NZ Centre for Political Research

This week's poll asks:

If New Zealanders had the same opportunity as the Swiss to approve or reject legislation within the first 100 days, do you believe the emissions trading scheme would have survived?

*Feuhrer behaviour is seen in most tribal animals,its genetic. The Swiss control it by rotating senatorial chairmanship annually. Max

*The general public over here seem to be quite left-leaning - or perhaps just not very well informed so allowing them binding referenda with an initiation threshold as low as 50,000 is likely to make matters worse in NZ. Gary

*The Emissions Trading Scheme is nonsense-on-stilts, based on bad science. It will add unhelpful layers of cost and compliance effort to businesses and consumers already badly stretched to be able to afford to be in New Zealand. Bucket-headed stupidity at its worst. Andy

*At the time there was much hype about the Copenhagen conference on climate change Graham

*This ludicrous scheme will impose a huge cost on all New Zealanders. The U.S. has quietly shelved their scheme and Australia is unlikely to pass theirs. In the highly competitive area of world trade our greatly increased cost base will leave NZ sucking its thumb like the Global village -idiot we will fast become. Doug

*Still a majority following the global warming (wait no make that "climate change") path. Can't help but think the balance is shifting - it's just not there yet. Key has read the polling so he has his finger on the pulse of opinion right now now. What he has not considered is the trend of opinion on this issue. Either way the 100 day limit would have forced debate and that would be a good thing!! Colin

*Good-on-you - don't give up. Peter

*The late Augie Auer summed it up neatly when he pointed out how little anthropogenic C.O.2 is actualy present in the biosphere. Michael

*But only because they have been fed, almost exclusively, alarmist dogma that is strong on political agenda and light on genuine science. As more evidence of junk science and suspicious agendas come to light some 'brave journalists' are beginning to be published. Yet most people have fallen for the imminent doom story. It's a brave government that will come out and challenge climate alarmism with climate realism. John

*Would 100 days for the information from the pc left-leaning media to wake up the average NZer be enough when the power companies don't even know how the ETS will impact everybody? You're telling me DonKey is counting on his sex appeal with women, to effectively delay him from making hard decisions for the betterment of our country. Until he engages his brain and does some critical thinking and reasoning that racial separatism is not going to progress NZ, this woman won't find him appealing at all. Monica

*It's a mischief - can it! Ian

*John Key and co. are wilfully or otherwise,ignorant of the truth. Catherine

*The tide has turned against the ETS and global warming. Graham

*I would suggest that the word "Opportunity" be substituted for the word "Right". It will never happen in N.Z. unless we the people force upon our Political Masters a Constitution whereby they have to obey its decrees in law. Brian

*No, but perhaps “Yes”. Given the average Kiwis belief in a “clean, green EnZed”, & their in-built sense of socialistic fairness, plus a touch of credulousness, coupled with “punching above their weight”, then potentially “Yes”. However, the economic cost of the ETS hasn't, as yet, been shafted home. If every household in the country was sent a bill for $3,000 p.a. ( minimum ), saying this is what you will be paying in extra tax & costs for electricity, fuel, food, etc. as of July – all for a measly gain of 0.006 C lowering of “global temperatures” ( provided that the unproven hypothesis of AGW is correct ) …. Then perhaps, just perhaps, the futility of the exercise would sink in. Oh, and by the way, it looks likely that you'll be the only mugs paying for this – not even the Australians are that stupid ( thanks be for their Senate ). Dave

This week's poll asks:

If New Zealanders had the same opportunity as the Swiss to approve or reject legislation within the first 100 days, do you believe the emissions trading scheme would have survived?

