ACT Party tried to get Treaty of Waitangi clause removed from education legislation
Photo:
RNZ / Mark Papalii
The ACT Party fought to have a Treaty of Waitangi clause stripped out of amended education legislation - but was overruled.
ACT leader David Seymour says not removing it entirely has "certainly created some controversy", but it was "simply political".
The prime minister is defending the decision because the government wants clarity around these clauses, and wants to deal with it in a "comprehensive and coordinated way" as part of a wider review.
The Education and Training Amendment Bill tweaks Section 127 of the Act from 2020 - which outlines how schools operate in the country - to update what the "paramount objective", or highest priority objective, is for boards governing schools.
It was part of the ACT and National coalition agreement which sets out to "amend the Education and Training Act 2020 to enshrine educational attainment as the paramount objective for state schools".
The Education and Training Act currently outlines a board's primary objectives in governing a school was to ensure every student can "attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement"; the school is "physically and emotionally" safe; that it includes and caters for students with differing needs; and "gives effect to Te Tiriti of Waitangi".
It specified it must do that by:
The Amendment Bill changes Section 127 so the "paramount objective" is first and foremost to "ensure that every student at the school is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement".
To meet that objective, the board must also meet "supporting objectives" such as those outlined in the original legislation, including the clause to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and other objectives around school attendance and evaluating students' progress and achievement.
The order of the Tiriti o Waitangi clause was also slightly changed, so the "achieving equitable outcomes" came first.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "it might sound odd to have to say this" but it was necessary for boards to have a "number one priority on advancing academic achievement".
"So that's job number one."
Seymour agreed, saying the ACT Party campaigned on putting academic achievement "front and centre." He said these changes will ensure that academic achievement is the paramount objective.
"The Act Party has long felt that we have not had an adequate emphasis on just simply making sure that valuable academic knowledge is transferred from one generation to the next."
He said there had been "a lot of disquiet" the requirement to uphold the Treaty had not been removed.
He claimed parents "frequently complain" their children were spending time on subjects and activities that have no value to them, but "appear to be part of a wider political project to change the culture of New Zealand".
He said that was a source of "enormous anger" and parents wanted their children focused on "reading, writing and arithmetic".
He rejected the notion the removal of that clause was itself a political project, saying "there's no political project in wanting children to learn only things that are valuable to them".
Seymour said he would not reveal any kind of "cabinet or other private discussion", but that people can "probably guess" the ACT Party would want to remove a clause like that. The reason for not removing it was "simply political" he said, "not all political parties agree with the removal".
"Perhaps other parties were less eager to hence, it remains, but will be reviewed as part of the government's wider treaty clauses reviewed."
When asked about the differences between National and ACT, Seymour said the National Party would always explain itself as a "broad church".
Luxon refused to say who pushed back on ACT's proposal, saying it was simply a "series of conversations that happen in cabinet and cabinet committees".
Luxon said there was a set of questions around treaty obligations and the implications within legislation. He explained the government had a broader piece of work to outline specific treaty clauses rather than "general, open ended" ones so "everyone has maximum clarity about how a piece of legislation is to be operationalised".
As a result he said the clause would be considered as part of that review. He said the most important thing was to make sure boards understand the priority was getting kids to school, teaching them maths and teaching them to read.
Education Minister Erica Stanford told RNZ "legitimate questions" were raised regarding the existing Treaty clause in section 127 of the Education Act during the Cabinet process in August last year.
She said Cabinet agreed to include the section 127 treaty clause, along with many other references to the treaty in the Education Act, in the wider review the Justice Minister was undertaking.
"This process of reviewing the whole Education Act at once was seen as a more coherent approach to ensure consistency of decision making rather than considering Treaty clauses on an ad hoc basis."
