I haven’t seen any parents marching for the right to set up a Charter school or demanding more “freedom”. I have seen some of the overseas literature on the failure of the Charter model and it’s a sad and sorry tale about reinforcing inequality.

So ACT as in John Banks has persuaded the Government that Charter schools (a model of privatisation of the public good) will somehow make education work better for all. How this is supposed to happen via performance pay, cheery picking and lack of accountability is anybody’s guess. Undermining the public education system will not fix poverty and inequality but then not everybody really wants to. A low wage economy needs to keep some of its population unskilled and unemployed to keep those wages in their place.

If the Government really cared about education we might have discussed learning models at the Education and Science Select Committee. In the last three years we spent a tiny percentage of our time talking about learning let alone “reforms” like National Standards. We might have seen some mention from the Government of the Charter Schools option during the election campaign. However there was no public signal that privatisation of the public education system was going to be part of the new regime.

Without being melodramatic (or not very) I do find it an evil use of language. They are pushing the idea that low income communities would have more “choice” if the public system was competing with a privatised model of schooling funded from the public purse.

During the election campaign I launched our education policy at a primary school in Manurewa East which celebrates its cultural diversity and has wonderful support for its students. It was a happy place with music, colour, vegetable gardens and a passion for education.

Over the last two years I have been a regular visitor at a low-decile school in South Wellington which has just had a fantastic ERO report and has a very high standard of parental involvement. I could also wax lyrical about the Victory school community hub in Nelson and the incredible achievement record of Te Waiu o Ngati Porou kura in Ruatoria.  These are quality public schools and kura kaupapa. They are flexible and meet students needs without business rhetoric or models. Their secrets include dedicated teachers, community support and cultural respect

The Green Party is not saying the public system has no issues. Schools manifest our society with all its inequalities and challenges, but cannot of themselves fix the growing inequality. We know there are numerous issues that need work and resources. But we know what the word “public” means and what values and benefits it protects, and we are ashamed of what this Government is proposing to do.

The Green Party does not have a deal with the Labour candidate, Charles Chauvel, nor does it intend to ask its supporters to vote for him in an attempt to defeat Peter Dunne in the Ōhariu seat.

This rumour has come about because Dunne is using it to mask his own desperate dependence on the National Party for his political survival, after steadily losing support in the electorate.

Voters can decide for themselves how to use their two ticks strategically, they don’t need to be instructed.

In Ōhariu, just like in every other electorate, we are only campaigning for Kiwis’ party vote.

I’m not telling people who to vote for as their electorate MP in Ōhariu but I am upfront with them – I like Charles and I think Dunne is done: he’s out-dated and voters are tiring of his brand of bland ‘any way the wind blows’ politics. This is evidenced by his falling popularity in the electorate over the last three elections, as well as his dismal party vote throughout the country.

Our position is very different from National’s deals in Epsom and Ōhariu where they are telling their supporters to vote for the Act and United Future Party’s candidates.

Firstly, we aren’t contesting electorate seats anywhere, only campaigning for party votes.

Secondly, if we received 46% party votes, like the National Party received in Ōhariu in 2008 or 62% of the party votes, like the National Party received in Epsom in 2008 – we may well campaign for electorate votes in those seats. We didn’t, so we’re not.

Clearly it’s a very different situation we are in. National’s decision to support other parties candidates in seats where they have the largest share of votes, and would normally contest and likely win, is all about putting these two parties on life-support, for their own ends.

I’m talking about the new Consumer Affairs Minister, ACT MP John Boscawen who has been sworn in as a Minister as a result of the internal ACT Party ructions.

The climate science is so compelling and the need to act to reduce emissions so urgent I believe Boscawen’s ‘head in the sand’ denialism is egregious and dangerous.

Climate change isn’t just about the polar bears or penguins anymore. It’s about avoiding economic catastrophe, the inundation of millions of people’s homes and ultimately millions of people’s survival. Last year former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan published a report estimating 300,000 people die each year, right now, as a result of climate change.