*Just because an opinion has the support of a majority does not mean it is right. But at least the majority have to live with the consequences of their own decision. Mike

*Voter apathy would have succumbed to self interest. We can show that not all Kiwis are sheep. Jonathan

*Definitely not, neither would the "anti-smacking bill" and doubtless many other unpopular measures. Ron

*There must be a political backlash if this disaster goes ahead. Rob

*Why is it we always have to be first? Wait and watch, then decide .. John

*It is incredible that Parties can forget whom voted them in and go their own way, National is NOT listening to the Voting people and Labour still cannot see why they lost and is still being told what to do by their old leader Goff admits he is in constant touch with her. National needs to watch as they could lose their numbers with many changing to a minor Party that listens. though at present this is not coming to the fore, ACT has lost its chance with taking on R.D as many of us remembers his past nasties, Greens do not go outside the square and the Maori party only has one agenda which is NOT to be One Country/ One People. and Winston P well he was always a One Man Band...we need anothr Party that sticks to its promises. Marylin

*I believe it would, not that it should. Our press and media are generally unprepared to face up to the challnging truths which organisations such as NZCPR, and Ian Wishart in his book "Air Con - The seriously inconvenient truth about Global Warming". Graham

*Nick Smith has put his reputation on the line with the ETS bill. John Key weakly rushed to Copenhagen with Smiths ETS bill fearing the poll ratings if he did not follow Lucy Lawless et al on their climate change crusade. Repeal the bill or at least defer its start. Irvine

*It is all a farce anyway Well known scientists are now changing their minds. Judith

*The scheme is based on poor research with no factual basis. Louis

*It was used to get Clark a job in the United Nations. John

*It would not have survived because the people don't want to be lumbered with the expense at least until there is reliable evidence to support climate change. Peter

*I completely agree with your view on both the arrogance of the governments refusal to throw out the ETS. No no one wants this unnecessary tax along with Sue Bradfords Anti Smacking bill. Jim

*Governments are scared of referenda as they think they know best. Pat

*The Emmission Scheme is a Dodo dead as the Moa, Mexico will not resurect this tax devouring dinosaur of the clark era. Swiss Referendum has real merit, but maybe we need to limit referendum voting to citizens with real vested interest, not just tourists in their own country who live off the handouts of others or subsist in a rented sphere of no responsibility whilst being non productive consumers. Perhaps the criteria of rate paid landowner should apply. I can think of other referendum advantages, would the nation be magnanimous in giving away its volcanic icons or its rivers if they had 100 days to object. Vern

*Despite it being "established" AGW appears to be healthilly disbelieved by NZ'ers. As for the ETS - it seems every body knows that's shear lunacy - it wouldn't stand a chance in a referendum. Ron

*I would like these following ancient words of wisdom, which well cover this and lots of other issues:

What have we learned in 2,064 years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance--- Cicero, 55 BC. Evidently nothing. EJ

*Of course it wouldn't have survived! Robin

*Of course not. The man-in-the-street is not stupid although the Government (whichever party)thinks we are. It's time we had more direct say, such as binding referenda, as we can't trust the politicians to act sensibly. Sheila

*More and more thinking New Zealanders are seeing through this farce for what it is. Noel

This week's poll asks:

If New Zealanders had the same opportunity as the Swiss to approve or reject legislation within the first 100 days, do you believe the emissions trading scheme would have survived?

*At the time of Al Gores film which received widespread support and acceptance the "realists" had not had time to prepare an alternative and opposing point of view. The impetus against the global warming theory needed more than 3 months to become an effective contrary alternative so it would have needed more time. That is why voted "yes", it would have survived. I still think the ETS is a load of rubbish and hopefully will be consigned to the waste paper basket. Mike

*This government stubbornly won't admit to being wrong, and is being obtuse, when contrary evidence to that promoted by our "scientific" IPCC mouthpieces, is offered. Jack

*I think we really have voted for more of the same with John Key continuing the nany state dictorial atittude of the previous governments policy, please let us remain a true democracy. Neville

*Assuming the public was fully informed as to the E.T.S. consequences. Peter

*That's always been the problem, as in your article - Governments get in on a promise but then completely ignore the people they represent. John

*The Emissions Trading Scheme must be abandoned before New Zealand suffers yet more damage from John Key. He is only concerned with issues that will win the next election for National, to the detriment of New Zealand Limited. Ernest

