ACT Councillors Will Oppose Local Government Climate Activism
'ACT believes the proper role of a council is to deliver core services and resilient infrastructure – not to try to change the weather,' says Mr Luxton, who is at Fieldays today.
'Councils should focus on what they can control, not sign symbolic declarations, publish costly 'climate strategies', or employ teams of climate advisors at ratepayer expense.
In practice, ACT Local's policy would mean:
No local emissions reduction plans
No 'climate emergency' declarations
No ratepayer-funded climate junkets
No emissions reduction slush funds
Emissions disregarded in all consenting and land use decisions
Spending based on value for money, not carbon
Continued improvement of infrastructure like stormwater and stopbanks
'Emissions reduction is properly handled – and indeed, already is handled – at the central government level, such as through the Emissions Trading Scheme.
'Through the ETS, all New Zealanders, including council decision-makers, are already incentivised to reduce emissions in whatever way is most cost-effective for their circumstances. If a council wants to save on its energy costs by switching to LED street lights or electric buses, go for it. But additional grandstanding over climate action is just an expensive virtue signal.
'In Parliament, ACT is addressing local climate activism with Mark Cameron's member's bill to stop councils from considering emissions in their land use plans. ACT councillors would take this a step further, working to secure majorities around the council to take climate ideology out of councils entirely.
'Ratepayers expect potholes to be fixed, not platitudes about planetary salvation. ACT councillors will focus on delivering the basics well, with less waste and lower rates.'
ACT has now completed candidate selection and in the coming days will begin to announce its candidates in territories across New Zealand.
Examples:
ACT spokespeople are available to offer commentary on any local council's climate plans. Cameron Luxton is at Fieldays, and ACT Climate Change spokesperson Simon Court will be in Auckland.
Local climate plans typically have flow-on effects for consenting decisions, staffing, procurement policies, and council assets like vehicle fleets.
Councils representing three-quarters of New Zealand's population have declared climate emergencies.
Whangarei District Council has declared a climate emergency, with an Emission Reduction Plan which replicated national targets to produce net zero emissions by 2050.
Auckland Council has a Climate Plan introduced in 2020 to halve emissions for the region by 2030 reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Tauranga City Council has committed to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
Hamilton City Council has an ' Our Climate Future ' strategy with goal to reduce the city's emissions by 82% by 2050, and a commitment to 'consider climate change in all we do'.
Horowhenua District Council has a Climate Action Plan to 'limit future impacts of climate change by reducing future emissions'.
Councils in Wellington, Wairarapa, and Horowhenua have signed up to a joint Regional Emissions Reduction Plan to 'help drive the system change that creates the environment for behaviour change'.
Hutt City Council has set a goal of reducing emissions to net zero by no later than 2050.
Wellington City Council has a ' First to Zero ' plan to become a net zero emission city by 2050, and has declared a State of Climate and Ecological Emergency.
Christchurch City Council has a plan to half emissions by 2030, compared with 2016/2017.
Dunedin City Council has a Zero Carbon Plan to become a carbon neutral city by 2030.
