| 2007-8
letters to the New Zealand Prime Minister from Dave McArthur
|
||||||
|
|
Recent
letters to Rt Hon Helen Clark, 29 April 2008 Good Morning
Prime Minister I just heard your
brief comment on National Radio concerning the proposed sale of the
Wellington wiring grid used for powering many domestic and commercial
appliances and for both local and global communication. You suggested it
has no strategic value and implied it cannot be compared to the Auckland
Airport. You are correct
in your comparison but not as you intended. The Wellington wiring grid
is one of the region’s most potent resources whereas the Auckland
Airport will soon have little value as such. This is because humanity is
exiting the Cheap Oil/Gas Age. It is now transitioning to the Great
Solar-Electrical Age. Air travel, as we know it, will soon be a sunset
industry. The community wiring grids are about to become an essential
and incredible source of wealth to those communities who can develop its
broadband, Distributed Electrical Generation capacity and its
intelligence potential. The NZ
Electricity Industry Reform Legislation (1993, 1998) is a most effective
piece of legislation. It is designed to repress the capacity of all New
Zealand communities to make intelligent uses of their local potential
and this it does. It is now costing New Zealand many billions of dollars
annually. However the Wellington region is at far greater risk than most
because it has neither control of its local grid nor access to its
potential intelligence. It is true that
two North American companies have owned the Wellington grid in the
recent decade. There is much we can learn from this experience.
I worked for one of them – TransAlta- and directly experienced
the systematic way the Calgary company, in conjunction with Arthur
Andersen and Co, gutted the Wellington region’s electrical potential
for the benefit of the company’s principal shareholders. I experienced
the ruthless ways the management exposed Wellington families to threat
and risk. After TransAlta
sold out I observed the further rapid deterioration of the region’s
electrical potential to the point where if the trend had continued the
pole structure would literally have fallen over in the next big storm.
Fortunately the grid was returned to New Zealand control and I
catalogued Vector’s active regeneration of critical elements of the
pole system. You can see a small photo essay of this collapse at http://www.bonusjoules.co.nz/Ellectric%20Thinking/Pole%20photo%20Essay/pole%20vision.htm Note: the essay
is written in a spirit of kindness to the key players involved in the
saga. It only took one
brief decade for this destruction to occur under the North American
owners. The destruction is apparent in ways that are not immediately
obvious. The future of the Wellington region, as with all regions, also
lies in its capacity to use its electrical potential to provide cheap
reliable transport systems. Wellington City had a considerable
electrical transport resource in place by the 1980s and this too has
been systematically run down in the last decade to the point where the
trolley bus system is at the point of collapse. If it does collapse as
“feeder lines” fail (I am not sure of the correct term) then we can
expect the region’s economy to further implode in debt as the prices
of mineral oil and gas rise - as they will. I will paste
below a letter I found recently that I had published February 2005 in my
local community broadsheet here in Wellington. As you can see my
predictions are being fulfilled with great accuracy. The inflationary
pressures we are experiencing at present are relatively minor and are
generated by our continued wasteful uses of mineral oil/gas at $US80 a
barrel. The next wave of inflation from the fact the mineral oil is now
over $US100 has yet to arrive with all its destructive mayhem. It may
well sweep away the current maladapted Labour Party and vital elements
of our nation’s civic structures. I know I am not
alone in understanding the epic transition humanity is in. I talk to
many people in the street who comprehend the reality of the situation.
They cannot comprehend the “idiocy” of our Parliament. Perhaps it is
because your advisors fail to inform you that each 42 gallon barrel of
mineral oil contains the equivalent of 25000 man-hours of labour which
we can use to do much of our pushing, pulling and lifting in our current
economy. As such we should be valuing this extraordinary resource at
thousands of dollars a barrel and ensuring we get maximal benefit from
its consumption. The reality is
that New Zealand maintains vast systems of hidden subsidies to sustain
our current wasteful uses of mineral oil/gas. A potent example is our
mass use of combustion engines (cars/trucks) and their support systems,
a national use of the resource that completely and needlessly wastes
over 24,500 of those precious man-hours of labour potential, often in
the process of performing non-productive tasks. It has been
apparent for at least a decade that you have been very poorly served by
your advisors, including the Hon Michael Cullen. They have derided
people like myself and I recall some of these advisors at the time of my
2005 letter confidently predicting mineral oil would be retailing at
US35 a barrel in 2008. Check out your own advice flow and you will see
history supports my observation. I now predict the
price of mineral oil will effectively reach thousands of dollars a
barrel in our children’s life-time, thus putting global food and
health supplies at enormous risk if the principle minority users of this
potent resource do not adapt their behaviour. I also predict
that countries that begin now to voluntarily put such a high price on
mineral oil/gas and adapt their systems accordingly will generate wealth
and promote harmony. I predict that
those nations and communities that fail to voluntarily put such a price
on mineral oil/gas will experience such prices regardless. They will
experience the high price in the form of increasing inflation (loss of
wealth), destruction of pension funds, loss of resources and “credit
collapse”. These nations and communities will also tend to become
great sources of conflict and violence among humanity. It is clear that
New Zealand is at present a leading example of these latter countries.
