Here come the law suits, but Megan Woods doesn’t care: Quote:

Energy Minister Megan Woods is playing down the risk of being sued over a ban on new offshore exploration permits, saying legal advice backs the decision.

Rumours have been circulating for weeks that the industry may take legal action over the April 12 announcement, with speculation mounting when industry publication Upstream published a report, quoting unnamed sources, claiming offshore seismic operators were considering a challenge.

The new policy will see onshore blocks in Taranaki offered for the next three years, with no new blocks offered offshore.

Under the Crown Minerals Act, the Government has an obligation to promote exploration, as a means of creating a stable investment environment, but Woods said the decision to offer new onshore permits for the next three years covered that obligation.

“We have received advice in terms of our obligations under the Crown Minerals Act, in terms of the ability of people to sue,” Woods said.

“We did carry out a block offer in 2018; the obligation under the Crown Minerals Act is to promote the exploration of various minerals, and oil and gas, and we are doing that. We currently have out for consultation, at the moment, an onshore offer” for oil and gas exploration, Woods said.

This covered the Crown’s obligations.

“The process for block offer isn’t something that’s defined in the act. It’s a process that was brought in 2012, by the previous government. There is nowhere in the Act that defines how often that acreage has to be offered up. There’s nowhere in the Act that defines whether it has to be onshore or offshore.”

Asked if she was satisfied by the legal advice that the decision would not be successfully challenged in a judicial review, Woods responded: “Yes.” End quote.

Just like Chris Carter thought his decision over a marina was not able to successfully challenged with a judicial review. He lost that, and pretty much screwed up his career as a result. I think Megan Woods is heading for the same end result. The fact that it was a political decision made with no advice to cabinet pretty much screws her and Princess Cindy-pants. Quote:

The report in Upstream claimed the International Association of Geophysical Contractors “will lead any legal response”, but in a statement the Texas-based organisation said it was its members which were assessing the issue.

“The IAGC is unaware of the sources who allege we are leading a legal challenge,” the organisation said in a statement.

“IAGC members are still considering avenues to realise a return on their significant investments in New Zealand’s energy security,” the statement continued.

“The geophysical and exploration industry rely on consistent and transparent policy decisions by governments. An arbitrary end to exploration disrupts business certainty, as major investments in New Zealand have already been made by companies with a reasonable expectation of future activities.”

The issue appears to centre around work which the seismic companies undertook on a speculative basis, in the hope of selling it to exploration companies in the future. In areas not covered by existing oil permits, the value of the data could be zero.

National MP Jonathan Young, the MP for New Plymouth, where much of New Zealand’s oil industry is based, said he had heard of the possibility of legal action.

“The challenge is around breaching the CMA [Crown Minerals Act], that is supposed to not be breached in order to create a safe platform for investment around the sovereign risk issue,” Young said.

“I reckon there’s probably multiple reasons why a legal case could have some traction.”

Young said that the losses by some companies were in some cases significant.

“We all know that Schlumberger lost $150 mil[lion],” Young said. Schlumberger has not responded to requests for comment.

Young believed an international player may be prepared to lead the legal challenge.

“These are people who don’t have the same sentiment as New Zealanders. The only thing, it’ll look like big oil coming to take on the righteous government.” End quote.

They might think they are righteous but they have condemned 8000 people to unemployment, caused Methanex to review whether they should continue or not costing further jobs, increased risk of massively increasing our carbon emissions, and all so a princess could virtue-signal to Euro-prats.

A company that has lost $150 million can certainly chuck another $10 million at the issue and make the government justify their decision. It could prove embarrassing for the prime minister and the minister.

Jacinda Ardern has lost the moral high ground and the high horse she rode in on has gone lame.

Hamish Rutherford explains: Quote:

There’s a saying in debating, that it doesn’t matter whether you’re right or wrong, as long as you’re sure.

It can feel the same way in politics, even though it shouldn’t be that way.

For all the power held by bureaucrats to frustrate decision-making with inconvenient advice or warnings of unintended consequences, sometimes a very small group of people simply decide something will happen, and that is that.

So it turns out to be the case with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s decision to end new offshore oil exploration in New Zealand.

Since Ardern led a group of Cabinet colleagues into the Beehive theatrette to announce the move on April 12, there has been mounting speculation about just how little detailed analysis was undertaken behind the move.

