New Zealand finance minister would like RBNZ to return to eight meetings a year
WELLINGTON, June 10 (Reuters) - New Zealand's Finance Minister Nicola Willis said on Tuesday that she would like New Zealand's central bank monetary policy committee to meet more frequently raising concern about lengthy gap between meetings in summer.
'Ultimately, the decision about how often the Monetary Policy Committee meets is a matter for the Reserve Bank, but my view is that the committee should meet more often,' Willis said in a statement.
'I think the Reserve Bank should return to meeting eight times a year,' she added, in comments first reported by Bloomberg.
The Reserve Bank of New Zealand cut the number of its policy meetings to seven from eight in 2016, which has allowed policymakers to enjoy a nearly three-month year-end break.
'I'm particularly concerned about the 12-week break over summer, which is a long time to go between meetings. The central banks of England, Canada, Australia and the United States have shorter breaks and meet more frequently,' she said.
At the end of last year, some economists argued that the central bank was under greater pressure to ease policy aggressively because they would not get another chance for three months and needed the extra insurance against an economic slump.
Willis said she had sought advice from the Treasury about the frequency of meetings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
New Zealand government sued over ‘dangerously inadequate' emissions reduction plan
Hundreds of top environment lawyers are suing the New Zealand government over what they say is its 'dangerously inadequate' plan to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050. It is the first time the country's emissions reduction plan has faced litigation, and the lawyers believe it is the first case globally that challenges the use of forestry to offset emissions. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and the Environmental Law Initiative – two groups representing more than 300 lawyers – filed judicial review proceedings against the government in Wellington's high court on Tuesday. The groups have provided the Guardian with first access to the claim, which argues the government has abandoned dozens of tools to tackle emissions, failed to adequately consult the public, and too heavily relies on high-risk carbon capture strategies such as forestry. The government's plan was 'fundamentally unambitious' and a 'dangerous regression' for the country, Jessica Palairet, the president of Lawyers for Climate Action NZ told the Guardian. 'As it stands, the government's emissions reduction plan will carry huge consequences for our country. We don't take this step lightly, but the plan needs to be challenged,' Palairet said. The plan must be robust and transparent, in line with the country's chief climate law – the climate change response (zero carbon) amendment act – she said. In 2019, the Labour government passed that landmark climate legislation committing the nation to reducing its domestic carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 and meeting its commitments under the Paris climate accords. Governments are legally required to set an emission reductions plan every five years detailing how New Zealand will meet its greenhouse gas targets. The right-wing coalition government has committed to the 2050 net zero emissions target. Its first emissions reduction plan released in December – shows New Zealand is on track to reach emissions targets up until 2030, but will not meet the targets in five years after. The government said it will address those targets in 2030. The plan also says the country is also on track to meet its long-term emissions goal but climate experts warn the government's methods could end up derailing progress. The legal claim includes two primary challenges. The first argues the government tossed out dozens of credible climate policies – including the clean car discount and a gas transition plan – and did not adequately consult the public over the changes. The lawyers also claim that the government is relying on 'high risk' methods such as planting hundreds of thousands of hectares of introduced pine trees to offset emissions, and capturing carbon underground, with few alternatives to fall back on if something goes wrong. Some experts have warned achieving a net reduction in emissions primarily through planting trees is impossible to sustain in the long term, as forests could be destroyed though fire or extreme weather and do not store carbon for ever. Dr Christina Hood, the head of energy and climate policy consultancy Compass Climate, told the Guardian the government's emissions reduction plan was 'incredibly shortsighted'. Hood said there is an assumption that as long as New Zealand plants trees, it can emit as much as it likes, but warned that was a 'blinkered' approach that ignores the future. 'In our law … there's a responsibility to meet all of the targets, not just the current one.' While New Zealand's total contribution to global emissions is small at 0.17%, its gross emissions per capita are high. The country has also been among the world's worst performers on emission increases. Between 1990 and 2018, its emissions rose 57% – the second-greatest increase of all industrialised countries. Climate scientists and environment groups are worried the government's broader environmental agenda will derail the country's ability to reduce emissions and protect its unique species. Since taking office, the government has promised to restart offshore oil and has set aside $200m of its budget to invest in gas exploration. It plans to boost mineral exports to $3bn by 2035, at the same time it has slashed funding to conservation and climate initiatives. The controversial new fast-track law that is pushing through major infrastructure projects, including mining, has been described as 'egregiously damaging' for the environment and risks a path towards a greener future. The minister of climate change, Simon Watts, would not be commenting on the judicial review, as the matter is now before the courts, his office told the Guardian. The Green Party is backing the claim because the government's plan 'is not worth the paper that it is written on', its co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick told the Guardian. Climate litigation as a form of activism is gaining momentum around the world. In 2024 the high court found the UK government's climate action plan was unlawful, as there was not enough evidence that there were sufficient policies in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Palairet hopes this case will force the government to come up with a new plan. 'The reason why we take a case like this to a court is to scrutinise and question whether the government statements match up with reality.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