We put little or no value on mineral oil/gas: We subsidise
wasteful uses of mineral oil by a factor of maybe $5 for every dollar
the motorist pays at the pump. We lead the world
in promoting carbon trading (a psychology that puts zero value on
mineral oil) and we reject carbon taxes (a psychology that places value
on mineral oil). Our troops play
pivotal roles in pivotal places like Afghanistan maintaining the global
use of drugs, weapons and wasteful uses of mineral oil/gas. I like to think
this will not be your ultimate legacy, Prime Minister. I will forward
this letter to others, including the Mayor of Wellington, Wellington
regional councillors and others in the hope that our region can be
salvaged. My hope is that people may catch of glimpse of our carbon,
electrical and solar potential that results in them experiencing a new
vision of the potential of the Wellington region’s wiring grid. Yours sincerely Dave McArthur (85 Houghton Bay
Road Wellington 6023) The Editor The Cook Strait News For publication please A year or two back I stood up at a meeting discussing regional transport investment priorities and suggested the exercise was pointless. The investment programme was based on the recent Government predictions that oil would be $19 a barrel in 2004. I predicted it would be over $40. Many thought me a nutter. I will now predict that without the sudden appearance of an extraordinary leader like US President Carter, oil will be close to $80 a barrel in 2008. Already lower income people are being hit by the inflation resulting from rising oil and gas prices. Their plight is set to worsen sharply. In this context, the trolley bus wires are gold. Sure they are not pretty. However note how incomparably elegant they are compared to ugly, noisy monstrosities like car-clogged Adelaide Road, Riddiford St, Taranaki St or Jervois Quay. Just know the wealth in those wires, folks! Dave McArthur May 2 2008 Prime Minister New Zealand Dear Hon Helen Clarke A few months ago I wrote to you a note suggesting that Hon Michael Cullen is an immense liability to the Labour Party. I am now ready to go one step further. I believe history will judge him the worst Finance Minister since before 1935. He inherited remarkable favourable circumstances in 1999 with a mandate for sustainable change. Mineral oil was retailing at $US9.98 a barrel and other commodities such as mineral gas, steel, copper etc were at historic lows too. He has consistently dismissed people like myself who have attempted to point out this fact to him and he has continued to promote very wasteful uses of these extremely valuable resources. He had a fantastic opportunity to reshape our profoundly unsustainable economy using these cheap resources and he blew it. Now with these resources increasing 1000% in price I am witnessing the inevitable inflation, loss of homeownership and rising household debt that I, and I know others, predicted to him if he continued with the folly of his ways. I now predict New Zealand taxpayers and those investing in KiwiSaver will lose the vast proportion of these investments. It is a scheme destined to create much tragedy and misery. The only beneficiaries will be a few money pushers who are guaranteed small fortunes at the expense of the poor people in New Zealand. I consider myself one of those “poor”. My income last year was $80 over the Community Services card threshold – thus I find my effective income has dropped some hundreds of dollars this year as I lose access to health services, home insulation investment schemes, rates rebates etc. My income is further eroded by inflation that far exceeds official figures – many of my essential items have increased by 100% since 2000. Indeed this letter is stimulated by the fact that this room is now 16.8 C, which is below the WHO recommended levels of 18C, and I have just had to pull out a blanket to wrap around me as I write. It is a reminder that for the next several months I will struggle to keep warm and my cottage will often be 10C. I am not writing for myself. I am writing to remind you and Hon Michael Cullen, surrounded by beautifully warmed air in your offices, of what many New Zealanders will again soon experience. We are forced through our taxes to subsidise car-owners, arms companies and money merchants with the result that we cannot afford sustainable housing. History will judge your Administration very unkindly that you took the money of low paid people to prop up the rich. Here is one of the reasons why I am so certain that KiwiSaver will work to bankrupt the poor of New Zealand: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,druck-543588,00.html Germans Fear Meltdown
of Financial System
By
SPIEGEL Staff Germany and other industrialized nations are
desperately trying to brace themselves against the threat of a collapse
of the global financial system. The crisis has now taken its toll on the
German economy, where the weak dollar is putting jobs in jeopardy and
the credit crunch is paralyzing many businesses. ….. Political Dynamite
For some
time, there has been a tacit agreement among central bankers and the
financial ministers of key economies not to allow any bank large enough
to jeopardize the system to go under -- no matter what the cost. But, on
Sunday, the question arose whether this agreement should be formalized
and made public. The central bankers decided against the idea, reasoning
that it would practically be an invitation to speculators and large
hedge funds to take advantage of this government guarantee. Everyone
involved knows how explosive the agreement is. It essentially means that
while the profits of banks are privatized, society bears the cost of
their losses. In a world in which the rich are getting richer and the
poor poorer, that is political dynamite. Nevertheless,
central bankers are running out of options. They are anxious to avert
the nightmare scenario of a financial crisis like the one that rocked
Germany in 1931, when the failure of a major Berlin bank prompted a
massive run on other banks by a nervous public, which plunged those
banks into insolvency. For decades, a repetition of that disaster had
seemed unthinkable. But ever since former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan
dubbed the current financial crisis the worst since the end of World War
II, old certainties have no longer applied…” Alan Greenspan is correct and what is not stated in this article is the underlying reason for the credit collapse is that the vast expansion of credit was based on the premise that mineral oil/gas are cheap resources that will last forever. Hon Michael Cullen’s inability to understand the fatal flaw in this premise is why KiwiSaver will impoverish most New Zealanders. It is also why his investment of billions of dollars in motorways and air travel will mean they act as active drains on our nation’s wealth. Schemes like KiwiSaver and Carbon Trading also actively work to increase the now very high likelihood of a hideous global war by 2015 caused by as the world’s car-owners, jet users etc squandering our remaining easily accessed mineral oil/gas reserves. Alan is correct about old certainties no longer applying – never before have 6.6 billion people relied on cheap mineral oil and gas to provided 5 out of every 6 calories required to put a calorie of food on the plate of the average human being. I have been writing to you for 7 years now and have never had a response that indicates you get to read these letters. I will post it on my website www.bonusjoules.co.nz so that the world can know that I tried to communicate with you. There must be something you can do to wake Hon Michael Cullen up to the insanity of his policies. Written in hope Dave McArthur 85 Houghton Bay Road Dear Prime Minister A few
months ago I wrote to you and made what may have seemed an extreme
statement: Michael Cullen and his KiwiSaver scheme put your Government
and the nation at major risk. I made that
statement on the basis of my knowledge of his understanding of climate
issues, his continual inability to understand the issues surrounding our
addictive use of mineral oil and its impact on inflation and credit, his
approval of the Transpower Cayman Islands deal and his inability to
understand that the Electricity Reforms are fundamentally flawed.
It is becoming clear to me that KiwiSaver is going to cost New
Zealand billions of dollars and lead to great hardship as credit systems
based on the equation Mineral Oil = Energy collapse. I have pasted
below a few links that reinforce my case. I do not expect a
reply to this. However I do expect you and your office to read it and I
will publish accordingly. No one in the Labour Party will ever be able
to say your Government was not advised of the risks of Michael’s
policies and KiwiSaver in
particular. The tragedy is those valuable funds if invested in light
rail, intelligent uses of our electrical and solar potential and quality
design and insulated buildings could have been a great source of wealth
and health for us Yours sincerely Dave McArthur http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/opinion/03krugman.html?th&emc=th Innovating Our Way to Financial Crisis By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: December 3, 2007 The financial crisis that began late last summer, then took a brief vacation in September and October, is back with a vengeance. How bad is it? Well, I’ve never seen financial insiders this spooked — not even during the Asian crisis of 1997-98, when economic dominoes seemed to be falling all around the world. This time, market players seem truly horrified — because they’ve suddenly realized that they don’t understand the complex financial system they created.... “What we are witnessing,” says Bill Gross of the bond manager Pimco, “is essentially the breakdown of our modern-day banking system, a complex of leveraged lending so hard to understand that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke required a face-to-face refresher course from hedge fund managers in mid-August.” ..But what has really undermined trust is the fact that nobody knows where the financial toxic waste is buried. Citigroup wasn’t supposed to have tens of billions of dollars in subprime exposure; it did. Florida’s Local Government Investment Pool, which acts as a bank for the state’s school districts, was supposed to be risk-free; it wasn’t (and now schools don’t have the money to pay teachers).