I believe someone in Boscawen’s position who wantonly ignores the science and argues for inaction – condemning current and future generations to climate chaos is as embarrassing to have in the Executive as someone who thinks the Earth is still flat.

His latest, drawn last week, is an attempt to return us to the days of bulk funding by handing teachers’ pay over to Boards of Trustees. The Act Party seems to think it’s still the 1980s (or 90s), and Sir Roger is trying to drag us back to the halcyon days when everything was about individualisation and “public” and “community” were dirty words.

Ask members of the public like myself who have been on Boards of Trustees if we would like to set pay rates for the teachers in our schools and most of us will run screaming from the prospect. Ask most of us if we think bulk funding creates fairness and equity between schools and you will hear a resounding “you must be joking”.

But structurally supported fairness and equity are not on the Act Party agenda. This wouldn’t matter if Act were not a convenient coalition partner for the National Party, who make sure they look reasonable in the face of the Act extremes while steadily undermining aspects of the state school system.

Unless National has the smarts to vote this down at first reading we will have to go through a farcical debate over this bill, wasting time which we should be spending on progressive educational strategies to meet all children’s needs. What’s more, the advocates for a modern, equitable public education system will have to waste more time lobbying for the mitigation of dinosaurs. Welcome to the 21st century!

We are told that, “The last decade was, for the most part, a pretty good time in the world economy – but…[in New Zealand] the time has been lost and the improvement in the budgetary position has been frittered away on a succession of initiatives for which little robust economic case was made. We distracted ourselves with increased focus on fashionable causes and issues such ‘sustainability’[sic]”

Newsflash for Don – the business case for sustainability has been made, and it is robust.  Sustainable businesses are those that minimize their resource use and, through a combination of good product and service design, smart management and careful operational practices, maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of that usage. That saves money, enhances profitability, and is good for the environment too.

Sustainable businesses also invest in research and innovation and, above all, invest in their people, both to reduce the costs associated with high staff turnover, and to earn the loyalty that encourages staff to engage and make a positive contribution to the business in good times and bad.

Predictably, Don takes a swipe at the RMA.  Apparently  “…an increased focus on environmental ‘sustainability’ … and ‘smart growth’ strategies favoured by local planners, is seen by many as having inappropriately increased the hurdles that restrict development.” So ‘many’ would rather remove the hurdles to unsustainable development and dumb growth strategies?  I hope nobody puts ‘many’ in charge any time soon.

The simple question we need to ask is whether our economic future will be best served by a return to the destructive, short sighted policies that didn’t work in the 1990s? Or do we support a design based, responsive, and innovative business sector that is framing their practice around sustainability.  Seems a no brainer really.

“More  than  four percent of voters at the last election voted for New Zealand First,” Dr Norman said. “I am confident that a large proportion of those voters would give their support to the Greens with Winston on board.  It would give us the chance to break through 10%.”

Dr Norman praised Mr Peters’ political appeal: “David Garrett with ACT has proven the effectiveness of frequent foaming at the mouth and the value of being constantly on the offensive.  Winston would be able to perform that role for us.”

The Greens are also considering changing their Constitution as an incentive so Peters could succeed as Co-Leader when Jeanette Fitzsimons steps down at the Party’s Annual General Meeting on Queen’s Birthday weekend. 

“Having two male Co-Leaders would help dispel the image that we are too pro-feminist,” Dr Norman said.  “Of course Winston would be Co-Leader outside Parliament like I was when I was first elected.  But he has immense expertise in fundraising and managing electoral donations and already has a strong relationship with the media, so working as Co-Leader outside Parliament should be easier for him than it was for me.

… with the first year of the five-year commitment period under the Kyoto protocol almost over, square one is looking increasingly untenable. It has also become a rather expensive piece of real estate. New Zealand is the only country in the world to have fully elaborated both a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme and implemented neither. That takes some doing.

He goes on to criticise Labour for failing to get a cross party consensus, and National for backing away from a cross party consensus when Labour moved towards their emissions trading policy. He also chides the Greens for discounting National in the lead up to the election.  The Greens offered before the election to sit down with National and work on fixing up the ETS, since a number of the objections in National’s minority report the Greens agreed with and were already trying to negotiate to fix. Alas, John Key refused to discuss the issue. I am pretty confident that the offer still stands, John.

