Legal Experts Sue Climate Minister Over Glaring Holes In Emissions Plan
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and co-applicant the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) allege the Governments plan fails to meet key requirements of the Climate Change Response Act.
A coalition of legal experts has launched major legal proceedings against the Minister of Climate Change, alleging that the Government's emissions reduction plan fails to fulfil basic requirements of the law.
'Under the Climate Change Response Act, the Government has to put in place a credible emissions reduction plan for Aotearoa that will meet our climate targets and set us up for success,' says Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc Executive Director Jessica Palairet.
'Yet, in the face of warnings from our Climate Change Commission that there are 'significant risks' around whether New Zealand will meet its climate targets, the plan misses the mark. It takes a high-risk, forestry-led approach to emissions reductions. Our law requires more.'
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and co-applicant the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) allege the Government's plan fails to meet key requirements of the Climate Change Response Act. '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,' says Ms Palairet.
Under the Climate Change Response Act, governments must set an emissions reduction plan every five years. These plans outline economy-wide policies and strategies for meeting corresponding emissions budgets – which are stepping stones towards achieving our 2050 net-zero target. In 2024, the Government published the second emissions reduction plan, which will be operative from 2026 – 2030.
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and ELI challenge decisions relating to both the first emissions reduction plan (2021-2025) and the second emissions reduction plan (2026-2030).
ELI's director, research and legal, Dr Matt Hall says 'the Government cancelled 35 climate policies and actions which were part of the first emissions reduction plan – without consulting the public first, as required by law. It then put in place a second emissions reduction plan which is almost devoid of actions or policies for reducing emissions at their source.'
The NGOs allege that the second emissions reduction plan is unlikely to ensure emissions stay within the budget, has an unrealistic approach to risk management, and assumes that 95% of the planned emissions reductions will occur by themselves without policies or strategies.
Instead of focusing on reducing emissions at source, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts instead relied heavily on offsetting the country's emissions with forestry plantations.
'This was despite warnings from the Climate Change Commission that tree planting is no substitute for reducing emissions at source. It locks-in vast pine plantations for future generations, and runs up against our obligations under the Paris Agreement. The science is clear that forestry is important, but it's not a substitute for reducing our combustion of fossil fuels,' says Dr Hall.
Dr Hall says the Minister was required to publish a sufficiently detailed plan that could assure the public New Zealand will meet its emissions budget. The Government's plan does not give confidence; in our view, it is neither credible nor capable of achieving the purpose, which is to reduce emissions'.
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ's Jessica Palairet says, 'The Minister has made the pathway for achieving the third emissions budget incredibly difficult. Left unchallenged, it will be a huge burden for the future.'
'We believe it is necessary to take this case to protect the interests of the public now and in the future, and to test these important legal provisions for the first time.'
The application for judicial review has been filed with the High Court and is awaiting a court date.
Notes:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: Media applauds old school move on NCEA
TVNZ's Simon Dallow with a blunt assessment of NCEA, after the government announced proposals to dump the system. Photo: TVNZ 1 News "Old school grades are set to return," 1 News host Simon Dallow told 6 pm news viewers on Monday evening at the top of the show. Earlier that day, breakfast news shows had been primed for an imminent "massive announcement." As is often the case with government policy announcements, the nation's major newsrooms already knew about it. For them, it was not so much 'breaking news' as lifting the embargo on news the minister's media minders had already given them a heads-up on. It turned out to be abolishing all levels of NCEA - and new national qualifications for secondary school students to be phased in over the next five years. On Sunday, 24 hours before the big reveal, TVNZ's Q+A kicked off with Crimson Education founder Jamie Beaton calling for change in national education culture. "NCEA basically is not a rigourous curriculum. Students graduating often are two years behind in core subjects like maths and science, so there's a massive gap for most New Zealanders," said Beaton, the holder of ten degrees by the age of 30, viewers were told. "There's a real movement against testing and exams, which I think is quite poisonous. And that actually puts us further and further behind, you know, leading education systems like Singapore or Korea or the kind of elite schools in California." But whether underachievers were being held back by NCEA rather than high-achievers was not discussed so much. While some in the media had not expected the complete - albeit staggered - scrapping of NCEA, the New Zealand Herald's political reporter Jamie Ensor