Also from nyt http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/world/europe/02norway.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin Narvik,
Norway, is an unlikely link in a chain of investor misery. Published: December 2, 2007 Ms. Kuvaas is the mayor of Narvik, a remote seaport
where the season’s perpetual gloom deepened even further in recent
days after news that the town — along with three other Norwegian
municipalities — had lost about $64 million, and potentially much
more, in complex securities investments that went sour. ...Tiny
specks on the map, these Norwegian towns are links in a chain of
misery that stretches from insolvent homeowners in California to the
state treasury of Maine, and from regional banks in Germany to the
mightiest names on Wall Street. Citigroup, among the hardest hit,
created the investments bought by the towns through a Norwegian
broker. For Ms. Kuvaas, being in such company is no
comfort. People here are angry and scared, fearing that the losses will
hurt local services like kindergartens, nursing homes and cultural
institutions. With Christmas only weeks away, Narvik has already missed
a payroll for municipal workers. .... As
the losses begin to bite, the political finger-pointing has begun.
Down the hall from Ms. Kuvaas, the town’s opposition leader, Torgeir
Traeldal, is calling for an investigation of how and why Narvik could
have made such an ill-advised investment. “Heads are going to roll,” Mr. Traeldal said,
repeating the phrase a few times to drive home his point. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/storm/content/state/epaper/2007/11/30/m1a_flafin_1130.html State stops leaders from
ditching fund
Palm Beach Post Capital Bureau Friday, November 30, 2007 TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Charlie Crist and other state
leaders Thursday temporarily halted all further withdrawals from a
state-run investment pool in hopes of keeping the fund from becoming the
latest casualty of the ever-expanding maw of the subprime mortgage
meltdown. Even though the fund has consistently made money
for local governments since it was created 25 years ago, those
governments had pulled nearly $13.5 billion from the pool in the past
two weeks, including $3.7 billion on Thursday morning. ....If the pace of recent withdrawals had
continued, the state board could have been forced to sell the pool's
troubled securities at a deep discount and left some governments with
the losses. "What happens to the participants who have the
last $2 billion in the pool?" Sink said. "They get zero." Sink, who requested the emergency board meeting
Thursday, said the remaining investors should help decide the next step
so "the pain can be shared." .... Dedert, whose most recent deposit into the pool was
Wednesday, said she has only about $30 million on hand to pay the city's
bills and is liquidating all available accounts. She said she hoped the
state would let the city make some withdrawals to pay employees and make
debt payments. "All our excess cash is there," she said.
"I'm robbing Peter to pay Paul." At the emergency meeting Thursday, state board
Director Coleman Stipanovich tried to offer a five-point plan that he
said could reverse the run on withdrawals. His first point was to use the Florida Retirement
System to guarantee the riskiest debt in the local government pool. In
return, the pool would pay an insurance premium to guarantee against any
losses by the retirement system, which administers the pension fund used
by state employees, including teachers, and many county officers and
employees. "If we don't do something quickly, we're not
going to have a local government investment pool," Stipanovich
said. But Sink immediately rejected the proposal, saying
it would leave the pension fund with the bad notes. "We would be bailing out one fund, to which we
have no legal obligation, with the star fund of Florida, which is our
pension fund," Sink said. "I'm highly skeptical of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ_qK4g6ntM For a funny and terrifyingly accurate commentary
watch this video.
18 Dec 2007 Dear Helen and all Recently I wrote to you attempting to alert you to the fact that the ignorance and arrogance of Hon Michael Cullen is a massive liability for your Government and our country. I draw your attention to this article today 'Host of risks' in super schemeThe Press | Tuesday, 18 December 2007
The Government's multibillion-dollar KiwiSaver superannuation scheme has been slated by the Retirement Commission, which questions its huge cost and its value for money. I, and I know
many others, have attempted to communicate with Michael Cullen over the
last several years and attempted to alert him to the unsustainable
nature of our use of carbon and the need to revoke the 1998 Electricity
Industry Reform legislation so communities are re-enfranchised and can
make intelligent use of our electrical potential again. Michael has refused to acknowledge that our current use of carbon is putting us all at great risk from the combine effects of human induced changes to the global climate and the destruction of fossil fuel reserves. Instead he has poured public funds into more motorways and promoted wasteful uses of mineral oil, thus inducing a state of inflation into our economy that is now going to have exponentially destructive effects. He has destroyed the ability of many of our young to own a home, burdened families with huge personal debt and high interest rates and I predict he will become to be known as the man who destroyed our brilliant Universal Superannuation scheme. I write as a person who has been a labourer all my life (I am at present a school caretaker cleaner), have a heart murmur caused by a damaged bicuspid heart valve, am aged 60 and have damaged most limbs during my 40 years of physical work in all terrains in all weathers and I live in a partially insulated 80 year old cottage that in winter is often 11 degrees Centigrade. I earn $13 an hour - the same as I earned in 1990 though my council rates have gone up 50% since 2000 alone, my Bulk-generated electricity kWh charge has almost tripled in that time, my bus fares went up 30% this last year alone and other basic costs have risen with some foods doubling during the last two years. Michael has
provided the next Government with all the political leeway it needs to
say that we can no longer afford Universal Superannuation because we
have the option of KiwiSaver. I, a common labourer, have been predicting for four years now that oil will be selling over $US80 a barrel in 2008 with huge inflationary impacts while Michael scorned people like me and predicted it would be about $US35. I also predicted that if he invests on that about $US35 basis – which he proceeded to do - then we will suffer a massive credit crunch and one of the first resources to be destroyed is the equity of the KiwiSaver. I am 95% certain that all the taxes he is pouring into the fund will benefit no one but a few sharebrokers like Mark Weldon and company. I am convinced Michael would have been far wiser to invest in electrical mass transport in our urban areas and let me keep my taxes on the proviso that I invest it in insulation and smart uses of my solar and electrical potential in my home where it will not be destroyed by the coming credit collapse. I fail to see why your Government is pouring such huge subsidies into the money brokers. It only increases the high risk of credit collapse! Excuse me if I sound slightly irritable – if I am it is perhaps understandable as I was woken in the night more than one by my right arm going numb, then waking me with a blaze in burning pins and needles as the blood flow started again down it. Years of repetitive work on picks on rocks, hammers, nearly five hours last night vacuuming and scrubbing toilets plus having had the shoulder blade torn off its mount when a meter box broke loose plus having had the should ripped out of its socket when a large man opened a lobby door in a hurry onto my arm as it was stretched into a meter cupboard plus a crunched thumb from a fall on a construction site makes me vulnerable. However I am not irritable. I am not complaining for myself. I am simply saying Michael Cullen, in his arrogance and his ignorance, is failing a large section of very vulnerable New Zealanders while pandering to the whims of uncaring money traders. For instance the taxpayer’s money he is committing to them via the $60 a year "transaction fee" could quickly amount to a billion dollars - especially as I predict a large number of the accounts will become dead accounts in quick time as poverty deepens and people emigrate. That billion dollars would have insulated many New Zealand homes. Yes I know you have programmes in place insulating homes but they are just token investments compared to the scale of the problem and your investment in inflation causing superschemes and car subsidies. In short