Most striking in the article  is Upton’s criticism of ACT and the select committee.

What fresh insights can a select committee of New Zealand politicians add to a subject that has been exhaustively canvassed elsewhere? Anyone who has studied the issue in good faith knows that there are no certainties and that it is a risk management issue. Picking holes in computer models or climate data is a path to nowhere and would make New Zealand a laughing stock.

I couldn’t have said it better. Oh wait. I already have said it. Many times. So has Jeanette. Good on you Upton. Pull us all up on it and tell us all to pull finger. Sage advice. The risks of inaction are too great. Too great for the environment, for society and for the economy. Too great to risk becoming the laughing stock at Poznan, or Copenhagen for that matter.

Why would a “mainstream” party that campaigned on an ETS – but a different one – set up a select committee enquiry into maybe preferring a carbon tax?

What does Key mean when he says the ETS will be “put on hold” when most of it won’t be operational for more than a year anyway?

Why would a government that has set a target of reducing greenhouse emissions 50% below 1990 levels by 2050, oppose and dismantle every measure that could help achieve that, while at the same time reviewing whether there should even be a pricing signal?

Why would a government that wants to be taken seriously internationally, on the eve of the next climate change talks, set up a committee of politicians to review whether the scientists of the IPCC, the Royal Society and NASA, etc., know what they are talking about, or whether an alternative view is “right”?

Why would a government that aims primarily at economic growth and positions itself as business friendly create such policy uncertainty that international investors withdraw from New Zealand?

Most of these bizarre situations can be explained by the transition from opposition to minority government.

Key has set up a carefully balanced government where he can go as far to the right as he wants and justify it as “Act made me do it”. But he doesn’t have to go an inch further than he is comfortable with – “sorry Rodney, Maori Party won’t go there”.

It will be a true National government, able to do pretty much what it wants.

So Rodney’s posturing about scrapping the ETS was just a distraction and a nuisance during government formation. “You want to scrap the ETS Rodney? Let’s put that to the select committee. You want to review the science? Good idea. They can do that too. You think a carbon tax would be better? Fine – let them consider that.”

So Rodney calms down and the government is formed. The test will be when the chair of the committee arrives with a draft terms of reference, and Act has only one vote on the all-party committee. What that will really tell us is whether National is seriously committed to major delay. Considering a carbon tax and reviewing the science as well as considering National’s proposed amendments to the Act would be a huge job. It would take well beyond 2009. Meanwhile taxpayers are covering the cost of 100% of our emissions. Oh – but high income earners will be paying less tax.

Of course, Act doesn’t really want a carbon tax. Neither does the Business Round Table (BRT) which has been advocating it. But it gives them three advantages:

• more delay – so there is no price for as long as possible;
• if there is a carbon tax, it will be low, and cause a huge political fight whenever a government tries to raise it. The BRT is talking of $5-10/tonne, while the international carbon price for quality units is around $30-40.
• A carbon tax can be repealed as soon as there are the numbers in the House. An ETS creates property rights and cannot easily be done away with.

Under these conditions it’s not surprising that the Greens are not leaping at the chance to go there. Also, trying to apply it to agriculture and providing assistance for industries competing internationally with firms with no carbon price create the same problems as with an ETS.

I can’t believe that Key doesn’t understand that the only part of the ETS that is operational before 2010 is forestry, and that to “put the ETS on hold” either means nothing at all, or it means taking away the credits for planting over this last winter, which foresters are entitled to expect under the legislation, and taking away the deforestation penalty. This would lead to a huge deforestation this summer for conversion to dairying – exactly what Nick Smith endlessly criticised Labour for during 2007. To “put on hold” the ETS would require legislation before Christmas to amend the starting date for forestry – with all the international derision and challenge in Parliament. My pick is it was a figure of speech to keep Rodney happy.

