Voting on the pressing issues
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
New Zealanders don't tend to talk about pay. What would happen if we did?
A new bill that aims to facilitate colleagues talking about what they're paid is well on its way to becoming law, having passed its second reading last week. But is it law or culture that silences chats about pay? 'One night, at a work farewell, a few of us started talking about how no one knew what the others earned,' says Sandra. It was 2015. The group all worked in marketing and communications at a large bank which used a banding system to determine salary ranges – but some of the bands were $40,000 deep. Inhibitions shrugged off with the help of a few drinks, the colleagues divulged their salaries. Despite having a larger team and same-sized budget to manage, Sandra was earning $30,000 less than her colleagues. It took years, chance and wine for her to find out. These kinds of stories filter through as tales of the importance of talking about pay, but they're relatively rare. There's a culture in New Zealand of not discussing pay with colleagues or friends. In my experience, it's seen as a little uncouth and confrontational. A new member's bill, the Employee Remuneration Disclosure Amendment Bill, aims to remove some barriers people face in talking about pay – namely the fear of retaliation from employers. When Labour MP Camilla Belich introduced her bill at its first reading in parliament in November 2024, she noted 'persistent and unexplained' pay gaps for Māori and Pacific workers and women. Her hope is that by bringing increased pay transparency, discrimination can be eliminated, she said. During the select committee process the bill received 225 public submissions – almost 90% were in support of the bill and 4% were opposed. Last Wednesday, the bill passed its second reading with support from all parties apart from Act and NZ First. While fear of retaliation from employers may be a reason for colleagues not talking about what they're paid, only three cases related to dismissal following remuneration disclosure have been brought to the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court since 2000. People are free to discuss pay unless there is a pay secrecy clause in their contract. It's not known how common these clauses are in New Zealand – this week experts have told me 'not that common' and 'potentially more common than people thought'. What they have agreed on is that regardless, people in New Zealand don't tend to discuss pay with their colleagues or friends. Jarrod Haar, professor of management and Māori business at Massey University, says that 'we have a culture of secrecy' around pay, while Amy Ross, an independent expert in employment relations and investigations, describes pay as a 'taboo subject'. It seems, then, that the legal issues the bill deals with aren't the biggest barrier to pay transparency. The mystery surrounding pay rates is a fairly recent phenomenon. For most of New Zealand's history, wages were set by the national awards system. The system, run by the state, set minimum pay and conditions across industries and jobs, made them public and reviewed them yearly with feedback from workers. That system was 'much more open and more public' in terms of wages, says Ben Peterson, assistant secretary at Unite Union. And so, even if money wasn't discussed at the pub or around the dinner table, workers knew roughly what was considered appropriate and fair for their industry and their neighbours'. The awards system ended with the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s, replaced by the Employment Contracts Act 1991, which instead focuses on individual contracts and basic minimum conditions (minimum wage, 15-minute tea breaks, 10 days of sick leave, etc) set out for all. 'It's very individualised, and then that becomes an incentive for employers to discourage people talking about stuff,' says Peterson. Quite simply, if an employer is paying someone $26 an hour and others doing the same job $24 an hour, they don't want those workers knowing and then requesting $26. Individualising contracts also puts the burden of negotiating pay onto individuals, which can further reinforce bias on gendered and ethnic lines. It can be a 'don't ask, don't get' situation, and some people have been brought up not to ask. In folding wages into individual contracts, companies have been able to treat them as confidential information, even without secrecy clauses. Simon Schofield from Auckland University's law school says that while there may have always been a cultural 'modesty' in New Zealand about pay rates, the neoliberal system has allowed businesses to 'play into that cultural norm' to keep people quiet about their pay in order to suppress wages. After the reforms, the share of GDP that goes to wages dropped away. 'At the end of the day, the companies are making substantial money out of that,' he says. Unions and collective agreements work against this, but in March last year only 14.5% of employees in New Zealand were part of a union. Ross says another problem is a lack of understanding of employment rights and pay in New Zealand. 