
Where do I send conservatives the bill for climate change?
It seems almost impossible to believe, but until two years ago New Zealand's most expensive weather-related event, from an insurance point of view, was a big hailstorm in Timaru that cost $170 million. Now, of course, things happen at 10x magnification. The Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle each led to insured losses of around $2 billion. And – here's a cheerful thought – such events will only become more frequent and more expensive, as the planet heats and the atmosphere comes to hold more moisture.
Which leads, inexorably, to my current preoccupation: where do I send conservatives the bill for climate change?
In just one news bulletin this morning, two instances of soaring climate-change-related costs: the bill for repairing roads after the terrible Tasman floods is around $1 million every two days, and the damage those floods did to agriculture will drive up vegetable prices around the country. Yesterday a homeowner was on RNZ's Morning Report lamenting a landslip that had caused massive damage to their house: another cost. After each major flood, public bodies have to repair bridges, community halls, communication infrastructure, and so on: yet more costs. Heatwaves, too, cause droughts and losses to farmers: cost upon cost.
Where, then, do I send conservatives the bill?
Some will try to argue that weather is just weather: floods, cyclones and droughts have always happened. But the scientific consensus is clear: climate change makes all these events much worse. It renders them more likely to happen and, when they do happen, more devastating. A couple of years ago scientists, using a methodology called extreme event attribution, calculated that climate change was costing the globe $16 million an hour, and was set to cost up to $3.1 trillion – that's right, trillion – a year by 2050, as hurricanes, floods and heatwaves all worsen.
Here at home, scientists in 2018 estimated that climate change had already caused at least $840 million worth of damage in a decade, and in truth probably much more than that. The Treasury, meanwhile, has calculated that climate change's worsening of extreme weather events could cost the state 3.8% of GDP by 2061, while GDP itself could be around 1% lower. Governments, families and firms will all have to spend billions of dollars repairing totally avoidable damage.
Clearly, then, there is a bill to be paid. So where are the conservatives stepping up to accept it?
I ask this because, for the 40 years since the world was first alerted to climate change, right-wingers have consistently been the ones most opposed to doing anything about it. As the documentary Hot Air reveals, in the early 1990s Simon Upton, the minister for the environment, wanted to introduce a carbon tax, but was thwarted by the likes of the New Zealand Initiative – in its former guise as the Business Roundtable – bringing in climate deniers to disrupt the debate.
As Upton explains in the documentary, one of the Roundtable's 'experts' claimed that addressing climate change was a form of social engineering akin to – wait for it – eugenics. 'My eyebrows raised at that point,' says Upton, who tried to push on regardless. But this lobbying, allied to the usual right-wing campaigns by business and farming interests, derailed his well-laid plans.
It could be argued that left-wing governments haven't always had a great record on climate change: emissions rose under Helen Clark, for instance. But her government did introduce the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and if she didn't go further, it was substantially because of opposition from – you guessed it – the right. Remember National MP Shane Ardern driving a tractor up parliament steps to protest against the ETS? That's the story of this issue, over and over: left-wing governments trying to do more in the teeth of right-wing opposition, and right-wing governments doing very little despite being urged to do more by left-wing ones.
I return, then, to my theme: where do I send conservatives the bill?
New Zealand right-wingers might argue that their actions, however unhelpful, have been essentially irrelevant, given that virtually all globe-heating emissions are created offshore. And that's fair enough. They can forward on a big piece of the bill to World Conservative Headquarters, which I imagine as a large and imposing edifice, albeit crumbling around the edges and with some increasingly lunatic fringing.
I'm happy, in short, for Kiwi conservatives to pass on part of the bill – just as long as I know where to send it in the first place.
Domestic right-wingers might feel this argument is a bit too sweeping. Hashtag Not All Conservatives, etc. And that's true, up to a point. Just look at Upton: he was a conservative, and doing his best. Ditto, at different times, Guy Salmon, Todd Muller and the like. It's such a shame, then, that – to reprise the old joke about lawyers – 95% of conservatives are giving the remaining 5% a bad name.