Rumour has it that when Key complained about the air travel emissions tax in the UK, he was told to pull his head in and get his own house in order carbon-wise before he became a laughing stock internationally. He may be finding the hard way that sound bites that go down well with the uninformed on the campaign trail raise eyebrows in informed circles around the world and are not so simple to implement.

It must have been embarrassing when Nick Smith announced the cancelling of the green homes insulation fund (negotiated by the Green Party as part of the ETS agreement) and Key was announcing infrastructure spending to keep jobs and businesses afloat during an economic crisis, that Brian Easton was saying on radio that the home insulation fund was one of the best ways to keep jobs going because it could be done fast with little capital and only a very short training period. So should we expect an amendment to the ETS legislation, which has cemented the fund in law, to remove that clause? Will it be called the “ETS (keeping NZ homes cold and damp) Amendment Bill? Will it be introduced before Christmas? I look forward to the debate.

It must be embarrassing that investors ready to build biofuel plants making fuel from wastes and low value by-products are putting plans on hold because the Biofuel Act may be repealed.

It must be embarrassing that the EcoSecurities Group, one of the world’s largest, most reputable carbon trading companies has cancelled its plans to set up in NZ because there is uncertainty over whether the ETS will proceed.

It must be embarrassing for Gerry Brownlee to learn that the so-called ban on incandescent lights, which he campaigned to get rid of, is actually an efficiency standard for lighting just as we have for dozens of home appliances; that the appliance efficiency programme has saved households $148 million on their power bills over 7 years; and that some incandescents, as well as halogens and compact fluorescents will all meet the standard. It must be worse to find that without that standard, many of the best quality lights will not come into NZ because our market is too small if most people are still buying crap. Woops, market doesn’t always work after all.

He will learn similar embarrassing facts about what the showerhead issue was actually all about when he is responsible for cancelling a hot water efficiency standard for new homes.

So the interesting question, which I intend to ask in the House at some stage, is how does National intend to meet its target of 50% by 2050 with no investment in home insulation; no regulations for energy efficiency; no waste-to-biofuel projects; presumably no economy standards for vehicles coming into the country (announced in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy but not yet legislated); transport investment hugely favouring roads over public transport; and an investment strike in new green technology because of the uncertainty over whether there will be an adequate price on carbon?

Sounds like an interesting term ahead.

Specialist news service Carbon News this morning reports broker Nigel Brunel, of OMF Financial, as saying New Zealand is “a bit of a joke in Europe at the moment” following the National-Act agreement to suspend the emissions trading scheme.

“This was New Zealand’s opportunity to reinvent its financial markets by being the Asian centre of the carbon trade.”

But this week’s announcement that the incoming government will put the ETS on hold pending a review that will go as far as considering a carbon tax instead of an ETS and will re-examine the validity of the science behind climate change, has jeopardised everything, Brunel says.

“We have just fallen off the radar in Europe,” he said. “They are saying ‘all you do is talk. You’ve been talking since 1992. You are all talk and no action. You maintain that you are so clean and green and try to be leaders and all you do is nothing. You make a decision and then you change your minds. How can we do business with people like that? We can’t take you seriously’.”

Well, I confess that I have never taken Rodney Hide very seriously, particularly when it comes to his science.  Europe is into its fourth year of emissions trading. Claims of New Zealand leadership from National and Act during the campaign were fallacious.

All I can say is that I am looking forward to the blow torch of lobbyists coming onto National and Act, hard and fast. Oh, and the Maori party and UF too. They stood on the sidelines and threw stones while the rest of parliament got on with the challenging work of coming up with an ETS agreement that could get a majority in parliament. Even though it was our second choice, we Greens rolled up our sleeves and engaged with the real work.

Now John and Rodney have re-opened Pandora’s box and there will be hell to pay as the lobby groups from all sides pony up the big cash and the big guns. Meanwhile, the very allies and trading partners that National and Act say we should emulate are actively putting in place their own schemes. And we wonder why we look the fools on the international stage. Bad timing boys!

It could be their campaign theme song perhaps?