The Amendment Bill is currently at select committee stage. Submissions close on 12 June and a report is due back in September.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
The House: Making law - a final avalanche of edits
Pavan Sharma, the Manager of the House Office at New Zealand's Parliament. Photo: VNP / Johnny Blades There are five parliamentary stages to passing a law. The three reading stages are short and built of speeches. The remaining two are when the real work is done, by two very different committees. Select Committees get a lot of attention and, when governments don't dodge this stage entirely, are the best opportunity to improve or alter an impending law. The second, less glamorous committee, is Parliament's last chance saloon for fixing mistakes or changing minds before a bill is finalised. It is variously referred to as the Committee Stage, Committee of the Whole, or the mouthful Committee of the Whole House. "The Committee of the Whole is essentially a big committee that takes place in the debating chamber. Any MP can participate in the Committee of the Whole, and any member can propose an amendment to a bill. There's no limit on the number of amendments that they propose." That is how Pav Sharma describes the Committee Stage, and he should know. He manages the House Office, which is the part of Parliament's secretariat tasked with looking after the debating chamber. "Our focus is ensuring that members have everything that they need to debate legislation, to debate other aspects of house business, to scrutinise the government's finances." All the 'paper' that comes or goes from Parliament's debating chamber (the House) transits through the House Office. Bills, questions, petitions, papers, reports, and amendments - many thousands of them - make the office a thrumming hive of clever people keeping a large machine running smoothly. Johnny Blades has described them as Parliament's Brain . I often seek their expertise, but have learned that one time not to wander in asking dumb questions is when the House is in the middle of a contentious Committee Stage, as they may be swimming through hundreds of amendments on the bill under discussion. These will have arrived as emails, typed notes, or scribbled on slips of paper. They need processing almost instantly, while they are still relevant and under discussion in the chamber. "It can get very busy," Sharma says. "It can get a little bit tense in the House Office and in the chamber when we have a particularly contentious Committee Stage." The point of all of this is a fundamental of Parliament - the mutability of legislation. That it can evolve and improve during its journey through Parliament. "One of the points of the legislative process is that bills should be able to be amended - that they're amendable. Ideally, a bill will start its legislative process in one way and it will be improved as a result of the legislative process and come out a better, more fit-for-purpose piece of legislation." Most of the amendments Parliament accepts on bills come out of the select committee process. But mistakes are made, problems are missed, arguments continue over both the policy and the method - and the Committee of the Whole is the final chance to fix things. When bills debated under urgency skip a select committee entirely, the Committee Stage becomes the only chance for improvement. Not every amendment arrives in a final scramble. There are two kinds. It's worth noting the difference because you hear MPs in Parliament referring to them by their different names - an 'amendment paper' and a 'tabled amendment'. Roughly, amendment papers arrive in advance, while tabled amendments happen in the action. They might also be drafted by different groups of people. "If it's from the [minister] in charge of a bill, [an amendment paper is] usually drafted by the minister's officials, so the Parliamentary Counsel Office [who also draft government legislation]. If it's an amendment paper for a non-minister, then that's where the House Office comes into play and we will draft the amendments for the member based on their instructions," Sharma said. "The great thing about an amendment paper is that it's printed in advance. It's published on the legislation website. It has its own unique number, so it's really easy to identify and to cite in debate." Amendment papers from the MP in charge of a bill (usually a minister) occasionally substantially rewrite a bill. Amendment papers from opposition MPs are usually much more specific, but they are also often written in advance. "Opposition members do instruct us to draft amendment papers and often they're very organised and we can have a whole raft of amendment papers that are released from opposition members in advance of the committee stage." The tabled amendment is the more last minute of the two. It is referred to as 'tabled' because it can literally be scribbled out on a sheet of paper, walked up to the front of the debating chamber and handed to the Clerk at the Table. As Sharma elaborates: "They can be typed out or they can be handwritten. They can be delivered to the Clerk at the Table in the chamber, or they can be delivered to the House Office. And the general principle is that if they are an 'in order' amendment, then they are voted on." Examples of (both handwritten and typed) proposed amendments to the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill. Photo: VNP / PS Bills are seldom a done deal when they begin at Parliament. Almost all bills are amended, and improved by the process. Improved as law especially, regardless of their policy. But policies are also smoothed, particularly via select committee hearings, when unintended consequences are pointed out and can be avoided. But improvement is not the only reason to offer an amendment. "I think