All of these plans are redundant because emissions targets are set nationally by central government, and behaviour change is advanced via the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
10 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Christopher Luxon won't discuss poor polls with caucus, Labour not saying anything about tax policy
Luxon said: 'We discuss our internal polling from time to time with our caucus, which is very normal practice, but I'm not focused or polls or talking about myself, I'm focused on New Zealanders and making sure we have the right long-term plan in place.' Luxon said. Luxon confirmed caucus was still receiving internal polls. 'New Zealanders understand we've gone through the biggest recession in the last 30 years. We've got a big Covid hangover as we've seen from the Treasury report last week, we've had some difficult challenging circumstances particularly since April with respect to the tariff situation. 'I think you're seeing across New Zealand - get out of Wellington, you go to the South Island, the primary industries, go to Hawke's Bay, you are seeing good recovery in those parts, but I acknowledge in places like Auckland and Wellington and urban environments it is still pretty tough,' Luxon said. He said things like the InvestmentBoost tax credit and the infrastructure pipeline would lead to a recovery. Chris Bishop said talk of a leadership change was silly. Photo / Mark Mitchell Talk of leadership change 'just silly' - Chris Bishop Senior Minister Chris Bishop said despite the grim polling there was 'no talk' of changing the leader. 'That's just silly. What we're doing as a Government - New Zealand's first three-way coalition government - is working hard to get the economy growing again after years of high inflation, high government spending and high debt,' Bishop said. He said he would 'not even entertain' the idea of a polling threshold at which point National would need to roll its leader. Bishop was one of the National MPs at the heart of a bid to replace then-leader Simon Bridges with Todd Muller in 2020. Like Luxon, Bishop said that the economy had struggled to lift off since US President Donald Trump's announcement of tariffs on Liberation Day in April. Treasury had been forecasting a decent economic recovery before April, but since then, it revised its growth forecasts downwards. The economy is still set to grow, but not as fast. Live GDP estimates from the Reserve Bank suggest the next GDP print will show a quarter of contraction. The threat of tariffs had caused businesses to hold back investment. Bishop said the Government would not make 'reactionary one-off decisions' to pump the polls. 'What we need to do is stick to the course of a long-term economic plan that would set New Zealand up for growth,' he said. He suggested that some of the polling slump was because Labour had no real policy, beyond a promise to repeal things like Three Strikes, the reinstatement of oil and gas exploration, and the future Regulatory Standards Bill. 'It's all easy for Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party to sit off to the side and say life should be better, [but] in their own words, they do not have any policy. 'Life's easy in opposition when you have the luxury of not having any policy... they do not have any policy and they are not planning to release any any time soon,' Bishop said, referring to an admission from Labour finance spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds that the party did not have any substantive cost of living policy. Labour leader Chris Hipkins on his way into his weekly caucus meeting. Photo / Mark Mitchell Hipkins keeps mum on tax policy Labour leader Chris Hipkins was happy with the polls, saying Labour's numbers had 'grown significantly since the last election. 'We were at 26% at the last election, we're now polling comfortably across the polls in the mid-30s,' Hipkins said. Asked about Labour's lack of policy, Hipkins said, 'they [National] would definitely like more things to attack us on - that's true'. Hipkins said policy would be announced before the election, but he wanted to make sure he could deliver on it. A column by Vernon Small, a former staffer for Labour Revenue Minister David Parker, in the Sunday Star-Times reported Labour's policy council had resolved to support a Capital Gains Tax as the preferred policy for the next election, beating out the other favoured tax, a wealth tax. It now rests with Labour's governing council and the Parliamentary side of the party to decide what to do with the decision as the party puts its 2026 election policy together. Hipkins has committed to campaigning on progressive tax reform, but said the tax policy was 'not yet resolved'. He said he 'would not discuss the internal machinations of the Labour Party', but said a 'consensus is emerging'. He said a wealth tax and a capital gains tax were 'on the table', but would not commit to Labour's traditional policy of excluding taxing any capital gains accrued on the family home. 