KiwiSaver is far more of a terrorist threat to New Zealand than any
and its proponents are to be fear far more than any group
like Tuhoe or greenies or stroppy peacenicks. Kiwikiller is going to be
a real killer. A KiwiKiller. I doubt that you
want this as your main legacy. I suspect it will become quite a bit
matter of discussion next year. Michael with his reframing of Universal
Superannuation has accomplished what some National Party people have
dreamed of doing for decades but did not know how. Understand this is not a request to dump Michael as Finance Minister. Rather it is a request for him to change, to listen to the people who have been correct in predicting the impacts of our carbon, solar and electrical use and give less regard to his current advisors who are clearly out of touch with reality. Respectfully yours Dave McArthur 85 Houghton Bay Road 'Host of risks' in super schemeThe
Press | Tuesday, 18 December 2007 The
Government's multibillion-dollar KiwiSaver superannuation scheme has
been slated by the Retirement Commission, which questions its huge cost
and its value for money. In
its three-year review of Government retirement policy, the commission
found KiwiSaver was a generous incentive scheme to kick-start the
nation's woeful savings habits and was likely to provide a boost to the
economy and capital markets. However,
it said there was a host of risks associated with the scheme, including
an unknown cost, in-built unfairness, the scheme's complexity, bias
against the self-employed and its hasty introduction. The
commission said costly additions made to KiwiSaver by Finance Minister
Michael Cullen in the May Budget meant the retirement industry would
never know whether the original scheme, without the taxpayer subsidies,
would have been just as effective. KiwiSaver
was "turbocharged" by Cullen this year with the addition of a
$20-a-week matching tax credit for everyone paying into the scheme
through their employer. Employers
were required to match the contributions up to 4 per cent of salary, and
the Government offered another $20 tax credit for employers. This was on
top of a $1000 kick-start and a $5000 first-home buyers' bonus. At
the time, the cost of KiwiSaver Mark 2 was estimated at $2 billion a
year by 2016-17. However,
the commission said that beyond that point the bill could balloon
substantially, yet no forecasts appear to have been done. "The
swift introduction of more generous and costly incentives in KiwiSaver 2
has made the fiscal cost of KiwiSaver a more significant issue,"
the commission said in its report. "The
costs of KiwiSaver beyond 2017 are not available. These costs can be
expected to continue to increase for some time as more people join than
leave. "The
incentives are now a significant cost that future governments will have
to consider. "The
danger is that these costs become too high, and something has to
change." The
commission said that in a worst-case scenario, New Zealand's universal
superannuation would have to be cut to fund KiwiSaver. "Reducing
the advantages of New Zealand Superannuation would hurt more people more
seriously than cutting KiwiSaver would," it warned. The
commission said that if the original KiwiSaver had been left to run as
planned, the Government would have gained a better understanding of the
effectiveness of the design. "Given
the probable disinclination of politicians to reduce incentives, New
Zealand is likely to be locked into a high-incentive, high-cost system
without ever knowing whether a lower-incentive, lower-cost system would
have been just as effective." The
commission said KiwiSaver would compound the gap between those who had
saved and those who had not, threatening the equity and fairness of
current retirement income policy. It was more likely to be taken up by
people who were saving already. "The incentives in KiwiSaver come
out of general taxpayer funds. Whether
the incentives are an unfair subsidy from non-savers to savers is a
debatable point," the commission said. It
also raised concerns about the cost of universal superannuation, saying
there was great uncertainty around how fast life expectancy would
increase. Current
policy did not take into account the increase in life expectancy and New
Zealand super was likely to cost more than envisaged, it said. It
also flagged concerns over falling home-ownership rates and rising house
prices. Retirement
Commissioner Diana Crossan said Government retirement policies were
working "reasonably well" for those in, and approaching,
retirement, but there were danger signals. "On
balance, New Zealand's retirement income policy has been remarkably
successful and is world-leading, but there are some unknowns creeping
into the environment - some early signals that make us concerned." 85 Houghton Bay
Road The Prime
Minister Dear Helen I am writing to
you about what I believe are the most critical issues of our time –
our unsustainable uses of our carbon, solar and electrical potential and
our lack of science (democracy). If our children have a future, and this
is very much in doubt now, I believe they will judge the failure of the
Fifth Labour Administration to address these issues as a gross
dereliction of duty. Their survival will have occurred despite, not
because of your Administration. Indeed, if your Administration remains
on its current course it will be seen to have set in place mechanisms
that enabled fascism to flourish in New Zealand. First I state the
prime objective of this letter, which is to again request your response
to the following proposal as outlined in my letter to you 30 July 2007. The Electricity Reform legislation be amended to
permit democratic communities to once again own local wiring grid and to
trade electricity of all forms on them, including that generated from
Bulk, Micro, dwelling and other means. While they may buy Bulk-generated
electricity on the NZ Electricity market they are not permitted to own
Bulk-generation plant (To be defined). They also will be permitted again
to use community profits from these activities to promote local
dwellings as generators using glass, insulation, solar water heating and
other technologies. Democratic communities will also have the right to
use Maria compliant metering of their choice, including reversible
meters, and the right to broadcast dwelling information using broadband
or radio based metering to all agencies that are approved using the
democratic processes of the community e.g. broadcast to community based
trading, research and consumer protection groups. A prerequisite for the right to own a local
wiring grid and to trade electricity over it is that all members of the
community with rights to vote in national, regional or hospital board
elections shall have the same right to vote in how local wiring and
electrical trades are administered. It seems wise to
take this opportunity to enlarge onto a wider topic that I have been
meaning to write to you about for some time now. I watch your
Administration struggling as it fails to comprehend the reasons
underlying the current collapse of our society as measured in excessive
interest rates and debt, growing violence and poverty and homelessness.