It had already become clear that key agencies (Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade) had provided no advice.   

Officials at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment had been openly grumbling to the industry that they were being side-lined.

National leader Simon Bridges said he had been told by officials that they were explicitly being asked not to provide advice on the decision (something the Government denies).

But only on Tuesday did New Zealand learn that whatever advice was provided, it ultimately meant nothing.

This was not an agreement made around the Cabinet table, by New Zealand’s most powerful body, acting in the best interests of New Zealand, bound by collective responsibility.

It was a political deal, struck after intense lobbying between the leaders of political parties, who agreed what was going to happen. The Cabinet was informed after the fact. End quote.

That is why it is likely to get challenged in the courts. Ministers who have acted unilaterally in the past have had their decisions over-turned in courts. Quote:

Cabinet is the room where many political promises ultimately die because bright minds convince the body that the consequences are too great or the outcomes will be different to what politicians hoped they would be.

It is little wonder that Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones made such petulant showing when the announcement was made: dragging his feet, covering his eyes and grabbing the lectern as if it was a brace.

For all we know, Jones heard about the decision when Energy Minister Megan Woods informed the Cabinet that a deal had already been cut.

In fact, it appears that the deal was the subject of exhaustive meetings and discussions, amid warnings from the Beehive that from time to time, this is how decisions will be made in this coalition.

But this is not how Government should be done. En d quote.

New Zealand has long lectured Fiji about decrees, In Fiji at least the decrees when promulgated by the President have actually been through cabinet. Quote:

But process matters and this is a major decision, which could impact New Zealand’s energy security in years to come.

The Cabinet manual states that matters which are significant in policy terms, are “controversial matters” or could impact the government’s financial position, must be submitted to the Cabinet.

This decision is all of those things.

While Woods has made it clear that eventually the matter will go through the Cabinet process, the executive branch of Government is in an impossible position.

What happens if when a Cabinet paper is submitted, it contains some awkward truths?

Perhaps it will say that enacting the plan will lead to coal being imported, because New Zealand will run out of gas sooner than expected.

The Cabinet will be forced to go ahead with it anyway, because of how silly it will all look if it backed down, irrespective of the consequences.

If the Cabinet is to be constrained in this way, what is the point of having one? End quote.

Indeed…and then we have a dictatorship, with decisions being made on the PR-worthiness to the prime minister offshore. Quote:

There are famous examples of the Cabinet ignoring official advice and history eventually showing it was right to do so. Treasury warned that Kiwibank would never be financially viable and the Government of the time went ahead and did it anyway, creating a company which helped lower bank fees across the industry.

In this case, Cabinet ministers are reduced to functionaries, carrying out the bidding of the party leaders.

The Government’s supporters have been quick to point at examples where National did similar things.

Sir John Key’s decision, made when he was Opposition leader, to override the decision-making processes of Pharmac in promising to fund breast cancer drug Herceptin is a perfect example that every Government is the same in the end.

Politicians ultimately the reserve the right to shortcut the decision-making process to come to the conclusion they want to.

But for a Government which proclaims its values and promises openness and transparency, it is on a fast track to losing any moral high ground.’ End quote.

I well remember the opposition castigating John Key for politicising Pharmac. But like most politicians hypocrisy is a handy quality to have.

Labour has screwed up again, talking big, this time about their so-called Amazon tax.

Well Amazon has a message for the government and it is GFY. Quote:

Doubt has been cast over a plan to make foreign firms levy GST on all internet shopping purchases after retail giant Amazon said it would not play ball in Australia.

A New Zealand tax change – which has been expected take effect in October next year – would end the current situation angering local retailers, under which most goods valued at less than $400 can be bought online from overseas tax-free.

Australia plans to become the first country in the world to require big foreign firms to levy GST on all internet sales to consumers, with the law change due to take effect there from July this year.

But Amazon in a surprise move said on Thursday that rather than levying and collecting the tax, it would instead block Australians from buying from its overseas websites, which includes its main Amazon.com store.  

From July, Australians will only be able buy goods from Amazon’s smaller Australian store, which opened last year. It offers a narrower range of goods at what are often higher prices and does charge GST.