New Zealand is failing to protect its vast ocean resources. We owe it to the world to act
It's a remarkable feat that a small, isolated island nation of just five million people has managed to stake a claim to one of the largest ocean territories in the world. New Zealand's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) spans more than 4m square kilometres – an area 15 times the size of our landmass. But these rights carry responsibilities – in particular, the obligation to manage this vast ocean territory sustainably for future generations. As leaders gather in Nice for the UN Ocean Conference this week, the spotlight will once again fall on the future of our blue planet – and whether countries are finally willing to 'walk the talk' in the final sprint towards protecting 30% of our ocean by 2030. We stand at a critical juncture and New Zealand must step up. Less than 1% of our country's oceans are highly protected and the damaging practice of bottom-trawling needs to be restricted. Most New Zealanders live near the coast and understand that our ocean is a taonga – a treasure – that must be looked after. It's in our blood. Our waters are visited or inhabited by half the world's whale and dolphin species, and we have more species of seabird than anywhere else on Earth. When it established the global system of EEZs in 1982 under the UN convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS), the UN was clear: the long-term conservation and sustainable use of living resources must be a priority. In return for that commitment, Aotearoa gained something huge: the full weight and support of the international community. The reality is that New Zealand has never had – and is unlikely ever to have – the military capacity to enforce our maritime rights unilaterally. We are reliant on the backing of UNCLOS and its compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms, which uphold the rule of law over the rule of might. In a climate of escalating geopolitical tensions and increasing focus on the Pacific, that becomes even more vital. As northern hemisphere fish stocks continue to be depleted and fishing fleets focus southwards, we are increasingly going to need the international community to have our back. But we also need to meet our side of the bargain. Right now, it's hard to see how that's the case. Given our commitment to safeguard 30% of the ocean by 2030, more of New Zealand's seas must be highly protected. Our outdated marine protection legislation is no longer fit for purpose, and proposed reforms have languished over decades. New Zealand is the only country still bottom-trawling on seamounts in the South Pacific, and twice now the current coalition government has blocked international proposals (which, notably, New Zealand had originally tabled) to restrict this damaging practice, prompting international concern. While Australia has begun laying the groundwork for a large marine protected area between our two countries in the Lord Howe-South Tasman Sea, New Zealand has been missing in action. And most significantly, plans to establish a vast Kermadec Rangitāhua Ocean sanctuary off the coast of New Zealand's most northerly islands have been abandoned. Had the sanctuary gone ahead, it would have brought us halfway toward the 30% protection goal and safeguarded one of the few remaining pristine places on Earth. While there have been legitimate issues to work through to ensure that the creation of the sanctuary upholds Indigenous rights, shelving the idea entirely was the final nail in the coffin for New Zealand's ocean conservation reputation. After all, there is a broad understanding internationally that states which benefit the most from UNCLOS – those with large EEZs – should be among the leaders in creating safe havens for marine biodiversity. Many have already done so, including the UK, Australia and Chile. New Zealand has so far failed to follow suit. Our marine environment is in a sustained state of decline, with pollution, rampant overfishing, and the impacts of climate change pushing fragile habitats and species to the brink. Since 1970, some of our commercial fish stocks have declined significantly, and in places like Auckland's Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana, scallop and crayfish fisheries have all but collapsed. Despite being the seabird capital of the world, 90% of our seabirds are now threatened or at risk of extinction. The establishment of UNCLOS has long been hailed as one of the UN's greatest achievements – and there's no doubt that New Zealand has heavily benefited from an enormous maritime jurisdiction. But such power over our ocean comes with great responsibility. It's time for New Zealand to act, rejoin the global conversation, and start looking after our blue backyard for future generations. We don't just owe it to Kiwis – we owe it to the world. Rt Hon Helen Clark is a former prime minister of New Zealand, and former administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Dr Kayla Kingdon-Bebb is chief executive of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) New Zealand.