Central to your problem is our Parliament’s inability to understand
that any economy that makes addictive use of our carbon resources and
that relies on constantly expanding population will collapse amidst
great misery. Also central is
that while you and many Members of Parliament show considerable
awareness of the power of symbols your use of our most vital symbols
(e.g. energy, power, warming, greenhouse, change, science,
climate and electricity) is unsustainable and puts us all at great
risk. All our political
parties, including the Green Party, are unsustainable. I observe that
the National Party, which epitomises this ignorance, is effectively
dictating our legislative programme for at least three years now. The
Labour Party has a choice: continue with the status quo and become ever
more redundant and dangerous or to begin to articulate solutions to the
great issues I outlined in my introductory sentence. I can predict the
redundancy of the current Labour Party with considerable confidence. I
have developed a principle I call the Sustainability Principle of
Energy: “When a symbol use works
to deny change it will materially alter the potential of the universe
(energy) in a way that results in a reduction in the capacity of the
symbol user to mirror reality. When a symbol use works for the
acceptance of change it will increase the capacity of the symbol user to
mirror reality.” This is a tool
that effectively enables us to predict whether a strategy puts humans at
greater or lesser risk long term. In
brief, analysis of a wide range of your Administration’s policies
suggests if they were adopted universally humanity would face
catastrophic collapse. I have some
proposals, some quite simple, that will enable the Labour Party to
become meaningful and sustainable. They will enable the Party to engage
the New Zealand people with a realistic and hopeful vision of the future
and thus assume leadership in Parliament. The prime
proposal is for a national review of the symbols we use to portray
“science”, “energy”, “power” and of how thermodynamics and
our climate works. I have made repeated calls to your Administration to
contemplate such a review for six years now and have been treated with
arrogance, dismissiveness and derision by your Party colleagues and
Government officials. Without such a review the future for your party is
hopeless and under your Administration our civil society will be
corroded to the point of implosion by the current unsustainable
legislation. The second
proposal is to engage New Zealanders with a sustainable vision of
carbon. I will quickly show
you one brief application of the Sustainability Principle using your
employment of the Carbon Neutrality symbol. It predicts that this use of
the symbol is fatally flawed because it involves a grand denial of
change. Mineral oil (and Gas and coal) took eons to form its fantastic
energy potential (25,000 manhours of labour equivalent in each 42 gallon
barrel). When we burn it in momentary act then that potential is
destroyed for further eons, perhaps for the life of this planet. To
believe this act is neutral for humanity is a massive denial of change
– in this cases eons of change. Your
Administration makes the fatal error that has brought down all
civilisations that have made it. You base our economy on a confusion of
energy with one of the forms it takes. This mistake is one of the main
roots of your current problems. It has the inevitable consequence of
inflation and severe wealth loss. All nations that make addictive use of
carbon or other resource are doomed. The concept of
Carbon Neutrality is a very dangerous nonsense (non-science). It
prevents your Administration from communicating to New Zealanders and
building on the great pool of commonsense (common science) that exists
out here. We respond to issues in sane ways when they are presented
clearly. Your concept of Carbon Neutrality, with its vast eonian denial
of change, confounds the communication completely. And that is one
reason why the National Party controls Parliament with the ease it does. The
Sustainability Principle suggests we cannot trade away our stewardship
of carbon as is suggested in your use of the “carbon trading”,
“carbon neutrality” and “carbon offsetting” symbols. It suggests
we cannot escape our role as stewards of carbon. We cannot escape our
obligation to place a high value on the resource, as with carbon taxes
and limiting our population. Here is a link to a graph that gives
graphic testimony to what happens to nations that use oil an addictive
way as we do. Please take out time to reflect on the oil-inflation
graph: http://images.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/images/hommelberg071906d.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/hommelberg071906pv.html&h=290&w=432&sz=19&hl=en&start=8&tbnid=V7Yj6k4PeRRARM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Doil%2B%2Binflation%2Bprices%2Bhistoric%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG The third
proposal is to review your Administration’s commitment to the use of
“market driven solutions” symbol and the previous Labour
Administration’s decision to cease the use the “service driven
solutions” symbol. In 1987 I wrote to the Hon Sir Roger Douglas
predicting his commitment to this symbol would result in societal
breakdown and the doubling of our prison population within a decade. I
was wrong on the latter – to my horror the doubling occurred sooner
despite Hon David Lange’s intervention. It also contributed to the
destruction of my family. My prediction was
made on the basis of my knowledge of psychology.
The concept of “Markets” as decision makers and arbitrators
is dis-empowering. Stripped of human values Markets are inherently
amoral. They inevitably become psychopathic structures when accorded
minds of their own. Historically humans have employed this psychological
device to deny our role as stewards and we have done so at our peril. In 1987 I was
also becoming aware that the employment of this symbol was being
manifest in policies whereby our Public Service (including our
Universities) were “restructuring” “service-driven” people out
of existence and promoting “profit-driven people” to administer our
nation. The grim statistics
and prognosis you now face are testimony to impacts of this policy. And
this is at a time when oil and Gas are still ridiculously cheap! The fourth
proposal is to scrap the concept of a “Minister of Energy”. The
Sustainability Principle suggests your employment of this symbol is
extremely high risk. The Principle
also suggests it is wise to create Ministries that reflect our groups of
resources we put prime value on. Thus there will
be for the first time in our history a Ministry for the development of
our solar resources. At present most
of your Administration’s policies are pointless. An example is your
announcement this week of the concept of Green Buildings. Current symbol
use eg “Minister of Energy” is manifest in legislation that puts
almost zero value on our solar resources. Hence a person can invest in
the construction of a 5 star dwelling and find its value destroyed when
spec builders destroy its access to solar energy the following year. It
is interesting to observe that the greatest destruction of our urban
solar-based generation capacity occurred under the Fourth and Fifth
Labour Administrations. Other useful
symbol uses include a ministry for the conservation of mineral
resources, a ministry for the development of our electrical potential
(this includes broadband and radio) and a ministry for the care of our
biomass potential (subsuming our current Agriculture Ministry). The fifth
proposal is to promote democracy so that New Zealanders can directly
vote in the management of our most critical infrastructure again. The
current legislation destroys the majority of our most sustainable
options and history will show that under your Administration the
essential structures were cemented in place that enabled fascism to
flourish in our land. For instance, the implementation of Meridian’s
ARC technology contains all the ingredients. The proposed
amendment to the Electricity Reforms that I invite you to comment on is
designed to reduce the current risk of this occurring. This amendment is
possible, as your Administration proved with our community healthy
systems. Already the benefits are becoming apparent in primary health
care. Now you have to legislate to re-enfranchise New Zealanders and
underpin our electrical systems with democracy. After all, these systems
underpin our health, education and other systems. This may be my
last attempt to communicate with you, Helen. I shall detail below a
brief summary of my attempts to communicate with your Administration. I
am sure you will agree this is not sustainable and you can understand
why I am giving up hope on your Administration. At present I am
near assuming its culture is hopeless, particularly with Hon Michael
Cullen’s commitment of the nation to the environmentally and socially
hostile KiwiSaver scheme at the expense of other social policies, such
as giving us the option of saving in the form of sustainable
infrastructure such as insulated dwellings and intelligent uses of
electricity and rail. I predict the
wider population will quickly become aware of the scale of the transfer
of taxpayer funds (subsidies) to unsustainable money merchants. It will
soon see how the scheme undermines human rights in the form of Universal
Superannuation, the Matrimonial Act, sustainable housing, social equity
etc. I predict you will soon realise that the Hon Michael Cullen is a
liability to us all because, like Hon Don Brash, he lacks science and
does not understand the fundamentals of what sustains civilisation. As I mention in
the history summary, the National Party spokesperson displayed
considerably more science in my 2005 survey of the parties that did the
Labour Party. He not only stated clearly that his answers were his own
work and not that of some official. He acknowledged his knowledge was
not certain and indeed was unique among all the respondents: he wrote to
me subsequently asking if his answers were correct! I find
considerable hope in that. It contrasts profoundly with your own
response. To refresh: Humans can save/conserve
energy. True/False. Labour Quite
separately from the technical definition referred to in question 1,
Green False in a technical sense but we can conserve its
ability to do work which is what matters.