*No comment, we all know that the ETS is a jesus big scam. With Rothschild bank being the winner. Sam

*Definitely not. This scheme is a case of international blackmail. Are our politicians afraid that we may lose credibility with the world community? Now naive. Our survival is at stake and most NZers are aware of this. Keith

*Get your head out of the sand Prime Minister, and Nick Smith and back off this farcical ETS scheme. Robert

*And the ETS legislation may have never been introduced by the Labour Govt so this govt would not have had to act at all. Simon

*We simply can not finacially, afford such a scheme is there nothing cheaper available for small, poorer countries? Sheila

*I think the ETS would have survived because New Zealanders are often too busy trying to survive or are indifferent to politics to take any notice of what is going on until it is too late. 100 days would not have been enough to change when the likes of Lucy Lawless get stuck in and influence the less than 30 year olds to vote green. Bill

*NZ is a very small emitter yet the ETS will cost us heaps. It is a no brainer and should be scrapped. Graeme

*Will the increased cost of power and petrol from 1 July do anything to retard climate change? NO! All the ETS is going to do is cost the taxpayers more, even before GST is due to rise. The ETS is a scam! Laurence

*Come on John Key convince your idiot Climate Change Minister that the ETS must at very least be suspended, preferably repealed. Smith has proven his idiocy in the case of the McKenzie Country Dairy Farming debacle when he stated that the cost should be based on the money the Company stands to earn for the Resource Consent. Not be charged for the actual cost!! This is tantamount to a car company saying to a Taxi Company you will earn X amount with this car so you must pay an amount for the car commensurate with your future earnings!! Smith is in the wrong party, he should be in the Greens or some other party on the RED side! Jim

*It is a disgrace that this Bill got as far as it did. The Sunday before the Bill was passed I wrote to all National and Maori MPs expressing my grave concerns. Nick Smith very quickly answered back with this feeble reply "Please read our policy from elect 2008 on ets. We r doing what we said we would do. Nick" IMHO Smith should resign as it is his Dogmatism that pushed this undemocratic bill through. Sally

*I believe the emissions trading scheme would have survived, because there are too many gullible people in NZ who have been conned by the lie that is man-made global warming. Maria

*Because of the gullible, brainwashed young NZers, not used to thinking for themselves. Jill

*The ETS is a sensible start to putting a price on carbon pollution. I think a direct tax on the polluters - coal fired power stations and internal combustion engines would be the more efficient way to REDUCE CO2 emissions. Brian

*A referendum makes people think and speak up. Werner

*The whole idea is crazy and has the ability to bankrupt the nation. Carol

*This question calls loudly for a 'don't know', or 'insufficient knowledge' option. Geoffrey

*There was huge hype and the media appeared to favour the global warming side of the debate but I still think sufficient New Zealanders would have wanted more proof if not only because of the extremely ridiculous costs involved (which doesn't change the climate anyway!). It really is all about money again. Colleen

*Perhaps even the controversial tax cuts may have been stopped with the "100 day" time limit. Susannah

This week's poll asks:

If New Zealanders had the same opportunity as the Swiss to approve or reject legislation within the first 100 days, do you believe the emissions trading scheme would have survived?

*ETS=Extra Tax System. ETS=Employment Termination System. Direct quotes from Queensland senator Banaby Joyce. Mark

*The ETS would have died in light of the corruptions now revealed regarding the whole carbon emmissions scandal (it's no more than a glorified legalised Ponzi scheme). Is it not interesting that most of those objecting to the kyoto, carbon emmissions, ETS, ... all had comments on the falsifying of data even before it was proven. Very interesting ... and the politicians (to save face and I'm sure also to rack in money) defended what is now proven to be so flawed and skewed - yet they still hang on.....!! Yes there is a need to curb pollution, but the dealings by IPCC and costly reccommendations will not resolve that. It's greater than CO2 (carbon emmissions) which sufficient reports have now shown is over-rated. Other more toxic and environmentally harmful emmissions are being swept aside by the fever and hype over CO2. Walter

