Communities Can't Foot The Bill For Climate Crisis
While dozens of people are still unable to return home, National and Labour are already hinting at a Climate Adaptation plan that would see impacted communities pay for their own recovery.
'These so-called 'once in a lifetime' events are now happening every year. It's only been one year since Wairoa flooded, and a year before that we had Cyclone Gabrielle' said MP for Te Tai Tonga, Tākuta Ferris.
'Communities need more than short-term fixes. They need urgent, sustained investment in both recovery and long-term climate adaption.
'The corporations who are fuelling the climate crisis should be the ones paying for adaptation and recovery – it's not the community's fault that their houses are flooded, why should they have to pay?'
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, MP for Te Tai Tokerau, says the government's continued failure to resource Māori communities is a symptom of Māori being too resilient.
'What we are seeing today is the perverse consequence of our resilience. When our communities are this resilient, their hardship becomes invisible.
'It is our Māori communities who bear the brunt of these climate disasters-isolated and under-resourced. But despite being the most impacted, they are also the first to respond.
'But this resilience is not new, it is a natural part of our Māori ecosystem, an in-built response born of whakapapa, whanaungatanga, and the knowledge that no one else is coming.'
Te Pāti Māori will empower Māori to implement our own climate adaptation solutions, we will provide funding to impacted communities, and we will ensure that Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Mātauranga Māori form the basis of our climate adaptation strategy.
'Recovery must be driven by those who know their whenua, whakapapa, and communities, not dictated by distant bureaucrats with no connection to the realities on the ground' concluded Ferris.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
24 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Why a new slave labour commissioner won't change anything
Of course, this comes hard on the heels of a select subset of our politicians jumping up and down about Israel's mistreatment of people in Gaza and Russia's attacks on Ukraine. I am yet to see either Israel's or Russia's reaction to our protests. Probably because they didn't take notice. Perhaps we could introduce a tariff on products imported from those economies who don't abide by our anti-slavery policies? Of course, no one would take notice of that either. The reason the US can introduce tariffs is because the world cares about what they think. They're the world's biggest customer and they have the biggest defence force. But us? Get real. In a radio interview on Newstalk ZB this week, Belich suggested that if appointed, the new commissioner will not focus his or her efforts on small business. Only those with revenues of over $50 million per annum will be targeted. Excuse me? Firstly, my hazy recollection of New Zealand's issues with slavery and labour exploitation suggests that the problems have been detected in small businesses. One case that I recall involved workers doing domestic and orcharding work. Another higher-profile case involved an Auckland restaurant and migrant workers from India. Yet another saw an investigation into a bowling alley. Let's be clear, these are small businesses with revenues substantially less than $50 million. Secondly, there are plenty of privately owned businesses with perfectly good recruitment and employment records, with no historical examples or even suspicions of anything resembling slavery or labour exploitation, and with turnovers of $50 million or more. And here is a suggestion that, not content with the time wasted in those businesses responding to anti-money laundering requirements, health and safety stupidity, environmental nonsense and climate reporting, we are now going to ask them to bow to the needs of a slavery commissioner! During the radio interview, Belich admitted that she had no idea of how big a problem slavery is in New Zealand. Elsewhere, I noticed that an accompanying statement said the proposed policy was a response to a World Vision initiative urging us to do something. And so the truth comes out. The proposal to appoint an anti-slavery commissioner is yet another sop to an overseas organisation that wants to tell us how to live our lives. Labour's anti-slavery bill misses the mark. writes Bruce Cotterill. Photo / 123rf Deep down, New Zealanders are good people. We don't like the thought of labour exploitation any more than other decent human beings. But we can stand on our principles all day long. It doesn't mean those in lofty positions of power elsewhere will take any notice. But let's not underestimate the cost of taking our arguments to the world. The last time we appointed a commissioner, it was to oversee the cost of groceries. From the moment he was appointed, this writer has been highly sceptical of any benefit