it's important to note that there are different purposes for amendments," Sharma said. "It's quite common for the member in charge of a bill, often the minister, to propose amendments to their own bill. This could be to fix some inconsistencies, tidy up the bill itself, or to potentially introduce some new policy to the bill." An opposition MP suggesting an amendment has a more varied range of purposes, including just eating up House time by slowing the inevitable process. They offer something to discuss in debate and help prevent repetition (which might bring debate to a close). Even the process of voting on them eats time. "In New Zealand, we have party voting. It's pretty quick. You're looking at somewhere like 45 seconds for a particular vote, but if you've got over 100 amendments on a particular part of a bill, then, yep, you're looking at at least an hour of voting, which can be a bit of a challenge for members because votes are taken in silence." It's not all about filibustering though. "They do use up some House time, but they're [also] an important part of the Committee of the Whole debate. [An amendment is] also a really good way of signalling the Opposition's different …policy positions. It could be that they would approach this issue from a completely different angle. It's also a way in which they can [raise] the interests of a community group or other party. So they're kind of almost using their representative function by putting up an amendment." This is a crucial part of the democratic process. "It's a really important principle that members should be able to put up amendments and that every in-order amendment is voted on. That the committee does get that opportunity to make a decision on those amendments. Because some of them actually do improve the bill. A fundamental lore of a 'good parliamentarian' is that, even if they disagree with a policy, they will try to help make good legislation. "A key function for members of parliament is that they are legislators, and when they're putting up amendments to the bill, they are quite often trying to improve the bill," Sharma said. In select committees, working on amendments is a much more collaborative process, but even in the Committee of the Whole government ministers do occasionally accept an opposition suggestion. "It does happen," agreed Sharma. "It happens on relatively rare occasions, and I think part of the reason for that is that the amendments are being put up in Committee of the Whole, and so there hasn't necessarily been the opportunity for ministers and officials to assess those amendments to ensure that they are not going to cause … unintended consequences, for example. That said, there are occasions where you do get that really good debate across the House. Opposition members are able to provide a good explanation of their amendment. They're able to persuade the minister that this is a good idea, and that amendment is essentially adopted by the government and that change is agreed to." When, after much debate, the Committee of the Whole comes to vote on part of a bill, it first votes on all of the amendments relevant to that part, that are within the rules. It is only at this point that amendments are ruled out by the chair. A reason is always given for rejecting an amendment. The rulings come from the chair and are entirely their call, but are based on advice from the clerks. "[Parliament's rules], the Standing Orders say that the Committee of the Whole can make amendments that are relevant to the subject matter of the bill, that are consistent to the principles and objects of the bill, and that otherwise conform to the standing orders and practises of the House. …The default is that unless there's a good reason for an amendment to be ruled out of order, it should be voted on." In brief, an amendment must be three things: it will be relevant to the bill, consistent with its principles and objects, and conform to expectations. Those guidelines lead to a few key reasons for rejecting amendments. "One of the most common [reasons] an amendment is ruled out of order is that it's outside the scope of the bill," Sharma said. That rule is part of the requirement for relevance. "We've got some quite tight rules around what's an acceptable bill. A bill has to have a single subject area and it has to have a focus, which means that you don't have these really big, disparate bills, which you can throw all sorts of different provisions into. "The scope of the bill is really determined by 'how big is this bill at introduction?' and how much it does. So a really narrow bill is going to be much harder to amend than a wide ranging [one]. What we're considering there is how relevant is the amendment to the bill that [was] introduced to the House? "A really good example of that would be an amendment that is 'inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill', which is kind of a parliamentary phrase, but really it's talking about what's the overall intent or the overall thrust of the bill? "You could, for example, have a bill, which is increasing the number of district court judges. An amendment that would reduce the number of judges is definitely relevant to that bill, but it is a completely different direction of travel. So that would be a relevant amendment, which would still be 'out of order' because it's inconsistent with the bill's intent or its principles and objects." An amendment can also be relevant initially and become irrelevant. An amendment already agreed to can alter what is relevant, because now the bill is different and things have moved on. "Sometimes an amendment will come later on in the debate and in the bill, and the committee has already done some voting, …and it's made some decisions. And so those later amendments are inconsistent with the decisions that the committee's