Amazon would be complying with Australia’s new tax law by blocking Australians from its overseas stores – but not in the way Australian consumers or governments on either side of the Tasman might want.

Amazon does not yet operate an online store in New Zealand. End quote.

And is unlikely to operate one here. They will follow what they have done to Australia and the cash windfall the government was expecting will evaporate.

Essentially Amazon has said they don’t want to play. Quote:

That means that Amazon could be completely closed to Kiwi shoppers, if the New Zealand government pressed ahead with the GST change and Amazon took the same approach here that it has announced in Australia.

Satya Marar, a spokesman for the Taxpayers Union lobby group, said Amazon’s move put the New Zealand government’s plan in peril.

“If this happens in New Zealand, Kiwis will be denied access to about 500 million products, most of which are unavailable locally.” End quote.

Some of us will get around the issue, it might add a couple more steps but it certainly won’t stop me. But it will stop the vast majority of Kiwi shoppers. Quote:

But Amazon’s stance is more problematic, given its size.

The New Zealand government is still consulting over its proposed GST change, with public submissions due by June 29.

But Revenue Minister Stuart Nash appeared to already be counting the pennies in the May Budget. 

He indicated the tax change was definite and was likely to raise $218 million over four years, with that revenue stream “increasing each year as online shopping continues to grow”.

Officials made that calculation on the assumption that foreign firms accounting for three-quarters of overseas internet purchases would levy GST as requested.But the loss of Amazon sales could make a big hole in that forecast.

Nash was not available for comment on implications of the developments in Australia. End quote.

Oops. Yet again the law of unintended consequences. Another case of a lack of joined up thinking from Labour.

Credit: Luke

John Armstrong thinks that parliament and the role of the speaker are in dire need of reform. He writes at the 1News website: Quote:

The bitter exchanges between Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and Trevor Mallard in his capacity as Parliament’s Speaker has exposed a yawning gap in the fabric of New Zealand’s democracy.

Quite simply, the current procedure employed to select one of Parliament’s number to fill the role of Speaker is archaic, unfair and unacceptable in falling well short of meeting acceptable constitutional standards.

In short, there is a drastic need for reform. End quote.

Strong words, and not without some validity either.Quote:

The New Zealand Parliament needs to take a close look at how some of its overseas counterparts choose their Speaker and —perhaps of even more importance —the steps taken to bolster the independence of the holder of that office.

The findings of any such review might shock this country’s MPs. It would expose the constitutional complacency which pervades the appointment of the presiding officer in Parliament’s debating chamber.

The crux of the matter is the neutrality of the Speaker. More to the point, the level of confidence that Opposition MPs have in the neutrality of the Speaker is a major factor in determining their mood and behaviour in the House.

The role of the Speaker is often likened to that of referees in a sporting context. There is a vast difference, however, between referees on a sports-field and someone umpiring the proceedings of Parliament.

The former are assumed to be neutral until proven otherwise. As far as the Opposition is concerned, the latter are assumed to be biased and partisan until proven otherwise. End quote.

Mallard is hopelessly biased, as was Margaret Wilson. Lockwood Smith was a superb speaker, David Carter initially was inept and slowly improved but not by much. Quote:

As Mallard so accurately remarked just moments after securing the job in November last year, the office of Speaker has tremendous authority. To make the role effective, however, respect is required — and that can only be earned.

Mallard expressed hope “that I can earn it”. Seven months on from that plea, it can be safely assumed that respect for him is less than zero in National’s neck of the woods.

The major Opposition party’s frustration with Mallard has been building all year.

National’s prime gripe is that Mallard’s definition of what counts as disorderly behaviour under Parliament’s debating rules is stretched far too wide.

This results in him constantly intervening to tell MPs off for minor misdemeanours, thereby making it more difficult for the Opposition to apply the kind of sustained pressure needed to put Cabinet ministers on the spot and hold them to account.

Mallard’s introduction of a penalty regime which sees him reduce the number of questions allocated to parties when their MPs breach the rules has only succeeded in angering National even more.

The final straw has been Mallard’s hunt for the National MP whom he claims he heard interject with the words “stupid little girl” in reference to the Prime Minister.

So far, Mallard has yet to come up with evidence that such an interjection was even uttered let alone who was responsible for making it.

