NewGovt united on environment
During those blissful weeks of political purgatory when a new Government was being negotiated, one of the lingering questions was how the environment would fare. takes a look.
ANALYSIS: It had been an unusually environmentcentric election, but there was no guarantee rhetoric would translate to intent.
The list of portfolios each party – Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens – would take was released on Tuesday, with their corresponding ministers announced the next day. A swearing-in ceremony yesterday formalised the new Government, at last.
One of its major challenges will be addressing various environmental issues, including poor water quality, declining biodiversity and climate change.
Navigating those thorny and sweeping issues is hard enough for one party; when the Labour/NZ First/Green arrangement won, the path to getting there seemed filled with potholes.
During the election, NZ First leader Winston Peters questioned whether cows caused water pollution, criticised then Minister of Primary Industries Nathan Guy for saying farming had limits and repeatedly referred to the Greens as ‘‘Kermits’’, likely in reference to the kind but naive Muppet.
It hinted at the sort of dynamic that had some salivating over a ‘‘teal deal’’ between National and the Greens; implying the latter would be so neutered by NZ First it would be more pragmatic to go with a party it had sworn to oppose.
And yet, the three parties had some overlap – a desire to plant trees, build railways and take climate change seriously.
If the contents of the coalition agreements were the first environmental test for the new Government, it passed with flying colours. For now, at least, the things that environmentally unite the parties have prevailed over any divisions.
The Greens are undoubtedly the
Both the Greens’ and NZ First’s agreements commit to a ‘‘significant increase’’ in conservation funding.
winners, securing more than what many would have thought possible. It is hard to imagine a National-led government offering anything close – a teal deal was never seen as viable within the party and now it is clear why.
Both the Greens’ and NZ First’s agreements commit to a ‘‘significant increase’’ in conservation funding, with a Green MP – likely Eugenie Sage – in charge of the Department of Conservation (DOC).
The Greens’ agreement refers to ‘‘reducing the extinction risk for
3000 threatened plant and wildlife species’’ – a subtle rejection of the former Government’s conservation approach, which at times resembled a beauty contest, prioritising support of some species over others.
Sage is also likely to pick up the land information portfolio, blandly named, but more important than it is given credit for.
Land Information New Zealand leads the tenure review process – which has privatised hundreds of thousands of hectares of the high country for development – a process conservationists, including Sage, have said results in unacceptable ecological losses. Any change in that process will have a significant impact on the South Island’s landscape.
It means the Greens will lead departments that together manage 38 per cent of New Zealand’s land, an area larger than Portugal – not a bad result for a party on 6.3 per cent support.
The other major environmental victory is climate change. Among the coalition agreements are a Zero Carbon Act, an independent climate commission, requirements for a climate-impact statement for all new legislation, a $100 million Green Investment Fund and planting one billion trees over 10 years.
The Greens will take the climate change portfolio, headed by party leader James Shaw, and the associate transport and associate finance portfolios, which are expected to have their own influence on climate-related matters.
For the critics of the last Government’s climate record, it ticks all the boxes. The National Government’s approach had been marked by allowing the use of fraudulent carbon credits from Ukraine that no other market would take and repeatedly refusing independent oversight of our emissions reduction progress.
The other environmental question is water, which proved to be the most heated during the election, and had the potential for being the most fraught.
The agreements suggest few concessions were given; NZ First got a three-year halt to the resource rental, popularly known as the water tax, and a commitment to honour existing funding pledged under the Crown Irrigation Fund. Both were likely easy compromises for Labour.
It also asked for ‘‘higher waterquality standards for urban and rural [sic] using measurements which take into account seasonal differences’’ – whatever that means.
Otherwise, it seems Labour will be allowed to continue with its water policy, which includes making significant stock intensification a non-permitted activity and revamping the National Policy Statement for Freshwater, likely introducing controls for pollutants other than E.coli, which the former Government had focused on.
Some of the most significant challenges the new Government needs to address are environmental; based on its coalition agreements, it is in good stead to deliver.