already made." It's like the MPs were planning a holiday and have already decided on a beach location, at that point it becomes pointless to debate who will bring the skis. An amendment might be both relevant and consistent and still fail, because it does not conform to the expectations for legislation. "At a basic level, an amendment needs to make sense, …and it needs to make sense in the context of the bill. So you can't just add some random words to the piece of legislation. You have to know where in the bill that amendment's going to go. It has to be a coherent amendment. So if an amendment doesn't do that, it could be ruled out as not in the correct form of legislation. So it's got to be written as if it was part of the bill and actually make sense within the whole." It's complicated. Certainly the advice the clerks offer is both useful, and also essential. The House Office offers advice to all MPs, not just presiding officers. Clever MPs accept that assistance and learn as much as possible. That includes help in drafting amendments likely to fit within the rules - if that is required. Not all amendments need to fall within the rules to be useful for debate. "We do provide advice to members when they are discussing their amendments with us," says Sharma. "We can …say, 'we think it's possible that this could be …out of order for particular reason'. But ultimately, the decision on whether something is in order or out of order sits with the chairperson of the Committee of the Whole, (the Deputy Speaker or the Assistant Speakers). It's their sole decision. Note: The Speaker never presides over the Committee of the Whole, only his team does. "[When an amendment is tabled] we read it really closely. We read it not in and of itself. We also read it in the context of the bill. So that relationship between the amendment and the bill itself is what's going to determine whether it's going to be 'in order' or not. So, yes, is it relevant to the bill? And is it consistent with what the bill's trying to do?" A predictable flurry of amendments is always offered on a bill's shortest section - its title and the date it comes into effect. These 'preliminary clauses' are a bill's first section, but the final one that is voted on. The amendments to them are often (but not always), unserious, even sarcastic, Some may fall within the rules, but many will not. "It's common for members to put up dozens… of amendments on the title clause. Opposition members have been doing this for many, many parliaments. [Historically] we've had amendments which described a bill as 'Orwellian' or as 'betraying senior citizens'. Lots of these amendments are an opportunity for opposition members to signal their dislike of a particular bill, or just critique it." "They're quite good for us because we can rapidly see that they're going to be 'out of order' because they're not necessarily a serious amendment or not an objective description of the bill." The sarcasm or irony in many title clause amendment suggestions carries a small upside of releasing a little tension in the final debate after a long Committee Stage. Oppositions predictably lose the final vote on any government bill, but after many hours of hard debate they get to not just critique the policy, but outright mock it. And once the preliminary clauses are agreed and the sometimes hundreds of amendments on a bill have all been dealt with, the House Office can collectively exhale. But never for long. Another avalanche of paperwork is always heading their way. *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
NZ Herald
15 hours ago
- NZ Herald
NZ Int Film Festival 2025: Ardern doco and an Aotearoa arts hall of fame
First the book and now the movie. Former prime minister Jacinda Ardern's memoir A Different Kind of Power has been keeping the nation's bookshops in business in past weeks. Now comes the US-NZ documentary Prime Minister as the centrepiece of this year's NZ International Film Festival. The film, partly shot
RNZ News
16 hours ago
- RNZ News
Why do the government's carbon auctions keep failing, and does it matter?
Many companies, including petrol companies, have to buy carbon credits every year to cover their planet-heating emissions under the Emissions Trading Scheme. Photo: 123RF Explainer - Seven failed auctions and counting. How did the government lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from big polluters? Here's what you need to know about the steep decline in carbon credit auctions. It's all about carbon. On a single day in 2021, the government earned over $600 million in revenue in around three hours - just from selling the rights to emit carbon dioxide. That was just one of its quarterly auctions of something called NZUs - New Zealand Units, or, in colloquial terms, licences to produce a tonne of carbon dioxide emissions. Many companies, including petrol companies, have to buy these every year to cover their planet-heating emissions under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Farmers are exempt when it comes to their methane and nitrous oxide, and certain big emitters (like Rio Tinto, Methanex, NZ Steel, Fletcher Building) get most of their NZUs given to them free by the government on the basis they're exposed to overseas competition. The auction price is set by the market, but can't be lower than a minimum floor - currently $68 a tonne. Companies have four chances a year to buy what they need from the government. The idea is that paying for emissions gives companies an incentive to lower their climate pollution (and consumers an incentive to buy cleaner products), as well as being a tidy money spinner for the taxpayer. At Budget 2021, Treasury estimated that selling carbon credits would generate $3 billion for the government over the next five years - and many market observers at the