wasn't one of them. "It is in line with the government's general position on education," he wrote on Monday . "As far as public opinion goes, it is likely to be popular if parents' confusion with the current system is anything to go by. According to the Education Review Office, about half of parents don't understand it." The same seemed true of most broadcasters and commentators airing their reckons after the announcement. RNZ education correspondent John Gerritsen pointed out on Morning Report that the returning A-E grades were not really a big change. "If you think about it - Achieved, Merit, Excellence - well that's C, B and A. A change in the nomenclature, but that's maybe a little bit easier for parents and so forth to understand." MR's Ingrid Hipkiss admitted she was one of them. She upbraided herself for reverting to what she called "old person-speak," referring to 'the fifth form' and 'School Cert'. But she wasn't the only one that day. For its youth-focussed Now You Know video explainer, The Spinoff deployed an 'old man' to explain - with tongue-in-cheek - that A means good and E is bad. There was plenty more old-mansplaining about NCEA in the media this week. "Along with the mad open classrooms, isn't it fascinating how forward the old days appear to be," ZB's Hosking said on his morning show. "You're going back to the 1980s (when) you couldn't go ahead to the next year until you passed whatever it was you were going for. I took up music in the fifth form because I failed tech drawing in the fourth form," he said. The ability to get some credit, or switch courses before an end-of-year exam failure is a feature of NCEA that might have helped him back in his school days. Later that day, ZB's veteran political correspondent Barry Soper was also more comfortable with what he remembered. "This is going back to what it was in the olden days when I was at school. At least you've got a good yardstick for employers to look at," he told ZB listeners. A yardstick would be a 91.4 cm stick today, but Soper knew in his own mind what students of today need. "We can't have this namby-pamby standard in education where we don't like winners and losers," he told ZB listeners. Across the media there was consensus in commentary that NCEA had not achieved - and actually diffused educational achievement in 20 years since its introduction. "How does this work? It seems to be so broad and so vast and you get bits for this and bits for that. Just give them a foundation to move forward," said Sarah Henry, Are Media editorial director said on the Herald Now show on Monday. She said she had been to parents' meetings and read NCEA literature but was still confused by it. That was music to the ears of panel guest Tim Wilson, the former TVNZ journalist now at the Maxim Institute think tank which has long campaigned for change. "I need to see the education system smarten up. I need to see a reduction in the size of the curriculum and core subjects and standardised tests so I know that our boys are doing well and can continue to do well," the father-of-four said. The Herald Now panel that day all agreed too many students were gaming the system in too many courses for them to count credits. "One I saw the other day was that you must have knowledge of the inner workings of an espresso machine," laughed host Ryan Bridge. But making coffee - and understanding coffee machines - can only generate a few NCEA credits. And, arguably they are more useful skills today than the woodwork and tech drawing that seemed to make middle-aged radio hosts misty-eyed for the clarity of the assessment system of their school days. Scepticism, concern and confusion about NCEA credits and the standards is real. Likewise, concerns about under-educated students turning up in work and university in recent years. Opposition politicians, teachers representatives, school principals and parents all voiced concerns in the media coverage this week. "Mike Hosking loves it. Apparently parents and principals love it. Erica Stanford certainly loves it," Mike Hosking's producer Glenn Hart said on his daily highlights podcast ZBeen last Wednesday]. "I just feel like there's one group of people we haven't talked to about what they want. Oh yeah - the kids, the students. But who cares? Who cares what they think?" he said. A good point well made. TVNZ's 1News did vox pop some school students in their reports. On Tuesday RNZ asked tertiary undergraduates about it. And on Monday, The NZ Herald featured Brynn Pierce, a Year 12 student at Newlands College recently in the news as a Youth Parliament MP. He said NCEA was "overly confusing" for him in his first year, and "vague in terms of course endorsement" afterwards. Meanwhile on ZB's drive show, host Heather du Plessis-Allan eagerly endorsed the Minister of Education Erica Stanford. "She's smashing it out of the park" she said approvingly. But the Otago Daily Times was not so sure this week. Its editorial on Thursday said there was too little detail about exactly what will replace NCEA to give the minister an 'A' for it just yet. The Herald's Audrey Young this week credited Stanford with "a momentous change with relatively little dissent." Partly that was due to her own confidence and drive - and ability to identify problems, find solutions and push them through, she said. But Young also said the widespread lack of confidence in the current system - shared by many of the media pundits - was the other main factor. And though you wouldn't know it from much of the coverage this week - consigning NCEA to the dustbin of educational history isn't a done deal just yet either. The proposals are in a discussion document PDF open for consultation during the next six weeks. In the media discussion so far, any drawbacks have not had much attention. But more students are likely to come out of education with less or even nothing to show for it under the proposed new system. After the NCEA announcement coverage peaked, RNZ's John Gerritsen pointed to new stats that show school leavers with no qualifications are at the highest level in a decade. 