Luxon Must End Climate Denial Speculation
The Greens welcome the open letter from world-leading climate scientists to the Prime Minister, urging his Government to abandon any plan to water down climate targets.
'Christopher Luxon must end any further speculation that his Government is on the climate denial bandwagon. After wasting a year playing around with the mythical 'no additional warming' idea, international alarm bells are ringing,' says Green Party co-leader and Climate Change spokesperson, Chlöe Swarbrick.
'The Climate Change Commission is clear that any entertainment of 'no additional warming' from agricultural gasses would mean households and businesses across the rest of the economy carrying a far higher burden.
'International experts are rightfully calling out this accounting trick. It's about fixing numbers on a page while the real world burns.
'While the Government doesn't tend to show any care for people and the planet, perhaps they would understand that pushing ahead with this agenda poses huge risks for our international exports, climate and trade agreements.
'The Greens have shown how we can reduce real-world emissions five times faster than the Government's 'plan,' while reducing the cost of living and improving our quality of life.
'New Zealanders deserve so much better than this Government's low ambitions for our country,' says Chlöe Swarbrick.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Ruth Richardson's state honour is a slap in the face for the poor
The architect of 1991's 'mother of all budgets', who was made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the King's Birthday honours this week, did immense damage to the country's poorest and most vulnerable, writes Max Rashbrooke. In the early 1990s, two Porirua preschoolers burned to death when their state house was set alight by a candle their family had begun using after the power was cut off. They had been forced to this extremity by a National government that, obsessed by 'market forces', had decided to remove their housing subsidy and require them to pay market rents instead. This sharp rise in costs had left them unable to pay their power bill; hence the candle. Labour MP Graham Kelly caused an uproar in parliament when he attributed these deaths to National's policies – but even allowing for imponderable factors, like whether a candle falls over or not, he was in the broadest sense right. Policies that target the poor always have consequences in the end. And no one targeted the poor harder than Ruth Richardson, who on Monday was made a Companion to the New Zealand Order of Merit. Alongside the market-rent reforms, Richardson is most notorious for the 1991 'mother of all budgets', which cut the benefits of some of the poorest and most vulnerable New Zealanders by up to one-quarter. In a move familiar throughout history, she decided that the burden of tackling New Zealand's (admittedly severe) budget deficit was to fall disproportionately on the poor, rather than those better able to bear it. The result was immediate: a doubling of the number of those living in the most extreme poverty – that is, on less than 40% of the typical income – from 4% in 1990 to 8% two years later. Most policies are much slower to show their effects; Richardson is among a select few who can claim to have doubled poverty overnight. The effects of this stark rise, quite apart from the pain and misery inflicted on families, have spread right throughout New Zealand. Food banks used to be virtually unknown in this country; in the 1990s they became commonplace. Unable to afford to heat their homes, or indeed pay the rent, multiple families began living under one roof, enduring the cold or huddling together for warmth. Mould and damp proliferated. Diseases like rheumatic fever, long since eliminated in other developed nations, flourished in these conditions, wrecking childhoods and ending lives prematurely. A sharp uptick in the hospitalisations of children for medical conditions – from 50 per 1,000 to 70 per 1,000 – began in 1992, just after Richardson's budget. While she was not, of course, the sole author of these misfortunes, she undoubtedly wrote much of the script. Child poverty leaves scars that later affluence never really erases. Children born into hardship have, in adulthood, twice the rate of heart conditions of those born into wealth. They also have far lower reading scores and educational results. Quite apart from being devastating in their own right, these deficits create colossal financial costs: the annual bill from child poverty in this country is estimated at anywhere between $12 billion and $21 billion. This is particularly ironic because Richardson's legacy on the right is one of financial rectitude: she is seen, in particular, as the author of the 1994 Fiscal Responsibility Act, which aimed to improve the transparency and long-term management of the government's accounts. But not only is this relatively small beer compared to the appalling damage poverty inflicts on people's lives, the long-term economic costs of increased hardship are an example of massive financial irresponsibility. Not that Richardson has ever been able to acknowledge as much. Interviewed by the academic Andrew Dean a decade ago, she denied her policies had resulted in any wider harm: 'Over time, was there a social cost? No, there was a social benefit.' That, then, is the person the New Zealand state decided to honour this week: someone who not only did immense damage to the country's poorest but is also quite disconnected from the realities of that harm. The puzzle is less – as some commentators suggested – that it took so long for her to be recognised, but rather that she has been recognised at all. Maybe, though, we should not be surprised. Over in the UK, a similar strategy of slashing government budgets and benefit payments took place under the Conservatives between 2010 and 2024. This austerity cut access to the social services on which ordinary people rely, reduced ambulance services, and sparked poverty-related 'deaths of despair'. All up, it is conservatively estimated by researchers to have caused 190,000 preventable deaths. The man most responsible for this social devastation, former chancellor George Osborne, nonetheless occupies a gilded position in British life, having moved smoothly into editing the Evening Standard newspaper and pontificating on global politics. Inflicting misery on the poor is, in short, socially acceptable as long as it is clothed in the classic establishment rhetoric of taking 'difficult' choices, 'balancing' the books and fiscal 'responsibility'. The poor may be, as the Christians say, always with us, but that does not guarantee that their lives will ever be accorded the proper respect.
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
What is the future for the Waitangi Tribunal?