*I don't think that there is a shadow of a doubt on this! The ETS is poorly conceived, based on bad science (there is not a shred of reputable scientific data which supports either global warming or mankind as a significant influence on it), and politically motivated. Given the choice, NZers would have shown considerably more caution and wisdom than our government and would not have approved the ETS. Michael

*Or at least I'd like to think that it would not The problem is that for some of these issues the evidence comes in fragments and it takes time for the evidence to become irrefutable. Often much longer then 100 days. Lech

*Time the politicians of all parties were made accountable to the public of NZ. They are our servants NOT our masters as all of them think they are. Clive

*No - or at least probably not. The anti-smacking law would clearly have been defeated, and it is also pertinent to realise that if we had a truly democratic system in place there would be no Maori seats in Parliament and few - if any - Treaty settlements at taxpayers' expense. Our "democracy" is a disgraceful sham. John

*Not a snowballs chance in hell! I've written to the PM and pleaded with him to show some spine - unfortunately I now believe he's a complete amoeba and a spine is totally absent. Grant

*Now they want to mine more coal to send overseas! Lorna

*Yet again your article is totally correct. If we had a Swiss-type of democracy which trust the comon sense of the majority who, one needs to add, are kept well informed. something we lack. Tony

*I would say probably not because in those early days there was much confusion about the subject - moving from "global warming is true and we had better do something about it" to "This is a natural phenomenon and an ETS will not make a blind bit of difference". If the opportunity to vote on the legislation was offered now I believe it would be soundly defeated. Margaret

*Global warming has been a scam from the word go. Will Al Gore be in charge of the bank handling carbon credit/debits. Ian

*The ETS is complete and utter bunkum. Albyn

*It is time our GUTLESS, SPINELESS P,M, started to listen to us - we are NOT stupid like Nick Smith and the ETS should be filed in the rubbish bin immediately, along with the anti-smacking stupidity and a word of advice to Key & Co. - listen to the people who put you in power, because believe me you will not be re-elected if you carry on down the path you have chosen with your Maori mates, who you DO NOT need. And when this bill is repealed, take back the public owned land you gave as a bribe to get the Maori support - it was not yours to give away. Bring on Swiss style referenda. The ETS must not happen. Carolyn

*Not if the bill was re presented now. Back when it was passed it was an almost even split. Too many people were only for the bill on pollution grounds which is the main issue still. Chris

*No WAY this was a Labour generated policy and National just went along.... Carl

*Agriculture is now a trade exposed industry since Australia have decided to exclude agriculture from their scheme - which hasn't even passed yet. Alan

*It seems ridiculous we should disadvantage ourselves when the major countries are rejecting the scheme. Why not wait and come in when other countries do? Bob

*Nor would Sue Bradford's "no Smacking" bill. Tony

*It wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell! Ordinary NZers have more common sense than that! Jacky

*Yes it probably would. The proponents of global warming are far more effective in arguing their case than opponents, and the NZ public is so gullible. Brian

*I don't believe that the ETS would have made one bit of difference to NZ other than the huge cost. Graham

*I think it is also the Swiss, who only allows a new law to be enacted if an old law is revoked. Rob

This week's poll asks:

If New Zealanders had the same opportunity as the Swiss to approve or reject legislation within the first 100 days, do you believe the emissions trading scheme would have survived?

