Legal Experts Sue Climate Minister Over Glaring Holes In Emissions Plan
Press Release – Lawyers for Climate Action
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
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Free Speech Union Warns Stalking And Harassment Bill Risks Abuse, Changes Make It Worse
The Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill suffers from the common fault of slogan laws with good intentions, without realism about the risks of misuse. The announced expansion of what is considered a 'specified act' goes in the wrong direction, says Stephen Franks, Council Member of the Free Speech Union. 'We've already seen the broad and vague terminology in the Harmful Digital Communications Act being used to silence legitimate dissent many times. This Bill is likely to be similarly abused. 'Truth should be a defense for 'damaging, or undermining [a person's] reputation, opportunities, or relationships'. That would save the centuries-long principle that protects the public interest in learning home truths about powerful people and wrongdoers. It is not enough to say the Bill lets you argue that truth is for a proper purpose. We know that courts have not held that telling the truth is presumptively a proper purpose. 'The broad definition of 'specified acts' as inducing fear or distress, combined with the low threshold for establishing a 'pattern of behaviour', already leaves wide scope for misuse against legitimate surveillance, and dissent. Likewise, the inclusion of 'contacting or communicating with a person' is vague and has the potential to be weaponised. 'By prioritising the term 'fear or distress' without a clear objective override, the Bill raises similar issues to 'hate speech' legislation. The law does not recognise that some people ought to be ashamed ('distressed') by exposure of their own conduct. 'The Government's decision to increase the timeframe for establishing a 'pattern of behaviour' from contact twice over 12 to 24 months also widens the net, making it more likely that isolated or infrequent expressions of dissent could be criminalised. 'We submitted our concerns in February, urging the Justice Select Committee to narrow their definitions, to clarify 'specified acts', and to provide better defences that would let the courts protect free speech. We call on the Minister of Justice to protect Kiwis' speech rights as well as victims of stalking and harassment.'
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
PM Must Stop Changes Further Failing Children
Press Release – New Zealand Labour Party Christopher Luxon must step in and cancel boot camps and restore funding to frontline community providers before its too late, Labour childrens spokesperson Willow-Jean Prime said. Today's damning report on Oranga Tamariki shows Māori children are being left with little chance of success, or even survival, after their experiences in the state care system, and Minister for Children Karen Chhour is making it worse. 'This report is the first of its kind and reveals a disturbing and urgent problem which can no longer be ignored by the Prime Minister who has overseen dangerous changes to Oranga Tamariki during his term in government,' Labour children's spokesperson Willow-Jean Prime said. 'The Government has cut early intervention, continued with botched bootcamps that have never worked, and taken away funding from community-run services that help children and whānau. 'Christopher Luxon has allowed an ACT Minister to recklessly erode the services that have been built up to support children. 'As well as repealing Section 7AA, Karen Chhour has removed a key target for placement of children with whanau, and removed the target for investment for services provided by Iwi organisations. 'The Government has taken away actions specifically put in place to address the significant disparities for Māori children in care. 'Christopher Luxon must step in and cancel boot camps and restore funding to frontline community providers before it's too late,' Willow-Jean Prime said.
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
New Report Confirms Oranga Tamariki Is Failing Tamariki And Government Is Failing Māori
Press Release – Green Party We cannot continue to repeat history and pave the way for another Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. We cannot let the Government give up on our most vulnerable kids by repeating cycles that have been continuing for generations. A new report, 'Outcomes for tamariki and rangatahi Māori and their whānau in the oranga tamariki system 2023/24,' has confirmed that Oranga Tamariki is severely failing our most vulnerable Māori youth. 'The Government is setting our tamariki up to fail by throwing them into a system that harms instead of helps our kids who are most in need,' says the Green Party's spokesperson for Children, Kahurangi Carter. 'Our tamariki and rangatahi deserve to be loved, nurtured and safe in whānau and communities that have what they need to support their wellbeing. 'Today's report confirms that tamariki and rangatahi Māori are significantly over-represented in the Oranga Tamariki system and significantly under-supported. Māori youth make up two-thirds of those in state care, and make up almost 50 per cent of reports of concern made to Oranga Tamariki. 'We cannot continue to repeat history and pave the way for another Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. We cannot let the Government give up on our most vulnerable kids by repeating cycles that have been continuing for generations. 'Minister Chhour has deliberately undermined Oranga Tamariki by scrapping 7AA and cutting $120m of funding for services contracted to support vulnerable youth. This resulted in Kōkiri Marae, a marae which runs education, health and social services in Pito-one, losing $1.5 million of funding overnight. This is unacceptable. 'A Green Government would create a system that centres tamariki Māori in all levels of government, with dedicated structures that ensure accountability to them. We will uphold the tino rangatiratanga of every tamaiti by centring whakapapa and te ao Māori, with whānau and hapū leading decisions affecting tamariki and rangatahi. 'The oranga of our tamariki and rangatahi must be at the heart of decision-making. It really is as simple as that,' says Kahurangi Carter. Notes Other key outcomes of the report are: Māori who have been in care are far more likely to face mental health issues and housing instability as adults. Intergenerational cycles persist, with 70% of Māori parents who were in care now having children involved with OT. Despite some efforts, the below barriers persist: High thresholds mean many reports of concern result in no action. Whānau-led processes like Family Group Conferences are under-resourced and poorly implemented. Early support is often missed, increasing the risk of deeper system involvement. Funding decisions have undermined trust and reduced effective services, particularly for iwi and kaupapa Māori providers. There is insufficient prioritisation across agencies and siloed approaches worsening outcomes.
