemy.

At a time when our fishing industry’s sustainability credentials are being questioned by a number of international media, retailers and consumers, creating an expanded Kermadecs marine reserve is smart for the industry, not bad.

This reserve if expanded out from 12 to 200 nautical miles around the Kermadecs would be one of the world’s largest marine reserves and would only displace around $120,000 of fishing annually. It would be a huge boost to the tiny 0.41% of our waters we have protected in marine reserves.

The global positive media attention in creating a giant reserve would bring in far more financially to the industry than this small amount of fishing ever would. More importantly however we have the chance now to protect this unique, iconic and important place forever.

I’m currently working on a members’ bill to protect the Kermadecs and hope the fishing lobby can realise marine protection is in their interest as well as the environments.

Imagine the surprise then that this occurs every year on average for the nationally critically endangered Bryde’s whale but from a more prosaic but easily avoidable source, but there’s hardly any media attention on it at all.

The Bryde’s whale is listed as nationally critically threatened by the Department of Conservation and it is estimated there are 46 resident and 159 transient Bryde’s whales in the Hauraki Gulf, making up the bulk of the population.

This whale is threatened simply by large ships travelling too fast and striking and killing the whales in the Hauraki Gulf. Between 1996 and 2012, 42 Bryde’s whale mortalities were recorded, 19 of which are known or suspected to have been caused by vessel strike. Scientists have pointed out the chance of surviving is greatly increased if ships slow down to 10 knots. Speed is needlessly killing them and pushing them closer to local extinction.

For a country that loves whales and has spoken out loudly in global forums for the end of commercial whaling it is tragic that the Bryde’s whale, a species on the cusp of local extinction, is dying needlessly right on our largest city’s doorstep.

While I acknowledge and welcome the Hauraki Gulf Forums attempt to reduce ship speeds I am concerned by how long the process is taking and the considerable threat this species is under. The time for talk is over and the time for action is now.

I’ve just written to the Minister of Conservation requesting that he use his considerable powers under the Marine Mammals protection Act (1978) to protect these whales. Nick Smith could use either Section 22 to declare a marine sanctuary with ship speed controls or use Section 28 to make regulations that address ship speeds and the chances of strike. He could do this tomorrow.

Imagine if we had a Government that used the powers it has right now to protect our amazing marine mammals?

My thoughts are with Solid Energy’s employees who will be going through a time of great uncertainty. There should have always been a transition plan in place for workers and its time that we prioritise sustainable industries that won’t subject workers to this kind of uncertainty and boom and bust nature of the fossil fuel industry.

This project would have seen lignite, the lowest grade and dirtiest coal, dug up, destroying prime farm land, and turned into briquettes. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment came out against the project and its climate implications. In her report she said: “Just one of the two proposed lignite-to-diesel plants would increase the gap between the international climate change commitment we have made and where our greenhouse gas emissions are headed by 20 per cent. If both proposed lignite-to- diesel plants were to be built, the gap would increase by 50 per cent”.  She also  reported that the industry is unfairly subsidised by taxpayers under the current rules of the Emissions Trading Scheme.

I’d like to say a big thank you and congratulations to Coal Action Network, and the locals in Southland who have been working hard on this issue for years to ensure a more sustainable future for Southland and Aotearoa. They’ve been doing the tireless work on the ground, highlighting the massive flaws in these plans, and organising the Coal in the Hole Summer festivals, which I have been to each time in the last two years.

Just a couple of days ago I urged the Southland District Council to make mining for lignite a prohibited activity in its new district plan in my op ed to the Southland Times and urged others to do likewise with our online submission guide. I also worked on a Member’s Bill that would ensure, under the Emission’s Trading Scheme, that Lignite projects are fully liable for the costs of the Greenhouse gas emissions they emit. I’m glad that in this case, the coal will remain in the soil and those Greenhouse gases won’t be released into the atmosphere.

Bill English today came out blaming Solid Energy’s smaller renewable investments for the company’s decline, which doesn’t stack up. As I pointed out in my blog a couple of weeks ago, it was the company’s coal projects which has contributed the vast majority of the company’s debt.

I hope that everyone who has worked hard to keep the coal in the hole will take a moment to celebrate this victory today.

Today Communications Minister Amy Adams announced the Government’s plans for allocating the 700MHz spectrum that has been freed up by the switchover to digital TV.

It’s a big deal for New Zealand and I’m urging that the Government engage and consult with Māori and the public over the opportunities. The public should get a say.

It is disappointing Adam’s has decided not to allocate any to Māori, as happened with the prior radio spectrum allocation.

I would urge the Government to investigate the following:

-       Putting ownership acquisition limits in place to prevent monopolies.

-       The possible use of ‘white space’ between bands as recommended by Google.

-       Using price incentives for companies to establish services in rural areas.

-       Adopting a ‘use it or lose it’ clause so that the resource is not wasted.”

Best Use

Economic studies internationally suggest the highest economic benefit in using digital dividend spectrum will come from allocating it in a form suited for mobile broadband, 4G. Other countries are generally following this course. Expected allocation of digital dividend spectrum to mobile broadband use has underpinned the development of most band plans internationally.

Analysis by Venture Consulting has suggested that allocating the 700 MHz band to mobile broadband would also provide the highest economic benefit to New Zealand, in the range of $1.1 to $2.4 billion over twenty years, largely from the reduced costs of deploying mobile broadband networks in this band compared to deployment in higher frequency bands. The Ministry has not identified alternative uses which would offer comparable economic benefits.

I think it is correct they have gone for the auction model to raise funds but would have preferred to have seen a percentage ring-fenced for iwi and other uses. Different estimates have put full auction at $100 million, $200-350 million and $500 million revenue for the Crown

However when considering the best use of the digital dividend in New Zealand it is critical to take the Treaty partnership into consideration. While supporting Iwi radio may not provide as high economic benefits as mobile broadband, it has immense cultural and social benefits for the entire community, in particular for urban Māori, Iwi and the Te Reo Māori revitalisation community. Now there is a big chance this issue will be taken to court slowing down an already tight timeframe to get it resolved before the end of the year.

Today’s announcement raises a number of questions that are important to the future of our economy, Internet and to Māori and I urge the Government to open up and consult the public.

Good on the New South Wales government for considering the quality of life of its residents and protecting them from the effects of noise, visual impacts and other effects of coal seam gas activities. Although rural residents also need protection from these effects, this is a good start.

It highlights the similar issue we face in New Zealand of oil and gas – including the controversial fracking practice – occurring near homes, schools and towns.

I think our Government and Councils should look at the merits of taking a similar approach with the oil and gas industry in New Zealand. Basic safe guidelines should be enforced along with greater opportunities for communities and the public to have a say when consents are considered.

There is no place for the oil and gas industry within our residential neighbourhoods, nor right next to our farmhouses. I was horrified recently to view photos from Taranaki of homes within 200m of gas wells and schools near fracking production sites. It’s another example of the light-handed approach we have taken to regulating this industry.

However, to avoid real safety risks and environmental harm, the better option is to focus on clean energy alternatives instead of ramping up production of climate-warming fossil fuels and allowing industry to drill within our towns and cities.