National False
because humans are not a closed system and do not operate in one.
Therefore they cant conserve or save energy.
The denial of the
Conservation Principle of Energy implicit in your response is manifest
in the great flaws on which the greater body of your Administration’s
policy is based. Green Party policy is similarly flawed* Energy by its
very nature is conserved and humans take the first step on the road to a
hellish existence when they deny this truth. In that moment they deny
the nature of the universe(s) and fail to mirror reality. To associate
conservation with “a reduction in energy use” is also fatally
flawed. It associates energy efficiency with deprivation and that is not
what the Conservation Principle teaches us. The issue is not how much
energy we use but whether our use of energy forms is sustainable. This
flaw delivers us EECA. It fails to deliver us a ministry for the
development of solar resources. * I have been a
member of the Green Party during the years of your Administration and
can catalogue a similar history of unsustainable responses from that
party too to my requests for evidence of the science underpinning its
communications.
These comparative
responses are why I am contemplating breaking the paradigm of a
lifetime. I am considering offering my material to the National Party in
a desperate attempt to get Parliament to address the real issues. The sad thing is
that I know there is a body of considerable wisdom in the general
public. At present people sense something is very wrong and know your
Administration’s response is not credible. They sense its lack of
science. The dilemma I have is that I know there is a risk the material
I have gathered from your Administration (education resources etc) will
be used by the National Party to expose the unsustainable reality of
your policies and at the same time influential party members will fail
to appreciate the lessons in your failure i.e. the material will be used
to confuse and making cheap “political points”. As mentioned I
require only a short response from you on these general matters. It
would be very helpful to have an assurance that you have read this
letter. I have much reason not to trust or place much faith in the
wisdom your officials or colleagues. They brought your Administration to
its current unsustainable position. I understand that
you will have to call for wider comment from your advisors on the
specific proposal I put to you as an amendment to the Electricity Reform
legislation. However its central aim of valuing and promoting democracy
is a personal call for you. I look forward to
your response. (Here is that
oil-inflation graph again. Yours
sincerely Dave
McArthur From the Sustainability
Principle “The more we accept
change the greater the harmony we know. The more we deny change the
greater the misery we know.” Brief History
1999- Note – I write
this without bitterness. Each
obstacle I have turned to opportunity with which to develop a greater
vision of the nature of energy. I am human and so this personal capacity
cannot be viewed as a sustainable process from a national point of view. I believe the
Sustainability Principle has extraordinary value and has the potential
to transform human experiences. Just as Carnot was looking for a measure
of the optimal efficiency of a steam engine and Landauer is looking for
a measure of the optimal efficiency of computing machines the
Sustainability Principle may give us a measure of the optimal efficiency
of symbol (knowledge) use. Even though the Sustainability Principle was
largely drawn from observation of our “Environmental Education”
machine I am increasingly confident it has profound implications in the
promotion of science and for all your Administrations education
policies. The Principle contains within its truth an absolutely
awe-inspiring vision that is the right of all our children to share.
Recall how you came to power on dreams of creating a “knowledge
economy”. This principle provides the tools for generating the wisdom
it to be the reality in which humanity flourishes. 1999 September. As a result of my
traumatic experiences of the Electricity Reforms and using lessons
learned I lobbied hard to have the Whistle Blowers legislation extended
to cover private sector employees. This was successful and this was one
of your first acts in 2000. Subsequent attempts to get your
Administration to promote knowledge of the legislation among our most
vulnerable through our schools vocational courses and WINZ have failed. The legislation
is too late to prevent the destruction of my career, the loss of our
family home, my income and my family. For some years we were under
threat that our house (lovingly hand-built by us over 10 years) would be
“trashed” and my family raped if I “did not keep right out of the
electricity industry”. I will just say it is not a sign of a civilised
society when a man feels relieved, as I was, that his lover of 28 years
and their beautiful daughter are safer when they become completely
estranged from him. 2000 March Still incoherent
with grief at the final destruction of my family the previous month I
make a personal submission to the Government Inquiry into Electricity
headed by Hon David Caygill. I know David is
aware of my personal circumstances from as our families have long been
acquainted. This knowledge gives me strength to make a personal
presentation. Unlike David, my knowledge of our electrical potential is
based on 20 years 1978-1997 at the public interface of the
Bulk-generated electricity industry and 7 years in the NZ Post Office. I do not need to
tell you how David was a key driver of the “sale” of Telecom in
1990. I try to explain
to your 2000 Inquiry the fatal flaws inherent in the Electricity Reforms
(and the sale of Telecom) and fail in my endeavour. I know David as a
decent human being with considerable intellectual abilities and he is
remarkable for his inability to comprehend that our utility grids have
(had) enormous wealth potential when their communication and electrical
potential are combined eg as with the ripple control system and as with
broadband through 230volt grids. Note: Recent
insights from advances in quantum computing are suggesting the idea that
“Knowledge is Physical” may well be a valuable principle of energy. I know of no
evidence that David understands this idea and its profound implications
for the potential value of our utility grids. Your Administration
accepted David’s recommendation to continue with the “market driven
solutions” policy in our use of our electrical potential. This
decision has cost the New Zealand people hundreds of billions of
dollars. (See our growth in household debt during your Administration -
even in these times of cheap oil.) Knowledge is
indeed physical and householders can no longer own it. It is now the
property of the bankers who control how we use our electrical potential
as a result of the Electricity Reforms and Telecom “sale”. 2000-2001 I make repeated
attempts to alert Hon Pete Hodgson that New Zealand communities have
produced the world leading carbon education resource (Energy Action)
Peter knows of it and one of his first acts as Minister of Energy was to
bestow on its creator, Grant Dunford, an award for communication. I
alert Peter to the fact that the resource is at risk because of the
Electricity Reforms. Peter’s response is to reaffirm your
Administration’s belief in “market driven solutions”. He states
his belief that the bankers of the Bulk-generated electricity companies
are now providing appropriate education resources. “The market” decides there is no place for the Energy
Action resource in New Zealand. This is logical because “the
market” concerned is now in the form of companies driven by the
interests of the fossil fuel sector. TransAlta pretends to your new
Administration that it supports the Energy Action resource but
withholds funding. I had predicted this based on my previous experience
working as an employee of TransAlta as a meter reader and my direct
experiences in that role with Arthur Andersen And Co, Peat Marwick KPMG
and TransAlta’s other advisors.