'It's not taught at school. It's not really taught anywhere.' Ross was once contracted to give advice to students on moving from universities into the workplace. She was working with a group of students in their fourth and final year of studies – 'highly intelligent people', she says – when one of them put their hand up to ask a question. 'What's a union?' they asked. Ross was shocked. 'This is where we are, actually,' she says. 'People don't even know how to access the fundamental rights at work here.' She says that this allows for people, particularly more vulnerable people, to be exploited in the workplace. But it's not only the people on low wages who don't want to talk about pay. People who suspect, or know, their pay is higher than their colleagues' are often uncomfortable or embarrassed to talk about it, says Ross. 'People who are on huge, big, fat salaries – they feel like they don't want to talk about that. Maybe it's time to start asking why.' Peterson has found that some employers aren't great at talking about pay either. 'Every employer likes to think of themselves as a good employer,' he says, but evidence to the contrary – like low wages – often emerges during negotiations between the union and employers. 'People get very personally confronted,' he says. Instead of focusing on the numbers and facts in front of them, some employers can get offended by a perceived attack on their character. Peterson says this is 'unhelpful' during negotiations. For Sandra, knowing that her colleagues earned more gave her the onus to ask for a pay rise and know she was justified. 'I did and got it,' she says. 'It definitely helps to have a sense of what others are earning and some sense of solidarity.'
1News
4 hours ago
- 1News
Fonterra boss quizzed as concern over price of butter spreads
The cost of butter was front and centre at Parliament today as the head of Fonterra faced questions over the soaring cost of dairy. Fonterra chief executive Miles Hurrell had several meetings with various political parties on Tuesday, including National, ACT, and Labour. It included a sit-down conversation with Finance Minister Nicola Willis who was keen to probe the dairy boss about the cost of butter to consumers. The price of butter has skyrocketed by more than 60% in the last year, currently sitting between $8 and $11 for a 500g block. 1News Political Editor Maiki Sherman grilled the Fonterra chief executive, who earns just under $6 million a year in salary, as he exited one of his meetings at Parliament. ADVERTISEMENT Having asked to stop and talk for an interview, Hurrell replied he was on his way to another meeting. Asked what he would say to New Zealanders who thought butter prices were too high, he said: 'Let me talk to Minister Willis today, later this afternoon." He was then asked whether $8 for a block of butter was too much. "Let me talk to Minister Willis," Hurrell reiterated. The issue has raised eyebrows amongst the public who have been dismayed at the cost of butter in local supermarkets. One man in Auckland told 1News, 'You see everything is going up, look at the butter prices and everywhere.' Another woman said, 'Oh my God, butter, it's like double what it used to be.' Another consumer asked what was behind the increase. ADVERTISEMENT 'Butter, all the basics, why does it have to cost this much in New Zealand?' The issue also sparked a sharp interaction in Parliament's debating chamber today between the two major party leaders, Labour and National. 'How many blocks of butter can he buy for the $60 a week he claims to spend on groceries?' Opposition leader Chris Hipkins asked Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. "Well, it's a smart-arse answer isn't it? Ah, question," Luxon replied. The Finance Minister said the public wanted answers from the Fonterra boss. 'Well I think that Miles Hurrell has the opportunity to talk through what goes into the price of a block of butter and it's in his interests to do so," Willis said. But whether Willis could influence dairy prices in any meaningful way was also up for question. The Finance Minister previously worked as a manager at Fonterra before becoming an MP. ADVERTISEMENT 'As a Government, we recognise there are complex drivers behind that. We have to address a number of things, the overall inflation rate; competition between our supermarkets; the costs that go into a block of butter,' she said. Fonterra said the prices for its products were determined by the global dairy market, which was at a five-year high. However, the Finance Minister said she wanted to know more about the margins both Fonterra and supermarkets added on top in order to reach the end shelf price. "I'm interested in Fonterra's perspective about what the supermarket margins look like in New Zealand compared with say Australia or other countries," she said. When asked by 1News, what sort of margins Fonterra was asking for when it came to the price of butter, the chief executive refused to say. 'Let me talk to the minister this afternoon,' he continued. He did agree, however, that it was a big issue to Kiwi across the country at the moment. ADVERTISEMENT 'Yeah, of course it is,' he said.