*Although, possibly "yes", since the FUD and unbelievable media-bias in favour of the global warming scam is so complete. Most NZers below the age of 30 or so, maybe even 35, have lost the ability (or have never possessed it) to think critically and not just be lead like dumb sheep. Indeed, most of the "west" would now be correctly identified as "sheeple". Still, we should not be surprised: the "west" is simply reaping the "rewards" of 2 massive acts of stupidity - voting for socialist, humanist, godless politicians, and rejecting God. The 2nd one being the chief problem. Peter

*Voted National last election, next vote will be simple choice, ETS goes ahead - National does not get my vote. John

*ETS will still fail. No-Spine-Key will railroad it through and EVERY business will pack up and leave. Then he will look to the individual tax payer to foot the bill. Then his house of cards will come tumbling down. He deserves whatever he gets. Mark

*Definitely not. Neither would that ridiculous anti-smacking legislation, and that socialist mob would never have lasted for nine years. Jim

*No way would it have survived! It was always just money making at the expense of the people, together with a propaganda campaign to indoctrinate children and some naive adults. Aphrodite

*Global Warming has not been proven to be unsubstantiated. The majority of New Zealanders, who are far more intelligent than John Key gives them credit for, understand this. It will cause unnecessary price rises and hardship to families already struggling, and to achieve what? To put more money in the Government's coffers based on lies and deceit by the IPCC. Margaret

*NZs have enough wisdom to reconice a con and This has to be the biggest con of my life time Nobody has come out and said where all these carbon credits go I presume they make the rich richer. Russell

*The ETS is based on lies and deceit. We cannot afford such corruption. Peter

*It will never happen here as successive Governments in NZ ignore public opinion and do exactly as they please. The ETS scheme is a perfect example. I will not vote again as there is no difference in any party. That is unless Muriel Newman and common sense returns to Politics. Chris

*HELL NO!!!! But then i've forgotten what Democracy was! For the first time in my life ... if there was an election tomorrow, I wouldn't vote! No party is listening to me! Andy

*The biggest problem is that John Key has been captured by Nick Smith on this issue. A majority of the National caucus wanted to ditch the ETS but Key ignored them and made an executive decision based on the ramblings of Nick Smith. What will it take to change JKs mind? Maybe in next years election he might get a wake-up call from the electorate!!! Dave

This week's poll asks:

If New Zealanders had the same opportunity as the Swiss to approve or reject legislation within the first 100 days, do you believe the emissions trading scheme would have survived?

*Throw it out along with the smacking bill! Get back to an honest government ruling on what "the people" want. Trish

*Yes, and it still should be thrown out. Bruce

*I voted for change - not more of the same. Ian

*NZ is not a true democracy. As you say, we are ruled by an elite who don't give a toss about the view of the ordinary voter. The only thing democratic is that we do get the chance to vote once every three years. After that, they rule like it was a dictatorship! Bring on a Swiss type system, I say! Rebecca

*Your latest dealing with the Anointed has a familiar ring with events in the US (see below). Al

Repeal

Fellow Americans,

Late last night, in a narrow and partisan vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the most significant piece of social legislation in over seven decades. It did so in the face of overwhelming and principled opposition from the American people. Large majorities of Americans oppose this legislation because it offends the historic American dedication to the principle of self-government. They understand that this new law will accelerate Washington's intrusion into our most personal and private decisions.

This is why opposition to this bill will only grow. Supporters of this bill argue that popular hostility will recede upon its passage. But, rather than cementing our descent into a European-style welfare state, last night's passage of Obamacare is best seen as a historic turning point, a true catalyst for real change.

I write to reassure our supporters, the conservative movement, and the American people at large that The Heritage Foundation will do all within its power to keep this issue alive in the public square and make the intellectual case for the repeal of this act. We will bring all our resources to bear on behalf of those who believe America is and will always remain the Land of the Free.

This, rest assured, can be done. The American people are never permanently thwarted. President Obama's health care legislation can and will be repealed.

Those who supported this bill are our fellow Americans, and we do not question their good will or patriotism. In public policy, however, good intentions alone do not suffice. And let there be no mistake, our philosophical differences with supporters of this bill are profound. The reason government-run health care has been the holy grail of the left for decades is that liberals realize as much as we do that it is a giant step toward the creation of a European-style welfare state. This is an evolution Americans have always resisted because it is alien to our national character.