NGC (AGL)
inherits the Energy Action resource when TransAlta exits New
Zealand and, under CEO Mervyn English, demolishes the resource in June
2001. The corporation devotes funding to Karori Wildlife Reserve
instead. I am made
redundant again and continue the work for next 6 years unpaid except for
minimum dole payments for three years. 2001-2002. I make repeated
attempts to alert your Climate Change Office officials and their
Minister (Hon Pete Hodgson) to the probable fact (now proven) that their
use of climate symbols* lacks science and is counterproductive of your
Administrations stated objectives. These alerts are ignored, as are the
alterative strategies I propose for teaching our people, particularly
our farmers, the nature and power of trace gases. I anticipated the Fart
Tax campaign by some years. *Note: these
symbol uses do accurately reflect your Administration’s effective
objectives, as articulated in Mfe-CCO briefings to business groups. 2002 January
23(?) Hon Marion Hobbs
views the display stand* showing revised Energy Action 2008 in
Hamilton at the Inaugural NZAEE national conference. Marion demands to
know why she has not been informed of this resource and asks for all of
our correspondence with your Administration. *Note: The
display stand, which took five hours to originally assemble, had just
been reassembled after Enviroschools proponents had demolished it
and put their resource in its place. They (especially the NZAEE
president Pam Williams) also attempted to prevent the work being
reassembled for display. I supply Marion
with all correspondence and continue the work on the minimum dole ($156
a week)* living in a converted garage supplied by supportive friends
while I wait developments. *Note: Despite
repeated inquiries of your officials during my years on the minimum dole
they refused me the accommodation supplement of $50 a week. At the end
of the period they admitted this decision was incorrect and I had been
denied my entitlement. They said I could not be paid retrospectively.) 2002 May. Sustained by the
dole I continue the work in the hope your Administration will support
it. Your Administration publishes and delivers a profoundly flawed
climate education resource into all of our primary and some of our
secondary schools. I point some of the flaws out to Marion and she
immediately issues an edict that a meeting of representatives of your
Government departments implicated be called urgently. I continue my work
on the dole living in the converted garage (as I will for a couple of
years) 2002 June/July. Your
Administration commits $200,000 to Enviroschools. It does this
through the NZAEE without knowledge of its treasurer and with the
organization having no facility for such funds, thereby profoundly
compromising the organization on a wide range of levels. I had repeated
pointed out to its architects and your officials from the moments of its
inception in 2000 that Enviroschools contains no
carbon-atmosphere component, makes flawed uses of the energy and power
symbols and works directly against your Administration’s stated
objectives. I publicly
predict the failure of your Administration to be able to implement a
carbon tax i.e. put a sustainable value on fossil fuels and biomass.
This prediction proves accurate. 2002 October. Marion’s edict
has been completely ignored by your officials. I write directly to you,
Helen, asking for a brief audience to show you the flaws in your climate
communication strategy and a strategy for remedying the situation. Two
weeks later I get an urgent email requesting my presence at a meeting at
which a range of departmental representatives will be present. I begin
my presentation and Pam Williams, present in her capacity as president
of the NZAEE, immediately pulls my graphics down and shuts down meeting
in disarray. Your officials responsible for organising this meeting keep
no minutes. 2003. I continue
my work on the dole, reviewing and attending as many of the “energy”
and “climate” publications and public presentations as is possible
on a minimal income. My correspondence with Hon Pete Hodgson
(“Energy” Minister) Hon Trevor Mallard (Education Minister) and Hon
Marion Hobbs (Environment Minister) all affirm their belief that
Government communication strategy is underpinned by science but provide
no evidence for this belief. I also publicly
predict global oil prices will be over $US40 a barrel in 2004 while your
officials predict it will be $US19. My predictions are incorrect – it
reaches $US45. 2004 I continue as
above as it is my belief that our current addictive uses of carbon and
abuse of our electrical and solar potential are the most critical issues
facing our country and New Zealand’s response is making our nation a
liability for humanity. I predict
publicly that global oil prices will be $US80 a barrel in 2008 and that
our addictive use of carbon will result in high inflation rates and
serious wealth loss in New Zealand. I also predict carbon trading,
offsetting and neutrality policies will be counterproductive to your
Administration’s stated objectives and these will cost New Zealand. 2004 September I write to you on
two key issues. http://www.bonusjoules.co.nz/The%20Minister%20Replies/Michael%20Cullen%20letter.htm I now have considerable evidence that our use of key climate
symbols is not supported by science and again call for a review of their
use. I also urgently draw your attention to the fact that the planned
privatisation of Vector Ltd will destroy a major portion of our
electrical potential and result in a considerable loss of wealth to us -
particularly people living in your electorate.