at all being delivered to the average New Zealand household as a result. But there he is, sitting in an office within MBIE with a 30-strong staff costing us millions. And this one would be no different. Then there is the fact that we have a very good police force. Is it not their job to sniff out criminal behaviour, including anything to do with labour exploitation or slavery? New Zealand currently criminalises slavery and trafficking under existing legislation. That legislation should be enough for the police to act where necessary. If it's not, let's upgrade the legislation instead of creating another government office. There is something sadly lacking in New Zealand political circles at present. It's called common sense. We seem to be damn keen to jump on board any bandwagon, cause, or worse, gravy train, that pops up without any logical thought about our priorities, potential outcomes, or financial cost. I'd like to suggest that our politicians would be better to focus on the things that can make a difference to our troubled little economy. New Zealand has a whole lot of challenges that I'd like to see our elected representatives focusing on. At the top of that list is this. Stop wasting money. At all levels of government, including local government, we continue to press the case to spend more money. The recent rates increases tell us that Auckland's mayor is one of the few who focuses heavily on costs. And yet it should be the job of every politician to work out what our priorities are, and then tell us how they can do more with less. But no, projects run over time and budgets are blown. Annual forecasts allow for increasingly eyewatering sums of money for what should be relatively simple and straightforward services. When you're broke, you have to focus on the things that really matter. That's where the attention goes. And that's where the funding goes. In government terms, we're not really broke, but we're not exactly flush either. The Greens will tell us that we can borrow more money and still have less debt than other nations. But they're overlooking the fact that our low productivity environment makes borrowing a lot easier than paying it back. And our interest bill is already our fourth biggest cost. We'd be foolish to allow it to go any higher unless that debt supported increased income, greater productivity or both. It's no secret that our problems are plenty. The usual suspects, Health and Education, seem well-funded but poorly resourced. What does that mean? It means there's plenty of money allocated, but not enough of it lands at the coalface. Elsewhere, our infrastructure deficit is massive and we need different thinking to work out what to do about the inadequacies of our power, water and transport infrastructure in particular. Then there are our people who can't look after themselves and those who can't cope in today's society. Not looking after those people properly leads to downstream effects, including increasing burdens from health and crime. Right now, New Zealand is not doing well enough on any of these measures. If we want to aspire to become a country that's respected and listened to internationally, we would do well to remember the following. The country that can do most to help those less advantaged, including victims of war, famine and yes, even slavery, are those countries with strong economies. Before we start telling the rest of the world how to behave, we need to build an economy that can afford to offer help, rather than just cheaply throwing words around telling others how to live their lives. As it turns out, we do have room for a new commissioner. I'd like to think we could appoint a commissioner who would make a real and substantive difference to New Zealand. Firstly a difference to the outcomes for our people but also a difference to our international standing. Fixing this one would give us greater license to tell others how to behave. Currently, that license is weakened because of our own inadequacy. You could call that person the Commissioner for our Greatest Embarrassment. But in reality, they would be a Commissioner for Child Safety. In other words, something or someone that provides a massive focus on preventing us from killing our kids. Can you believe that we have a Ministry for Children, a Social Wellbeing Agency, and ministerial portfolios for Child Poverty, and for the Prevention of Family Violence? I wonder what all that costs. And yet here we are, ranking 35th in the OECD for the wellbeing of our children. In case we've forgotten, on average, one child dies every five weeks in New Zealand at the hands of someone responsible for their care. Of the 127 children murdered between 2007 and 2020, three-quarters were under the age of 5. Let that sink in for a moment. Then tell me that the slave trade in China, Nigeria or India is more important. I'd like to think we have bigger priorities than the opposition's latest bill. Our parents used to say, worry about your own backyard first. That sounds like great advice.
Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Voting on the pressing issues
As Dunedin prepares for the local body elections, voters have the opportunity to choose local politicians who align with their expectations of the future for Dunedin. While many issues are currently in the spotlight, such as the cost of living, flooding, and housing, these are often closely connected to climate change and sustainability — even if that link isn't always made explicit. There have been a number of reports that find an explicit relationship between the cost of living and climate change impacts. Earlier this year The Australia Institute released a report that found a direct connection between the rising cost of living and the climate crisis, now and into the future. The report identified that the particular sectors to be hit hardest will be insurance premiums, food prices and energy costs. And indeed the more the temperature rises, the worse conditions will get, that means that more weather events will increase insurance premiums and disrupt food production, pushing up costs further. However, much of today's public discourse relies on divisive sound bites that pit immediate concerns against longer-term global challenges such as climate change. This framing creates a false dichotomy. In reality, we can no longer afford to treat climate change as separate from the pressing issues we face — it is deeply interconnected with how we live, work, and make decisions on this planet. This is where I would listen carefully during the local body electioneering. For example, the adaptation report released this week from the Independent Reference Group on Climate Adaptation noted that we need a proactive approach to climate adaptation. The report concluded with three main points: There needs to be increased access to risk information and early planning because New Zealanders need clear, accessible information about natural hazard risks and planned responses to make informed decisions. Early understanding enables individuals, communities and businesses to reduce future costs through proactive planning and risk mitigation. There should be fair and targeted funding for risk reduction. A broad ''beneficiary pays'' principle should guide funding, where those who benefit most contribute more. It is suggested that central government should invest where national or Crown interests are at stake, and help support vulnerable communities with limited capacity to pay. People (and businesses) are going to need to take individual responsibility. People should understand and take responsibility for the risks they face, with property values and insurance costs reflecting changing climate risks. Long-term public buyouts should not be expected, though government should support those in hardship. Māori must be resourced and empowered to make their own local adaptation decisions. Consequently, considering the above recommendations and when thinking about local government actions in this space, consider: 1. How local government candidates prioritise making climate and natural hazard risk data accessible and understandable to the public. This includes supporting initiatives for open data, improved hazard mapping and clear communication strategies. How candidates commit to transparency and proactive public engagement on risk information — not just during emergencies, but in planning and development decisions. 2. How candidates explain how they intend to fund adaptation measures. The ''beneficiary pays'' principle suggests ratepayers, developers and beneficiaries of infrastructure should contribute, but it would be good to understand candidates' positions on the role of council advocacy for central government support, especially where community capacity is limited. Ask how candidates plan to balance fairness, fiscal responsibility and investment in resilience, especially for vulnerable areas. 3. How local leaders treat climate risk when discussing land-use decisions, property valuations and infrastructure planning. Ask for candidates to give their position on development in high-risk areas, managed retreat and the role of insurance and housing affordability in adaptation. Understand what might be the support shown for iwi/hapū leadership and resourcing for Māori-led adaptation. Voters should assess whether candidates recognise that long-term public buyouts are unsustainable and that adaptation will require behavioural, policy and market change. The coming local elections are a chance to assess whether candidates are ready to govern in an era where climate change is not a distant threat, but a defining consideration in local decision-making. Only by actively understanding the connections between climate change and the other key pressing issues can elected representatives on council begin to build a sustainable and resilient future for all people and businesses in our city. Sara Walton is a professor at the Otago Business School, University of Otago. Each week in this column writers addresses issues of sustainability.
NZ Herald
7 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Empowering youth voices is crucial for NZ's future
Some of the 143 youth who travelled to Wellington for Youth Parliament. One-hundred and forty-three youth travelled to Wellington for Youth Parliament from July 1-2. This included 123 Youth MPs and 20 Youth Press Gallery. The energy was electric! Chelsea Reti, born and raised in the Far North, mokopuna o Te Aho Matua, stood as my Youth MP. Reti, with our other tai tamariki (youth) of the North, came with their heritage, their culture and their communities, ready to participate and share their unique northern perspectives. In Youth Parliament our representatives participated in working groups akin to select committees, addressing issues such as gambling harm, sport and recreation, te reo Māori and other critical systems and issues facing Aotearoa. For Reti, it was retirement income. These are important issues in our communities today and will be in the future. As our youth shared many times in Youth Parliament, today's decisions will be inherited tomorrow. Our Youth MPs also had the opportunity to ask questions of ministers and make general debate speeches in the House. For Reti, it was a question to Minister Louise Upston on the issue of child poverty, asking what measures the Government is taking to reduce child poverty in our communities – something very relevant for the Far North and rural communities. There was a lot of coverage in the media of Youth Parliament, where our youth expressed concerns at the feelings of being censored in their general debate speeches. In liaison with officials and our youth, it was important to highlight the desire for our young people to express themselves authentically but also maintain safety, as matters such as privilege do not apply in Youth Parliament. The general debate speeches were fiery, passionate and on point, which brought local issues into national thinking.
