Subsidising ecocide

Aotearoa has long been an opponent of fossil fuel subsidies. In 2010 we joined the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform. In 2015 we reviewed our policies to eliminate subsidies following advice from APEC. In 2021 we "lead the call" for subsidy reform at the WTO. And at COP29 just last month we joined the International Institute for Sustainable Development coalition against fossil fuel subsidies. So naturally, Shame Jones wants to overturn all that and is considering directly subsidising gas exploration:

The oil and gas lobby has asked the government to underwrite the risk of fossil fuel exploration, with the taxpayer potentially taking "some or all" of the risk if new gas supplies fail to eventuate.

Resources Minister Shane Jones says he is considering options to support gas exploration, but "no decisions have been made either way".

However, Shane Jones' response to RNZ's query about the industry's request suggested the government had not ruled out some form of intervention.

I don't even know where to start with this. It's stupid. It's immoral. Its effectively subsidising ecocide. It is simply not something any government should be doing. But Jones' mind is stuck in the past, when oil and gas were the future (rather than the threat to it), and he can't see past the idea of winning the fossil fuel lottery (and those big industry donations).

OTOH, MFAT's page on fossil fuel subsidy reform provides an argument that even this government might listen to: trade. Both the UK and EU FTA's include provisions against fossil fuel subsidies, and we have literally just signed the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability with a group of other small nations which bans them - including (very explicitly) the exact policy Jones is considering.

National may want to publicly set fire to our reputation on the world stage, void key trade deals, and ensure we can never sign another one (because what fool would sign any deal with a country which is so obviously two-faced and breaks its word the moment it is given). But I don't think the rest of us would think that that's a good idea. As a small peaceful country, our foreign policy is of necessity mana-based. Jones would destroy that. We shouldn't let him.

A two-faced "apology"

Last month, the government formally apologised to victims of child torture and abuse-in-care. Part of the apology was meant to be for the state's long-standing policy of aggressively minimising its liabilities by dragging out cases, slandering its victims and ultimately denying redress. So you'd think that the state would actually have stopped that immoral policy, right? But of course not. In planning meetings leading up to the apology, it was continuing as usual:

Senior ministers raised concerns about the commitments the government made to survivors of abuse in care and the need to lower expectations, according to notes obtained by RNZ.

The comments came at a meeting on the eighth floor of the Beehive on 26 August, where ministers and government heads discussed what was needed for the formal apology for abuse in care on 12 November.

[...]

"AG [Attorney-General Judith Collins] reinforced concerns about setting precedents and being careful about what we commit to," Holsted wrote.

"Min Upston [Minister for Social Development Louise Upston] reiterated her concern about needing to lower expectations."

Because we wouldn't want to do the decent thing by properly compensating victims of state wrongdoing for the horrors inflicted on them and the damage done to their lives - that might "set a precedent". And we wouldn't want to suggest that we might, because that might led to "expectations" of both compensation, and future state behaviour.

Our Cabinet are monsters. They're doing exactly the same vicious, heartless shit which has denied victims justice and compounded the harm inflicted on them. In doing so, they've undercut the apology Luxon made, and made it clear that the state will never act in good faith over its crimes. Any meaningful apology would see these monsters gone.