Now that the Treaty Principles Bill has been consigned to the bin some who want to keep up the conversation about sovereignty and rangatiratanga (Māori self-determination), are refocusing on the Waitangi Tribunal. On the one hand are those who believe the tribunal should be remade to have the power to make decisions which are binding on the government. This would make the tribunal the highest power in New Zealand, above Parliament. (Incidentally, King Charles may well have concerns if Parliament attempts to cede its authority). On the other hand there are those who say the tribunal has done its job and should be dismantled. One of the earliest documents in our history was the Treaty. This document was intended to provide for a peaceful society by, among other things, describing Queen Victoria as in charge, reserving to each tribe their lands, other possessions and their rangatiratanga. This was interpreted for many years as leaving each Māori tribe authority over their own affairs and assets and that Queen Victoria was generally in charge over all. The Waitangi Tribunal came into being in 1975. Its purpose was to make recommendations on claims relating to the application of the principles of the Treaty. For that purpose it is to determine what the Treaty means and whether certain matters are inconsistent with these principles. It costs around $21 million per annum to run. For most of us this tribunal was set up to right the wrongs perpetrated on Māori by the Crown confiscating lands and other possessions. For many years it has had widespread support from New Zealanders. The law establishing the tribunal specifically denies jurisdiction in regard to any Bill that has been introduced to Parliament, unless Parliament has resolved to refer it to the tribunal. As historical land claims are coming to an end, the publicised work of the tribunal has been taken up with making comment about a wide variety of issues, with a focus on the choices government might make. For example the tribunal has spent some years looking into health. The tribunal made a finding that "the health system has not addressed Māori health inequities in a Treaty-compliant way, and this is in part why Māori health inequities have persisted". When the government disestablished the recently established Māori Health Authority the tribunal found that the Crown prejudiced Māori by not engaging with them over the scrapping of the authority. The Waitangi Tribunal has also been conducting a long-standing inquiry into a variety of claims relating to freshwater. Giving evidence to this inquiry The New Zealand Māori Council in 2018 pushed for a water commission to be appointed (rather than elected) made up of 50% Māori to control all water in New Zealand. A lawyer representing over a dozen hapu and iwi said the way the Crown had managed freshwater and left Māori out of the process was similar to theft. This year the tribunal has found that the Treaty Principles Bill breached Treaty principles by failing to guarantee rangatiratanga. When it looked into the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill it found that, if it were enacted, this Bill would be of constitutional significance, as it seeks to influence the way Parliament makes law and therefore it is inherently relevant to Māori. A potted version of the history could be described as thus. In 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between the Crown and various Māori tribes in New Zealand. This gave Queen Victoria overall control of New Zealand. Each tribe was guaranteed to keep ownership of their own land and possessions and to have internal control of their own affairs. Every citizen in New Zealand had the protection of the Crown. In 1975 the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to deal with legitimate grievances over confiscation of land and other possessions. It was expanded in 1985 in relation to historical claims. The tribunal has now interpreted its role as making pronouncements over any proposed legislation. It seems to have decided that all legislation can and would affect Māori, and if Māori could become part of a group who become or remain disadvantaged the law proposed is a breach of Treaty obligations. In our society, which now has many more than just British and Māori subjects, how can we best move forward? Will we continue with the tribunal with a focus on Māori to the exclusion of other priorities for government support hoping this will remain viable? Will we elevate the Waitangi Tribunal to make it the supreme decision-maker in New Zealand over all things which could possibly touch on the lives of Māori? Or might it be better to decide once the tribunal finishes its historic claims it is time to close it down, possibly replacing its role of critiquing government policies as they may affect Māori with a cheaper option? The challenge we have is to try to weave the Treaty and whatever arrangements we have around it with the primary duty of a stable democratic country to look after its most vulnerable without fear or favour. One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. Like Tolkien said. hcalvert@ • Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and Dunedin city councillor.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Health Select Committee Report Fails To Address Real Issues In Funeral Debt
Press Release – Funeral Directors Assn of NZ We think putting in place better consumer protection, with a backstop of genuine Government support for the most vulnerable is going to have far more impact on funeral debt than simplifying paperwork. The Funeral Directors Association says calls from advocacy group, Death without Debt, to simplify cremation paperwork is distracting Government from the real issues around funeral debt. The Health Select Committee has now released a report on cremation costs and associated matters, finding the current process and regulations create a barrier for people who want to organise their own funerals. However Chief Executive, Gillian Boyes, notes the Select Committee recognised it is already possible for people to complete the paperwork directly, recommending the Te Hokinga ā Wairua | End of Life Service website includes links on its website. 'We're incredibly frustrated this advocacy group has suggested making paperwork easier to find will somehow fix funeral debt,' says Ms Boyes. 'Completing paperwork is a fraction of the cost of funeral services. What does cost is what people want and need, which is the support in caring for them and their loved one when they're at a moment in life where they often can't think straight and where paperwork is the least of their concerns. That is the service funeral directors provide.' Ms Boyes says the industry's own submission to the Health Select Committee recommended the Government should instead focus on: Price transparency in law for all funeral directors. Currently only Funeral Directors Association members are obligated by their Standards and Code of Ethics to be transparent. An increase in the asset testing limit for pre-paid funerals from $10,000 to $15,000. This would ensure those with the means to pre-plan are setting aside a more realistic amount which avoids future debt. An increase in the Work and Income Funeral Grant. This would better protect those with no money for the essential services funeral directors provide. 'Government has to be realistic that when services are provided privately, there is cost involved. 'We think putting in place better consumer protection, with a backstop of genuine Government support for the most vulnerable is going to have far more impact on funeral debt than simplifying paperwork.'