16 percent of last year's leavers - and 28 percent of Māori students - left school with no qualification last year. Every teacher RNZ spoke to also warned the timeline for introducing a new curriculum next year, followed by the new qualification from 2028 through to 2030, was tight and would require a lot of support. While most school principals backed the change when the media asked for their views, AUT senior lecturer in education Stuart Deerness warned: "The loudest voices calling for educational change don't always represent what all students need." "The story of NCEA shows how powerful the actions of elite institutions can be, even when they don't intend to cause system-wide change," he wrote for The Conversation . "Since NCEA was introduced between 2002 and 2004, these prominent schools have increasingly opted for alternative assessment systems. This effectively undermined trust in the official assessment system," Deerness said. While the flexibility of NCEA has been portrayed as a weakness by many people this week, it has been a benefit for some students, Annabelle Lee-Mather said on The Spinoff's politics podcast Gone By Lunchtime . "(NCEA) gives students' families time to course-correct. You can see from early in the year how they're tracking, where they need to focus and where they can build up their credits - instead of your kids working all year at school and then flunking out at the end and you don't have time to fix it," she said. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
NCEA not achieved, Tariff ‘surprise,' magazines on the block
Mediawatch looks at how the media graded NCEA as 'not achieved' after the government proposed dumping it this week. And the headlines said Trump's 15 per cent tariff was 'a surprise.' But was it? Some of our most popular magazines are up for sale across the Tasman - again. Who's buying? Podcast (MP3) Oggcast (Vorbis)
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Shane Te Pou: We can't spend Government ghost money
There is nothing new here. All the money was already planned for in the Budget. That means no new jobs or economic growth are being delivered that weren't already in the Budget. A Budget after which unemployment rose by 24,000 by June 2025. This isn't a stimulus to the economy because there is no extra investment beyond that already being planned – meaning no extra GDP. It's a Clayton's announcement. Critics urge a genuine, long-term infrastructure strategy, emphasising collaboration and addressing urgent economic and social needs. Photo / Sylvie Whinray Given the fact that 16,000 fewer people are working in construction than this time last year, you would think this would be the ideal time to boost investment. ANZ reported this week that, 'it appears residential builders are giving up on a recovery any time soon'. You would think that now would be an excellent opportunity to build new state housing. Alas, no such announcements were made. As the famous quote goes, ministers are finding that 'winning is easy, governing is hard'. The initial decisions made to cut investment in areas such as ferries, housing and Dunedin Hospital have sapped confidence in the economy. The impact of tax cuts promised at the last election has long since gone. The likelihood of further interest rate cuts is diminishing as inflation creeps towards 3% and above. It's time for a different approach. Our economy, our productivity and our public realm don't benefit when the Government changes long-term infrastructure planning like this. It doesn't help when ministers use infrastructure announcements as a means of political advertising. Chris Bishop claimed he wanted a 'cross-party consensus' on infrastructure, but critics question whether he's truly engaging with a broad range of voices beyond his own. Photo / Sylvie Whinray That's made even harder when the announcements don't mean anything. We need a long-term approach to tackling this problem – one that will work across Parliaments. An approach that doesn't put one form in infrastructure – roads – ahead of everything else. In December last year, Bishop said he genuinely wanted to build a 'cross-party consensus' on how we build infrastructure in New Zealand. That's great in theory, but when your idea of a consensus is everyone agreeing with you, that's not going anywhere. Building a true consensus would involve working with much wider groups. When was the last time Bishop sat down with trade unions to discuss infrastructure? When did he last sit down with child poverty advocates to talk about our housing that puts kids in hospital? New Zealand's economy is struggling. The US President has just slapped 15% tariffs on our exports – and it's our second-biggest export market. We are losing a generation of people who are voting with their feet because they can't see a future here in Aotearoa. Nurses are on strike. Yet our Government is concerned with changing the name on the front of a passport. It's dangerously out of touch with the real needs of New Zealanders. Infrastructure development and renewal can play a key role in restarting the economy. You simply can't re-wrap last year's Christmas presents and present them as new this year. When we invest in New Zealand, we invest in ourselves and we reap the dividends. The Government is pretending to invest right now, dressing up old investments as new. There is a ghost plan for the economy. It's time for a real one.