Your officials continually refuse my request that you acknowledge
that you have read my letter. I receive a reply from Hon Michael Cullen
in which he admits your Administration is powerless to amend the
Electricity Reform legislation and cannot advise the Auckland community*
(1) and endorses the use of the “greenhouse” symbol to communicate
atmospheric processes *(2). *Note (1): Vector
Ltd is now severely dysfunctional because of the unsustainable
objectives of its new part owners and majority controllers such as Brook
Asset Management, Providence Resources (Sir Anthony O’Reilly) etc. It
is also increasingly unsustainable because of your Administrations
continuing endorsement of the Electricity Reform legislation (See 2007
statement to Electricity Commission.) This dysfunction is a direct
consequence and reflection of the dysfunction within your
Administration. Hon Michael Cullen’s clearly had the capacity to
extend Government credit facilities to enable Vector Ltd to regain NZ
control over critical elements of our electrical potential (NGC owned
half of NZ 230 Volt meters). He refused. Note: He also
diverted the special Meridian Energy dividend away from intelligent uses
of electricity and directed them into chronic high risk investments in
carbon use/extreme wasteful uses of our electrical potential (more cars
and motorways). *Note (2): in
2006 research by the US based Frameworks Institution http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/clients/climatemessage.shtml
using coast
–coast polling, established that my hypothesis is correct and science
does not support the beliefs of your colleagues (Rt Hon Michael Cullen,
Marion Hobbs, Trevor Mallard and Peter Hodgson) that their use of the
greenhouse symbol is sustainable. The Foundation concluded this use
should be avoided as it fails its objectives. http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/ankelohe_3550.jsp Warning: The
Sustainability Principle indicates the alternative strategies suggested
by the Frameworks Institute contain major flaws too. The Principle
also suggests relatively risk-free strategies New Zealand can adopt eg
the use of the “trace” symbol and conserving the “greenhouse”
and “blanket” symbols for communicating best clothing, storage and
dwelling design and practice. 2005 March. Until now WINZ
has not wanted to know of me. As a employment case I am then 57years
old, have a heart condition which involves a damaged bicuspid valve,
experience crippling migraines regularly and have many damaged and
painful injuries from 37 years of almost non-stop labouring work,
sometimes labouring twelve hours a day seven days a week for long
periods. I become subject
to open public hostility as the result of our Parliament’s campaign to
bash so-called dole bludgers. (In actual fact history knows I am freely
researching perhaps the most critical issue humanity faces. and offering
highly paid Government officials free advice, sometimes in response to
particular questions that they have posed and which they do not have the
time or the experience to generate further questions from to support
research.) I become subject
to intense WINZ scrutiny and have the unpleasant experience of Hon Steve
Maharey’s specially formed mobile WINZ squads knocking unannounced on
my door at home. You will recall Labour’s “dawn raid” squads in
1975. The difference is that it is now New Zealanders of Polynesian
origins knocking on the door of a New Zealander of European origins.
These are good people and they appreciate the value of the work I am
doing but make it clear that under your Administration it cannot be
sustained. My aging parents
are being affected by this hostile national climate and to avoid further
anguish for them I take a job as a school janitor and continue my work
in my remaining waking hours. 2005 August. My research now
suggests it is possible to predict Government outcomes from its use of
key symbols. I perform a pre-election survey of all leaders in which I
ask you to respond to the following brief questions. The questionnaire
is designed to indicate the integrity of the leader as well as their
religious beliefs. I asked you: 1.What
does the Principle of the Conservation of Energy state? 2.
Humans can save/conserve energy. True/False. 3.
If your answer is False, which manifestations of energy can humans
save/conserve? 4.
Electricity is energy. True/False http://www.bonusjoules.co.nz/Energy%20Gobbledegook/Election%202005%20Quiz.htm Your
response (as evidenced by you lack of personal response) to the brief
questionnaire indicates your policies are, on balance, more likely to
put us all at greater risk of inflation, poverty and warfare. The
response from the advisor to the Minister of Energy, Hon Trevor Mallard)
who responded for you supports this indication. You
may be interested to note that Hon Don Brash was similarly unable to
respond. This was predicted because it was clear that he believes the
lowering of inflation pressures was due to his decade of fiscal
activities when the reality is that it was the result of drastically
cheap global oil ($US 9.98 a barrel by 1999) and Gas. What was a
surprise is that his Energy spokesperson (Hon Phil Wheatley) rated the
highest in the science of his response and he was unique in later
inquiring if his answers were correct. This now leaves me in the dilemma
I mentioned earlier. 2006
January http://www.bonusjoules.co.nz/Energy%20Gobbledegook/NZAEE%202006%20seminar/SEMINAR%202006...htm Two
people attend my presentation. I witness the observation by the keynote
speaker, Sir Jonathon Porritt, to the conference that Enviroschools
completely omits any reference to the biggest issue facing humanity –
our unsustainable use of carbon. I cannot overstate the shock and dismay
he evidenced. I also witness the totally muted and dismissive responses
of your officials to his profound observation subsequently. In his
difficult moment of presenting this unpalatable truth I am alone in a
hall of over 300 of our top educators in supporting him with applause. 2006
March 2006
June Your
administration commits a nominal $4.6 million dollars but effectively
tens of millions of dollars to the promotion of Enviroschools in
a deal with the Green Party. This commitment of taxpayer funds to this
resource includes indirect funding to the resource through many
Government agencies such as departments and universities as well. 2006
October is
done at great speed and much of it has to be aborted in the 12 or so
minutes remaining before he is called to the House. Analysis of his and
Hon David Benson Pope speeches, media releases and policy decisions
since suggests my communication failed on scale. 2007
Aug I
write with hope that you, and the Labour Party will join those of us who
do see a way whereby our nation can realise its full and healthy
potential. I
look forward to your response, particularly to the proposed amendment to
the Electricity Reforms so we can be re-enfranchised and again begin to
make use of our immense electrical potential. Yours
sincerely Dave
McArthur Thank you Dinah I trust all concerned are aware that the fundamental issue is the state of New Zealand democracy. Secondary drivers of my proposed amendment to the Electricity Reform legislation are considerations of our telecommunication and electrical potential. As recent events show clearly, it is becoming a matter of great urgency that communities be again given the right to develop their local utility grid potential to ensure use of its broadband capacity is developed in their interests, as well as its more general electrical potential. I trust, for instance, that the Prime Minister realises the scale of escalating costs to the nation caused by recent Telecom practices. It has effectively destroyed a range of national forums and suppressed discussion and research of many vital topics. I think many share my sense of crisis as we see our emails being destroyed on scale by Telecom. The Hon Pete Hodgson as Minister of Energy failed to comprehend that the Electricity Reform legislation affected far more than Bulk-generated electricity distribution. He often expressed his preference for "market-derived" solutions compared to "community-derived" solutions during his long period as Minister. That preference has cost New Zealand tens of billions of dollars in lost opportunity. In particular the inability of he and Hon Michael Cullen to understand the wider issues has meant that they have served the Prime Minister's constituency in Auckland very poorly. Initially it looked as though the current Minister of Energy, Hon David Parker, understood the issues. (See his Parliamentary Biography)*. However his recent advice to the Electricity Commission confirming his approval of current ownership structures in the Utility sector plus his recent speeches indicates his attitudes have altered significantly. His current views may not be serving the best interests of New Zealand, the Prime Minister and her Auckland constituency. *http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Biography.aspx?MinisterID=76 Quote: David became active in Labour in the 1990s, incensed by the last National Government forcing local authorities to sell community-owned electricity assets. I humbly suggest it would be prudent that the Prime Minister be kept fully appraised of this correspondence. Your sincerely ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ministerial Office of the Prime Minister" <Ministerial.Office.of.the.Prime.Minister@ministers.govt.nz> To: "Dave McArthur" <davemcarthur@clear.net.nz> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:54 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Attention Rt Hon Helen Clark > Thank you for your email message to the Prime
Minister, Helen Clark.
|
|
||||