Labor is struggling in a rising Green tide around the nation, with the minor party now laying claim to being a mainstream player after ousting the ALP from majority government in the ACT.

If Key keeps on smiling through personal attacks – and reassuring New Zealanders that, under his watch, this country won’t go belly up – National might win the election.

Which, in these crazy MMP times, is not the same as being the next government.

The election is not about winning and losing.  It’s about ensuring different political views are fairly represented, proportionally in parliament.  And hopefully where those views share commonalities working together to debate issues and develop legislation and policy. That’s not crazy, that’s a strength of MMP.

The Greens have a record working with all parties in parliament where our views coincide with theirs.  If we were to treat parliament as a game of winner takes all  we can head back to the Muldoon-Douglas era where governments could pass policy without building any coalition of consensus around it.

Oh, and while I’m writing about Coddington, what about this bit:

The Nats’ “handmaiden” Act deserves trust because they’re not scared to state unspeakable truths, such as global warming being a hoax. Rodney Hide was uncharacteristically understating when he said we’re overly nanny-bossed – in Taranaki, residents are stockpiling saveloys and condensed milk, fearing the products – like lightbulbs – will be banned.

Pu-lease!  Can anyone name me one person who has had their lightbulbs taken off them, or has been refuse the right to eat the food they want to eat?  Let’s move on from this distortion of the truth.  Expecting schools to stock healthy food is not the same as forcing children not to eat pies.  Phasing out production of inefficient lightbulbs in favour of efficient ones is not a serious breach of the Bill of Rights.  After all it is the Coddington-right who always talk about technology moving on and cars replacing horses and carts because they are more efficient.

And this:

Last week Sir Roger Douglas intimated Act’s bottom line for supporting National is Hide and himself in cabinet, and Key could do worse than give Douglas education. His unfinished business could stare down the strident teacher unions and nasty principals’ federations, and lift standards by giving choice and power to parents and families.

Gotta love Act’s honesty on education policy. It’s like; we’ll have some good schools and some bad schools, and you get to choose which to go to, and it will be first in, first serve.  Sorry, too slow. You missed out on the school you wanted because it’s already full of wealthier, less-melanin rich children, but don’t worry, your voucher is also redeemable at McDonalds.

Like a ghost from Christmas past, Sir Roger re-emerged in the somewhat incongruous setting of the Te Awaharahi Marae deep in rural Waikato.

Addressing a large hui of unionised Maori nurses, he held forth on how much they would benefit from Act’s intention to cut taxes while privatising the health system and ACC, forcing people to take out private health and accident insurance.

The response to Sir Roger was underwhelming, but I have to admire his gumption in standing for Parliament again at his rather senior age, twenty years after he and the fourth Labour Government gutted the economic infrastructure of the country, putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

The impacts of what Sir Roger and his colleagues did in the 80s are still felt keenly in places like South Auckland, Northland, the Bay of Plenty and Tairawhiti where a lot of the ongoing unemployment, poverty, family violence and crime is a direct or indirect result of what happened way back then.

My deepest fear now is that with or without Act as part of the mix, a National-led Government would be more than happy to lead us all down the same path again, putting into place policies which deliberately create unemployment while further harassing and penalising those who end up in the benefit system as a result.

The authorisation statement looks like a clever, if somewhat grumpy little dig by Act.  But the reality was that Act had to authorise electoral advertisements even before the Electoral Finance Act passed this year. Not much change to free speech there that I can see.

(The other outrageous claim the ad makes is that Rodney and Roger are ‘two of New Zealand’s greatest speakers’. Bwah ha ha!)

In a week where we’re in Parliament and a guy gets gunned down and we can’t keep our streets safe and our businesses safe we have people running around saying [at this point Hide starts gesticulates pointedly at the contents of his rubbish cube] this is your rubbish for the week.

The Greens have managed to keep their rubbish cubes from overflowing with banana skins for over a year and also got a number of private members bills passed in that time, as well as influencing a number of government policies.  But if Rodney wants to blame Act’s lack of ability to take action on violent crime on his new little rubbish cube that’s his call.