1News
10 hours ago
- 1News
Seymour's response to UN 'quite alarming'
Thousands have signed an open letter following Regulations Minister David Seymour's scathing response to the United Nation raising concerns over the impact of Government legislation and policies on Māori. The letter to Albert Barume, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, invites him to 'remain engaged' with Māori following Seymour's intervention last week. Indigenous rights advocate Tina Ngata, an author of the open letter, said Seymour's response was 'quite alarming' considering no conclusion from Barume's work has been made. She said on TVNZ's Marae: 'It is [Barume's] job, where concerns are repeatedly raised to him, to inquire more deeply and it's the first stage of that inquiry where he basically comes to us and says to our government… 'well, there are these issues that have been raised to me, can you please explain what this is about?'' Watch the full discussion panel on TVNZ+ ADVERTISEMENT Barume had written to the Government outlining concerns over the alleged 'persistent erosion' of Māori rights through 'regressive legislations and policies' that breached New Zealand's international obligations. He included a reference to the Regulatory Standards Bill. Seymour responded to his concerns saying they were 'presumptive, condescending, and wholly misplaced'. Quotes pulled from Regulations Minister David Seymour's response to UN (Source: 1News) He also stated: 'As an indigenous New Zealander myself, I am deeply aggrieved by your audacity in presuming to speak on my behalf and that of my fellow Māori regarding legislation that aims solely at ensuring clarity, consistency, and accountability in regulatory processes." He eventually withdrew the letter after he was pulled up by his coalition partner and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters for overstepping. 'Shed some light' Indigenous governance partner at the Human Rights Commission Dayle Takitimu said indigenous advocates 'from across the United Nations framework', which included the Human Rights Commission, called on the UN to 'shed some light' on the Government's obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that needed to be upheld. ADVERTISEMENT 'There's been a lot of advocacies saying – from various quarters – that people think that's not up to scratch at the moment, and the United Nations, through this special rapporteur, has responded to that, as Tina [Ngata] said, in a very initial way, prompting that discussion,' she said on Marae. Tina Ngata and Dayle Takitimu on Marae (Source: Marae) She acknowledged there was tension between human rights and domestic sovereignty that exists across all international law. 'But at the end of the day, the United Nations, in fact, exist to assist to resolve that tension and that conflict by viewing and monitoring human rights, so they are seen as universal and paramount across the global order.' Last week's incident prompted Ngata, alongside fellow Māori rights advocates Leonie Pihama and Tania Waikato, a lawyer for the Toitū Te Tiriti movement, to draft an open letter to Barume that invites him to Aotearoa amidst 'deepening political and constitutional crisis'. Ngata said the open letter reaffirms Māori have a right to international protection. 'It reaffirms that we will continue to be our own voice which called out to the United Nations for their oversight, and it invites them to continue that oversight, to remain in dialogue with us throughout this political crisis - and it is a political crisis. It might be a crisis of idiots and egos, but it's a crisis nonetheless and so we've called upon them to remain in contact with us and to maintain their oversight over what's happening in Aotearoa.' ADVERTISEMENT Quote pulled from UN Special Rapporteur Albert K. Barume's letter to New Zealand government (Source: 1News) When asked if the UN had the power to hold Aotearoa to account over indigenous rights, Takitimu said that because New Zealand subscribes to the 'international framework', and has sought legitimacy from it on occasion, it has to take the support with the criticism. 'Indigenous peoples have always utilised that framework, and so has New Zealand as a state party, and so that, again, comes back to the very foundations of the United Nations to set some sort of global standards, and they have, in regards to indigenous rights and human rights, and they are holding the New Zealand Government to account for that. That's exactly what they are set up to do.'
