High hopes

homer.jpg If you thought the Emissions Trading Scheme was in big trouble, you were right – but for the wrong reasons. The Southland Times reports that Basil Walker, a former property developer from Queenstown, has decided that the ETS poses such a dire threat to New Zealand that he’s seeking a High Court injunction against Labour MPs to prevent the legislation being passed.

Mr Walker said he was acting in the interests of the people of New Zealand. “I’ve taken the action because someone had to. This Government is trying to force this on the people and someone had to stand up and say that there is no evidence to support it,” he said yesterday.

Not in my name, Basil. Not in my name.

The NZ C”S”C helpfully provide PDFs of his application and supporting affidavit. The latter is most amusing – a concatenation of crank arguments, from Monckton to Carter, with – according to The Southland Times – further supporting material from Muriel Newman.

Mr Walker has no legal advisers, and his chances of success are non-existent. One hopes his day in court will prove a chastening experience.

7 thoughts on “High hopes”

  1. There’s also an argument that it’d be pretty difficult to prove that the ETS, in its current state with its plethora of exemptions, would effect any change in NZ at all.

    I went on about this before in another post – but the only way an ETS would have an effect is when it has a cap. Gradually reducing the cap tightens the screws – see the experience at the UK’s Drax coal-fired power station, where profits are plummetting and the operators are turning to more input of plant-based material to avoid paying for emissions.

  2. This is going to be very funny, especially the part about ‘carbon dioixide is classed as a greenhouse gas in the IPCC documentation however this is now challenged by the science world…’

  3. I don’t see why the court would even need to look at Walker’s “facts”. The whole case fails immediately under the Bill of Rights Act 1688: “That the freedome of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament”. The courts can’t attempt to prevent Parliament from passing a law; even in jurisdictions with constitutional sovereignty (which we aren’t, sadly), they can only declare it invalid after the fact. Suing individual MPs in an effort to get around this simply turns it from foolishness into a contempt of Parliament (in that its very clearly attempting to interfere with the proceedings of the House).

    Still, if the fool wants to waste tens of thousands of dollars banging his head on that particular brick wall, he’s welcome to.

  4. Thoroughly nice bloke, Basil.
    His trade mark seasoning of lemon & pepper had customers flocking from all over the Wakatipu to his Fernhill Fish & Fries.
    There’s good money in chips.

Leave a Reply