If there is one good thing about the past year—one in which we have witnessed unprecedented horse-trading, press stunts, midnight votes and political manipulation in both houses of the U.S. Congress—it is that the American people have come away educated as never before about the differences between these two visions for America. Americans are strongly opposed to this bill not because they have been hoodwinked but because they understand this bill both in its particulars and at an instinctive, gut level.

They understand this health care bill forces individuals and employers to buy insurance policies designed by government bureaucrats. This intrusion is intended to follow us from cradle to grave.

Instead of empowering families and individuals to make their own choices, Obamacare empowers the bureaucracy to make those decisions for them. It is this unelected bureaucracy, unanswerable to the electorate, that will determine the content of health benefits packages, including medical treatment and procedures, and how much will be paid for those services. Yesterday's legislation brings us one step closer to fully government-run medicine, with expanded government power over the financing and delivery of medical services that is sure to ration care in the name of cost control.

You will hear the left say this new entitlement will be popular with the American people. Do not believe them for a second. Yes, 32 million people will gain the theoretical right to health insurance. But over half of that coverage comes from placing at least 16 million more Americans into Medicaid, an unpopular and overextended welfare program that already rations care.

Americans will not stand for it. The American love for liberty prevailed in our founding, and will prevail once again.

In December of 1773, to protest unjust taxation, a group of American colonists dumped tea in Boston Harbor. The punishment for that first Tea Party was a series of intrusive laws passed by Parliament that were so oppressive that they could only be described as the "Intolerable Acts."

Obamacare is today's Intolerable Act. And just as the colonists banded together to enact change after those acts were passed, so should America respond to Obamacare. This law must be repealed.

Much of the fight against this bill will be led by the individual states, a process we encourage. All told, 33 states have already taken steps to challenge various aspects of Obamacare, including its unprecedented mandate that every American purchase health insurance or face a steep penalty for noncompliance. Four additional States will have this question on the ballot in November.

On Capitol Hill, the initial battle over Obamacare will occur when Congress considers whether to fund the tens of thousands of new federal bureaucrats necessary to implement the new law. In the tradition of the Hyde amendment, which prevented federal funding for abortions through annual limitations appended to appropriations bills, conservatives should look to the appropriations process as our first line of defense. Straightforward funding limitations would prevent any Administration official or any bureaucrat from implementing the law.

Our health care system requires reform, and we have long advocated measures to improve our system. We can and should strengthen the ability of American families to choose the coverage they want, rather than giving that power to Congress and its agency bureaucrats. We can also spur competition and choice to bring efficiency and lower costs to the health system, in place of the bill's deadening regulation and damaging price controls. And, above all, we should foster state innovation rather than Washington-based central planning.

But such reforms can only be considered once this tragedy of arrogance has been fully and completely repealed.

Fortunately, there are no permanent victories or defeats in Washington. For millions of Americans and for Heritage, Round One of this fight is over. Today, the Heritage Foundation is answering the bell for Round Two. Join our fight; become a part of our mission. Help us educate our lawmakers, as well as those who aspire to become tomorrow's lawmakers. Together we can make the persuasive case for repeal of this Intolerable Act and thereby return us to our American destiny.
Onward!

Sincerely,
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
President
The Heritage Foundation

This week's poll asks:

If New Zealanders had the same opportunity as the Swiss to approve or reject legislation within the first 100 days, do you believe the emissions trading scheme would have survived?

*My goodness, many stupid laws passed by governments over recent years would never have seen the light of day if the public had been given the right of veto. There is no chance that the ETS would have survived! Jim

*I like the idea of the 100 day moratorium on new laws - but I wonder if there are any parties with the foresight to campaign for it? I suspect not! Sue

*Neither the emissions trading nor the anti-smacking law would have survived. It would be interesting to see the legislation passed in recent years because I suspect quite a bit of it would have been thrown out - like the stupid dog laws. Timothy

*I have sent an email to John Key asking him to suspend the ETS but I suspect he won't listen - because he might offend the likes of Lucy Lawless! It is pathetic to find out that our Prime Minister has no guts! Grace

*Anything that lets us get rid of the ETS has to be good! Brian