Nice soundbite or sound offer?

If Bridges is genuine about working with the Government on combating climate change he needs to be clearer on how much pain . . . his party is willing to accept for its role in that partnership.

Politicians are often accused of speaking out of both sides of their mouths. National’s leader, Simon Bridges, has offered a hand of partnership in the campaign to protect the planet. He has written to the prime minister, pledging bipartisan support for combating climate change and establishing a non-political commission to review policy and help set targets.

Bridges doubled down on the pledge in a speech to farmers at Fieldays during the weekend, telling those assembled that ‘‘we need to do more’’.

He said he had ‘‘charged our environmental MPs . . . with the task of modernising our approach . . . to ask the questions and to push us harder’’.

‘‘Our [New Zealand] size does not abdicate us from our responsibility.’’

Those are fighting words, potentially brave ones too, when you consider the audience was heartland National, many possibly still intoxicated by the lingering fumes of Shane Ardern’s diesel tractor driven up the steps of Parliament 15 years earlier to protest against the proposed ‘‘fart tax’’.

But just a couple of days later, Bridges was addressing coal mining on conservation land. He said he would have no issue mining on land that is not ‘‘pristine . . . some of it’s scrubland’’.

Maybe that was merely a slip of the tongue, a common problem when the mouth is attempting verbal multi-tasking, but it mirrors other significant conflicts with Government policy on climate change. And it possibly calls his motives into question.

Bridges and his MPs have lambasted the Government over its plans for the oil and gas industry and hinted that a National administration would take another look; it was described as economic vandalism by some National MPs.

They have similar reservations over the coalition’s transport policy, and particularly the regional fuel tax to help pay for it. That tax would be gone by lunchtime, according to Bridges.

National’s attitude towards public transport is in question, given its negative reaction to the Government’s move away from simply building more roads. Road transport is the second-largest contributor to this country’s emissions profile, but at 17 per cent it is dwarfed by agriculture’s 45 per cent. With a combined carbon footprint of 62 per cent, clearly they are two areas where New Zealand can make a genuine difference.

But these are two industries National has traditionally leant on for support and patronage. In the past it steadfastly resisted taxing farmers for their emissions, its opposition driven home by the image of Shane Ardern and Myrtle on Parliament’s steps.

Tackling the issues is likely to mean some pain for the many businesses within those two sectors, and possibly the employees and customers who depend on the products they produce.

If Bridges is genuine about working with the Government on combating climate change he needs to be clearer on how much pain, real and political, his party is willing to accept for its role in that partnership. Particularly in those areas where real change is necessary.

Otherwise his offer looks like merely a soundbite delivered from one side of his mouth and meant for the ear of blue-greens thinking of looking Right. What use a hand in partnership if you don’t have skin in the game?