There's a great irony here, in that conservatives are supposed to be strong in a couple of areas, including – you know – conserving things (the planet, for instance). Saving money, too. But although the costs of mitigating climate change have always been vastly lower than the costs of not doing so, this point has somehow eluded the ostensible fiscal conservatives among us.
If there's one thing that I know conservatives like, though, it's personal responsibility. They're always talking about the costs that 'feckless' poor people impose on the rest of us, constantly attacking left-wing governments for treating taxpayers 'like an ATM'. And so, as the Tasman region reels from the devastation, as hundreds of homes are flooded each year, and as we face the prospect of this fiscal picture deteriorating with each passing decade, I'm sure that everyone on the right who has ever opposed or downplayed the need for climate action will step forward to take responsibility.
And then, at last, I might know where to send the bill.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
'System Just Sucks': Political Scientist Says Māori Being Deterred From Voting
Pokere Paewai, Māori issues reporter A Māori political scientist says reports people have been removed from the electoral roll or shifted off the Māori roll could discourage some Māori from voting. Political scientist at Victoria University Lara Greaves was blunt in her assessment of New Zealand's voting system, calling it difficult to navigate, particularly when it comes to updating or changing enrolment details. "This system just sucks," she said. Past surveys have shown that a significant minority of people don't have a good understanding of the electoral system at all, she said. "So I think this whole system is set up in a way that is quite confusing, quite hōhā and quite bureaucratic and a bit annoying overall." Over the last several days social media has been awash with people checking their voter details only to find they are no longer enrolled or that they cannot find their enrolment details. Lloyd is a voter on the general roll, he checked his enrolment status on Thursday was unable to find his details and had to reenrol. He told RNZ it was like there was no record of him at all. "It just seemed very inflexible considering you want everyone to vote ... I hope they get on [and] start advertising and telling people 'please just go and check and you may have to do this from scratch and we're sorry' or something." Lloyd said he has been voting for about 30 years and last checked his voting details prior to the last election in 2023. Adding extra steps to the enrolment process just makes it that much harder, he said. "I just think they should fix the system so it's a little bit smarter and easier." Lloyd's kōrero follows that of Taryn Utiger, who told RNZ she had been put on the dormant roll despite updating her enrolment details three weeks prior. "They were like, yup ka pai you're on the Māori electorate roll, everything's good to go you will be able to vote in the local body elections and the referendum. I was like cool, thought that was the end of it, everything confirmed. Then I logged in last night and nothing." Greaves said there are realistic barriers between Māori enrolling to vote, including a lack of knowledge among poll workers about the Māori roll and a legacy of colonisation that has discouraged Māori from participating in the electoral system. "We know that there are barriers out there, and the barriers and perception of barriers do cause lower trust, lower trust in democracy. We go back decades and we can see that there have been a lot of barriers for Māori voters," she said. "All of this is contributing to a culture where people think 'hey why would I even bother voting they don't want my vote.'" Greaves said as the facilitator of New Zealand's democracy the Electoral Commission needs to be sufficiently staffed, especially in its IT department. "Could we just invest in an IT system, could we invest in a computer system, could we invest in more people on the ground and get better results. Democracy does need money, it does need investment, it does need personnel to run it and that doesn't seem to be the case at the moment." When a system has inequities those inequities tend to affect Māori, Pacific people and migrant communities more, she said. The Electoral Commission have said there were no technical issues with their online system. Its deputy chief executive of operation Anusha Guler said it was likely some people had been moved to the "dormant roll" because they had not got in contact with the commission for sometime. According to the Electoral Commission 2023 General Election Report, the dormant roll contains voters who have been removed from the main roll for their electorate because they no longer live at an address and have not updated their enrolment details. At the election, there were 96,406 people on the dormant roll and of those, 86 percent were on the general dormant roll while 14 percent were on the Māori dormant roll. Between 31 July and the 2023 election day, just under 78,000 people moved from dormant rolls to the main roll. Speaking to media yesterday, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said he was also concerned but the Electoral Commission had said there was no issue and if people were experiencing them, they should contact the commission directly.


Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
What Officials Said About Pay Equity Changes
Article – RNZ Treasury documents show the pay equity reset was key to meeting the coalition's cost-cutting goals., Political Reporter The minister who ushered through the pay equity changes said any limitations on workers' rights were justified in order to reduce the risks to employers. A document dump from the Treasury and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) showed the processes the government went through to change the pay equity framework, and then return contingency funding to the Budget allowances. Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, who introduced the legislation, acknowledged the changes would likely be contentious, but were necessary to meet the government's policy objectives of keeping a pay equity system, while changing the framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government worked on the changes in secret, before announcing the amendment bill in May and passing it under urgency. At the Budget, Finance Minister Nicola Willis revealed the changes had saved $12.8 billion over the forecast period. 'This is justified' – Brooke van Velden The short timeframe to get the bill passed before the Budget meant there had been 'limited testing and analysis' of the policy proposals, and the retrospective provisions in the bill were 'inconsistent' with general principles. MBIE acknowledged the transitional provisions would likely be 'contentious' but without them it was unlikely the amendments would 'meet the policy objective of ensuring the regime achieves pay equity, whilst better managing claims, and ensuring costs are related to sex-based differences in remuneration.' The legal risks remained redacted, and the bill had no Regulatory Impact Statement. The process was also kept secret to prevent a surge of claims being lodged and potentially determined under the existing Employment Relations Act. The acting Attorney-General, Paul Goldsmith's consideration of the bill concluded that while it imposed limits on the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to justice, and freedom of expression, it was still consistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The paper van Velden took to Cabinet for approval, included in MBIE's document dump, shows she considered any limitations on the rights to be justified. 'I consider that this is justified to meet the policy intent of allowing employers to better manage their operations, reducing potential risks to an employer's financial viability, which may lead to a reduction in employment or the quality or quantity of services provided,' van Velden wrote. Finding the contingencies In December 2023, shortly after assuming the government benches, the finance minister requested more information on how the pay equity forecasts worked and whether there were any upcoming large claims. In February 2024, the Treasury reported back, saying the approach brought in by the previous government had contributed to higher cost outcomes, as it disincentivised agencies and funded sector employers from taking a lower-cost bargaining approach. 'While the current Pay Equity process does require agencies to seek a bargaining contingency prior to the bargaining phase, this occurs late in the process, and many of the potential parameters for settlement are already largely agreed between the parties,' officials said. 'The absence of financial incentives during the pre-bargaining phase may have contributed to agencies adopting approaches which exceed the minimum requirements of the Equal Pay Act, for example, agreeing to higher paid comparators when lower paid ones would be appropriate.' It also meant the Cabinet had 'poor visibility' of the costs, until parties were at or near settlement. Treasury said pay equity costs were managed outside of Budget allowances, and there was merit in exploring an approach that brought some or all of the costs back within Budget allowances. By April 2024, Cabinet had agreed to a reset, bringing pay equity funding into two centralised tagged contingencies: one for the funded sector, the other for the public sector. This still allowed the government to meet its legal obligations as an employer, but was deemed to support the coalition's fiscal strategy. However, by the end of 2024, the government was looking to disestablish the funded sector contingency, identifying it as a significant spending commitment. It expected service providers to manage their own claims, with any cost pressures they created managed like any other cost pressure: through the Budget process. How the money was found Nicola Willis chose to close the funded sector contingency and return the funding to the Budget 2025 allowance and capital allowance. This saved $9.6b over the forecast period. For the public sector contingency, Treasury recommended it be retained, but at a reduced level. 'On balance, we consider retaining the contingency at [redacted] for residual costs to protect future allowances to be preferable given the legal obligations on the Crown as an employer under the new Act and Treasury's judgment that we can quantify the impacts with more than 50 percent confidence,' Treasury wrote. The government adopted this approach, with the tagged public sector contingency reduced by $3.2b over the forecast period. In total, the changes returned around $12.8b to the Budget 2025 operating and capital allowances. Closing or reducing the contingencies without some certainty from Cabinet on policy change, however, was seen to potentially 'strain the credibility' of future Budget allowances. And so, the future approach to pay equity was developed. Van Velden's legislation discontinued 33 claims and increased the threshold for what qualified as work that was 'predominantly performed by female employees.' All review clauses under settled claims became unenforceable.


Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Henry Puna Calls New Zealand's Involvement In Cook Islands Politics ‘Improper'
Article – RNZ The former Cook Islands prime minister says the 'special nature' of the relationship between the two nations must be 'underpinned by respect'. Caleb Fotheringham, in Rarotonga Former Cook Islands Prime Minister Henry Puna says he thinks it is 'improper' for New Zealand to involve itself in the 'domestic affairs' of the island nation and issues between the two countries should be resolved behind closed doors. Puna has become the new president of the Cook Islands Party, the same party that Prime Minister Mark Brown leads. When asked whether he became president of the party because of the current state of the relationship between the Cook Islands and New Zealand governments, Puna said his interest was domestic, 'to see the Cook Islands Party become stronger and remain united'. Foreign Minister Winston Peters has challenged Brown to hold an independence referendum' following agreements the Cook Islands signed with China in February that Wellington feels it was not consulted on. Puna said Peters' comments are in the minds of the Cook Islands people. 'Given the special nature of our relationship with New Zealand, it must be underpinned by respect. 'I think it is a bit improper for New Zealand to be involving themselves into our domestic affairs. I don't think that is respectful of our relationship' Puna said he wants the Cook Islands and New Zealand to talk about 'these slight complications' in private. He said it 'was a bit tough' that New Zealand paused $18.2m in development funding last month while meetings between foreign officials were still taking place but said it was New Zealand's call. Puna said the Cook Islands Comprehensive Strategic Partnership was very similar to a partnership agreement New Zealand signed with China in 2014. 'So really, there is nothing unusual about it, but you will also notice that security is not an issue in that agreement, for obvious reasons.' When asked why it was obvious, Puna said the Cook Islands was mindful of New Zealand's and its other partners security concerns. But he added that security in the traditional sense is not a big issue for Pacific leaders. 'For us, security really is about being safe from the effects of climate change, and not with the traditional army, armed activities, that New Zealand and the others are concerned about.' Puna said he 'would have quite happily signed [the agreements with China]' if he was in Brown's place and he signed a similar agreement, while also making a state visit in 2013. He said there are opportunities with China. One is the Cook Islands and China are halving the cost of a $6m interisland vessel. 'Our government raised that with New Zealand years ago, and it was flatly rejected that, you know, they wouldn't help,' Puna said. The New Zealand government has said the Cook Islands can not have United Nations membership while it remains in free association. It was something Puna wanted while he was prime minister and for a period it was floated by Brown. 'I had a conversation with the legal office of the United Nations, who told me quite openly that, in their view, we were qualified to be admitted as a member of the UN,' Puna said. 'But given our special relationship with New Zealand, I decided to raise the issue with Prime Minister John Key and the officials in Wellington at the time, their response was very clear. They didn't agree with it, so we didn't push it.' The Cook Islands is currently celebrating 60 years of self-governance in free association with New Zealand. Puna said he was proud of where the country has come. He said a major achievement over the past 60-years was building the international airport. It unlocked tourism in the country, which underpins the economy. For the future, Puna wants the economy to be the focus. 'Everything else will fall into place and I'm confident that we have the makings of, you know, a growing and a sound economy…these nights watching our young ones on the stage at the auditorium, performing with pride. I have a lot of confidence in our future, in the hands of our young people.'