'When we have a tax policy to announce we will announce it,' Hipkins said. When asked again he said, 'I'm not getting into that because we haven't announced a tax policy'. Eventually, Hipkins said, 'I've always said taxing the family home shouldn't be taxed, but I'm not announcing a policy that we haven't announced'. Hipkins has been reluctant to shape his party's tax discussions by ruling various things in or out. Labour's 2017 commitment to kick its tax policy to a tax working group was guided by the fact that any capital gains tax would exclude the family home. In an earlier press conference, Hipkins would not rule out the Greens' inheritance tax proposal, although he conceded it would be very unlikely Labour would agree to it. Hipkins got into trouble with his party in 2023 and 2024 for his 'captain's call' to kill the wealth tax proposal, a call some members believed was against party rules - although Hipkins and the party leadership dispute this. Hipkins denied his reluctance to personally shape the tax discussion this time around is because he is being extra scrupulous in light of his previous troubles over captain's calls. 'No,' he said, when asked. 'We'll announce a tax policy when we're ready to announce it, not because you keep asking questions about it,' Hipkins said. Minister of Defence Judith Collins said this is the best Cabinet she has served in. Photo / Sylvie Whinray (file) The most enjoyable Cabinet - Judith Collins Former National leader Judith Collins said she 'didn't even see' the polls. 'I'm just too busy doing my job,' she said. Collins said this was 'a really good coalition Government, I love being part of it'. 'I've been in a few Cabinets, let me tell you, and this is the most enjoyable for me,' she said. 'I find the Prime Minister's leadership excellent, he just lets me get on and do the job,' she said. Collins said Luxon was 'absolutely' the right person to lead the Government.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
NZ govt criticised for slowness in recognising a Palestinian state
national about 1 hour ago While other western nations declare their intention to recognise a Palestinian state, the New Zealand government is being described as a "laggard" for delaying its position on statehood. The University of Otago's Professor Robert Patman spoke to Tuwhenuaroa Natanahira. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
On Labour's Soft Support In The Polls
Currently, Labour is a receptacle for the widespread public dis-illusionment with the Luxon administration. However, this week's poll results– which would deliver a hung Parliament in which the centre-right and centre left blocs were tied on 61 seats – flatters to deceive Labour about its chances in Election 2026. Australia can offer an illuminating example of this popularity-by-default during the year before an election. Consider the fate of Peter Dutton's Liberal-led coalition. When voters were solely focussed on the many failings of the Albanese government, Dutton's fortunes rose, such that he looked like the prime minister in waiting. That mood lasted until January 2025, when the election year kicked off in earnest. Voters then began looking at their political options through a different lens. With Dutton, they began asking: is this really the guy, and is this the party, and are these the policies we want to elect ? And the answer was no, not now, not ever. Meaning: once the public begins to take a hard look at the options before them, some of Labour's preceding soft support will ebb away, since it is largely based on an anything-but -this attitude towards the incumbent. That situation will change, as Dutton found to his cost. Albanese managed to make this year's Australian election campaign all about Peter Dutton, and hardly at all about his own track record. Similarly, National will be trying to make next year's election campaign all about scaring the electorate out of its wits about the prospect of a Labour/Greens/TPM governing arrangement. Labour is giving every sign of walking straight into this trap. To date, it has made no effort to look like a confident alternative government in waiting. It seems happy to be a blank state. It has put forward no new policies, and has actively distanced itself from the policies being put forward by the Greens, the partner that Labour needs if it is to govern at all. On the left, we are seeing nothing like the collusion we have seen on the right, where National is willing to let ACT set the policy agenda, because ACT and National have the same goals in mind, and serve the same corporate interests. Quite a different story on the centre-left. It is unclear whether Labour agrees with the Greens about anything of substance, including the pace of change required on the policies that do overlap. Sure, they compete for centre left votes. But ultimately, they're supposed to be allies. Routinely however, Labour treats the Greens as a liability that it needs to keep in check, rather than as an electoral asset. No wonder this week then, that the Greens were talking up their role in driving a future Labour-led government. In doing so, it was mimicking ACT's role in the coalition government, and was also trying to draw Labour into acting like an alternative government that has joint solutions to offer for the public mood of discontent. By refusing to take any policy positions now, Labour makes it more likey that its belated revelations will become THE focus of next year's election campaign, rather than the coalition government's manifest failures. Running scared Some of Labour's current obfuscation borders on the ridiculous. Apparently, Labour has spent the past 18 months debating whether to adopt a capital gains tax – even though this was settled party policy eleven years ago, when David Cunliffe took it into the 2014 election. Since then we have had the Cullen Tax Working Group mull over its merits and endorse it, as have any number of economic experts, both here and overseas. What's been left to debate? With elephants, the gestation period is only 22 months. Currrenty, nearly six generations of elephants have been conceived and born since Labour first tried to convince the public to embrace a capital gains tax in an election year. Yet all outward appearances, Labour still hasn't quite made up its mind. Labour's skittish tendency to treat its core policies as hand grenades likely to blow up in its face at any moment, has also been evident with regard to the oil and gas exploration ban. When in government, Labour immediately enacted the ban (a) for climate change reasons and (b) in the knowledge that the ban was largely symbolic, since no untapped deposits appear to exist, and no multinational companies seem willing to go to the trouble and expense of conducting further searches in our waters. (That's why the Luxon government is currently offering Big Oil $200 million + in subsidies, to get them to try, try, try again.) Righto. So would Labour re-instate the ban, if re-elected? You'd think this would be a no-brainer. Yet despite her eloquent criticism of the Luxon government's rescinding of the ban, Labour's energy spokesperson Megan Woods twice declined in this interview to say whether Labour would re-instate it. A few days later, she told Carbon News that a new Labour government would re-instate the ban, but would also honour any exploration pernits issued in the interim. Why? If you truly want to deter fossil fuel exploration, let that risk be on their own heads. Taxpayers will have already paid them those huge subsidies to cover their risk. It really shouldn't be this hard to figure out where Labour stands on issues that should be a slam dunk for a centre-left party. It bodes badly for Labour's ability to emerge from its corner next year and (a) confidently promote its own policies, and (b) not run in fright from the policies of its partners. Just as well Michael Joseph Savage isn't trying to convince this lot to create a welfare safety net. Footnote: All the same, there has been hints aplenty dropped to prep the media for the news that Labour is likely to be taking a capital gains tax into the next election, and has rejected the wealth tax proposed earlier this year in the Greens alternative budget. If and when Labour do publicly commit to a capital gains tax, it would be good to know that they have prepped themselves on how to handle the question that tripped up David Cunliffe in the leaders debate in 2014. Would the tax apply, John Key asked, to family homes held in trusts? The answer that eluded Cunliffe on the night but which was later clarified by David Parker went like this: 'If it is a principal family home there's no capital gains tax payable," [Parker] told Radio New Zealand's Morning Report programme. "If it's not a principal family home then there will be, although if it's a holiday home and it's passed through the generations that doesn't attract a capital gains tax either." The capital gains tax policy is meant to have a symbolic value. Yet these wrinkles and exemptions suggest that a capital gains tax is not going to provide Labour with a clear and ringing expression of its core identity, heading into the next election. It is a policy devised by policy wonks, and will be mainly of interest to pundits and economists. Moreover, back in 2018 when such a tax was being seriously proposed (by the Cullen Tax Working Group) as a necessary corrective to an economy wedded to housing speculation, bank economists were claiming that such a tax would cut house prices by 10%. In today's depressed housing market, a CGT wouldn't have such a serious impact on house prices. But that won't stop National and ACT from painting it as a tax grab likely to reduce in value the main investment/retirement asset held dear by many New Zealanders. That's not a good reason to abandon the policy. For decades, this country has suffered from the extent to which our domestic economy has consisted of us buying and selling houses to each other, for the untaxed capital gains. At the same time, one can feel worried about Labour's ability to convince voters that if a capital gains tax does impose some pain, this pain will (a) be only fleeting (b) be shared equally and (c) will be outweighed by tangible benefits. So far, Labour has shown no such ability. Under Chris Hipkins, Labour was cringingly risk averse when in government, and it has carried that over into opposition. Big Thief Kills It (Again) Breakup songs are a dime a dozen, but post-breakup songs that deal with what kind of relationship (friendship?) is now possible - after time and distance have taken the edge off heartbreak - are much more rare. I'm guessing, but on this new Big Thief track, Adrianne Lenker seems to be re-addressing her former partner Indigo Sparks, two years or more after they went their separate ways. Earlier Lenker songs ('Zombie Girl' and 'Anything' in particular) were inspired by her raw feelings for Sparks. This new song is more ruefully optimistic: To measure the distance that's been travelled, here's how things were for Lenker back at the time, on 'Anything:'