Rhyl Journal
2 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Reeves signs off on £14bn to build new nuclear plant Sizewell C
The Chancellor is set to confirm the funding at the GMB Congress on Tuesday. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said new nuclear power capacity was needed to deliver a 'golden age of clean energy abundance'. Trade unions welcomed the move, which the Treasury said would go towards creating 10,000 jobs, including 1,500 apprenticeships. But the head of a campaign group opposing the plant criticised the decision to commit the funding, saying it is still not clear what the total cost will be. Nuclear plants are seen as increasingly important electricity sources as the Government tries to decarbonise Britain's grid by 2030, replacing fossil fuels with green power. The last time Britain completed one was in 1987, which was the Sizewell B plant. Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, is under construction and is expected to produce enough power for about six million homes when it opens, but that may not be until 2031. The Energy Secretary said: 'We need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance, because that is the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis. 'This is the Government's clean energy mission in action – investing in lower bills and good jobs for energy security.' It will get the UK off the 'fossil fuel rollercoaster', he separately told The Guardian. 'We know that we're going to have to see electricity demand at least double by 2050. All the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. 'In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.' The joint managing directors of Sizewell C, Julia Pyke and Nigel Cann, said: 'Today marks the start of an exciting new chapter for Sizewell C, the UK's first British-owned nuclear power plant in over 30 years.' At the peak of construction, Sizewell C is expected to provide 10,000 jobs and the company behind the project has already signed £330 million worth of contracts with local businesses. The plant, which will power the equivalent of six million homes, is planned to be operational in the 2030s. The Government is also due to confirm one of Europe's first small modular reactor programmes and will invest £2.5 billion over five years in fusion energy research as part of plans to boost the UK's nuclear industry. The GMB union said giving Sizewell C the go-ahead was 'momentous'. Regional Secretary Warren Kenny said: 'Nuclear power is essential for clean, affordable, and reliable energy – without new nuclear, there can be no net zero. 'Sizewell C will provide thousands of good, skilled, unionised jobs and we look forward to working closely with the Government and Sizewell C to help secure a greener future for this country's energy sector.' Mike Clancy, general secretary of Prospect, said: 'Delivering this funding for Sizewell C is a vital step forward, this project is critical to securing the future of the nuclear industry in the UK. 'New nuclear is essential to achieving net zero, providing a baseload of clean and secure energy, as well as supporting good, unionised jobs. 'Further investment in SMRs and fusion research shows we are finally serious about developing a 21st-century nuclear industry. All funding must be backed up by a whole-industry plan to ensure we have the workforce and skills we need for these plans to succeed.' Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said ministers had not 'come clean' about the full cost of the project, which the group have previously estimated could be some £40 billion. 'There still appears to be no final investment decision for Sizewell C, but £14.2 billion in taxpayers' funding, a decision we condemn and firmly believe the government will come to regret. 'Where is the benefit for voters in ploughing more money into Sizewell C that could be spent on other priorities, and when the project will add to consumer bills and is guaranteed to be late and overspent just like Hinkley C? 'Ministers have still not come clean about Sizewell C's cost and, given negotiations with private investors are incomplete, they have signed away all leverage and will be forced to offer generous deals that undermine value for money. Starmer and Reeves have just signed up to HS2 mark 2.'