Given the absence of evidence, any other Speaker would have given the Opposition the benefit of the doubt and left it at that.

Mallard, however, carried on his pursuit via the media, prompting a sternly-worded “please explain” letter from Gerry Brownlee, National’s Shadow Leader of the House.

He expressed National’s “serious concerns” regarding Mallard’s chairing of the House, adding that National’s confidence in the Speaker had been “significantly shaken”.

Brownlee’s letter set a deadline for a reply. Not surprisingly, Mallard ignored both the letter and the deadline. He was not of a mood to be seen to be responding to pressure from National.

In turn, National MPs have considered conducting mass walk-outs of Parliament along with lodging a motion of no confidence in the Speaker.

Such protests have only symbolic value, the governing parties would use their majority to block any such no-confidence motion. End quote.

I’ve heard that Winston Peters isn’t too happy with Mallard either and that a delegation of Ardern and Peters visited Mallard and told him to pull his head in. That was before the latest fracas. If National wants to pull the no confidence motion then they better read the tea-leaves right and have coordinated with Winston Peters or it will fall flat. That said, I understand that if National times it right it is well on the cards that they could win such a motion. Quote:

Things are starting to get very serious, however. It will be interesting to see whether the protagonists in this unholy row will have taken advantage of the the current recess to talk to one another about how to reduce the acrimony.

A dysfunctional Parliament serves no-one’s best interests.

The whole sorry affair highlights the glaring faults in the system used to appoint the Speaker.

Note the word “appoint”. The notion that the Speaker is elected is a charade. The choice is the prime minister’s to make.

He or she is not obliged to consult with the leaders of the Opposition parties represented in Parliament.

Were there such discussions and were all the parties truly unanimous in their choice for the post, the Opposition would have buy-in to the process and would have no comeback if the new Speaker turned out to be a walking disaster in the job.

National might well argue that Mallard made the choice for Jacinda Ardern no choice at all.

He had already served time in the lesser role of Assistant Speaker. He had heavily telegraphed his desire to hold the prime title. Had Ardern picked someone else, it would have been regarded as a huge snub.

Mallard’s appointment was thus a fait accompli. The only apparent nod to all-party co-operation is the convention that the Opposition does not nominate an alternative candidate, thus ensuring the new Speaker is elected unopposed and has the backing of the whole House.

This apparent outbreak of cross-Parliament unity is illusory. It lasts about as long as it takes to complete the age-old ritual of dragging the Speaker-elect from his or her seat in the chamber to the hot-seat of the Speaker’s chair. End quote.

And no one likes Trevor Mallard, making the whole charade even worse. My understanding is that there is talk of replacing Mallard with Ruth Dyson.Quote:

Other jurisdictions elsewhere have worked out that the Speaker’s capacity to be truly independent requires more than than the vain hope that he or she can overnight put years of enmity with political opponents to one side.

That is a big ask of human nature. The answer is to actually remove the Speaker from the milieu of day-to-day politics and decision-making.

That means going a lot further than the Speaker absenting himself or herself from their party’s weekly caucus meetings as has occurred in New Zealand.

For starters, the parliaments in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom all elect their Speakers by secret ballot, thus giving all MPs some say in the choicerather than simply rubber-stamping whomever the prime minister picks for the job.

The British House of Commons goes further. Any candidates for the office of Speaker must have their nominations endorsed by at least three MPs from a party other than their own.

Once ensconced as Speaker, the holder of the post is required to cut all formal ties and affiliations with the political party they have previously represented.

It is also standard practice that the Speaker gets a free run in his or her electorate at general elections and that other parties do not stand candidates in his or her seat.

There are other means of enhancing the independence of the Speaker, such as preventing him or her from casting his or her vote in Parliament on contentious pieces of legislation.

The logic driving such requirements is that the Speaker’s fortunes should be completely divorced from the fortunes of their former parties.

All this is far cry from the New Zealand Parliament.

Back here, radical reform of the procedure for selecting and endorsing the choice of Speaker first requires recognition that there is a problem that needs solving.

That relations between Mallard and National have hit rock bottom should serve as a much-needed wake-up call. But don’t bet on it. End quote.

John Armstrong is a bit pink in his outlook, but that is a very good piece from him, well considered and one that the politicians should sit up and take notice.