time thought that was too conservative. In the past, revenue has topped a billion dollars in a year. The money earned is there to be spent on helping companies cut their carbon emissions, giving people tax cuts or whatever else the government of the day wants to spend it on. Along with ACC levies, earnings from the selling NZUs are the biggest source of government revenue after the tax take . The basic concept of New Zealand's ETS - as explained by the Ministry for the Environment Photo: MFE It used to be. Then the auctions started failing. The first failed auction happened in March 2023. Not one tonne of carbon sold. The same thing happened in June, September and December 2023 - a whole year without a sale. In March 2024, the government managed to sell around 3 million tonnes, earning around $200 million. That was followed by two more failed auctions, then a brief rally in December 2024, when 4 million tonnes were sold. The recovery was short-lived though. In 2025, demand has been back in the doldrums. Both of 2025's auctions have failed. In fact, in June, nobody even bothered to register to bid. Nigel Brunel, the New Zealand managing director for trading firm Marex, says it's not unusual internationally for a carbon auction to fail. "But you could stand back and say, if they're continually not clearing, what's at play?" Nope. It's not that companies have stopped polluting the atmosphere with their heating emissions. New Zealand's total emissions have only fallen a few percent during the time the auctions have been failing. In short, the reason companies don't want to buy these from the government is that they can buy their NZUs cheaper elsewhere. You see, the auctions aren't the only market for carbon. The government only auctions off as many NZUs as it thinks it can inject into the market without blowing the country's emissions budgets - aka how much the country is allowed to pollute the climate each year. And, these days, it keeps a pretty tight reign on supply. Every year, the number of NZUs available to buy from the government shrinks a bit. And every year, the minimum price the government can sell them for rises a bit. The combination of falling volumes and a rising floor price is meant to keep the country on track for meeting its climate targets, by ensuring companies don't get their hands on too many NZUs at once, which they can use to pollute. But outside of the government auctions, companies can trade NZUs privately at whatever price they want -- and that price is outside the government's direct control. For most of the last two years, buyers have been able to get their carbon cheaper elsewhere, on what's called the secondary market. Forestry owners can also create new NZUs by planting trees. Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King Companies buy NZUs to cover their annual emissions, but they can also bank them for use or resale later. They can even trade them like commodities, if they want to. The government isn't the only entity able to create NZUs. Forestry owners can also create new NZUs in unlimited quantities, by planting trees, and, like other NZU owners, can sell them whenever they want at a price they choose. Right now, a tonne of carbon dioxide on the secondary market is about $10 cheaper than the government's minimum auction price. Little wonder that nobody is bidding. As for how the secondary market price is set, well, how highly companies value the carbon they have in their store cupboards depends on a lot of things. Like, what do they think the carbon price is going to be in the future? How much do they themselves intend to emit? How much demand for NZUs do they think there will be from other emitters? Do they think the government is strongly committed to slashing emissions, meaning NZUs might get harder to come by? This all involves a lot of second-guessing, including about how committed the government of the day is to meeting its emissions budgets, and maintaining a strong carbon market. It's complicated, but it's fair to say that politicians have played a big role. That first failed auction happened after former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins and his Labour-led government got cold feet and tried to stop allowing the price of carbon to rise. Independent experts had told the government it couldn't keep pumping more NZUs into the system to lower the price, whenever the price at auctions got high. This was when the carbon price was above $80 a tonne, and a supposedly rare contingency plan for putting more NZUs into auctions was being triggered frequently. With the country recovering from lockdowns, Hipkins didn't want to drive up petrol or electricity costs, both of which are affected by the carbon price. He refused to follow the advice. Ultimately, he backed down after a court challenge. But the market saw the decision as a lack of commitment by the government. The price of NZUs on the secondary market crashed. Then the Hipkins government announced a review of how credits generated by forestry were treated. Although the government's intention was to make the market stronger, the move prompted some foresters to panic-sell their NZUs, crashing the price again. The new, National-led coalition government came to power promising a strong and stable carbon market - and promptly cancelled the forestry review. But within less than a year, prices had dropped again, this time after the new government made a surprise announcement that it was considering lowering 2025's minimum floor price. Again, the proposal never became reality. But prices haven't really recovered by much. The first failed auction happened after former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins' government tried to stop allowing the price of carbon to rise. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Not this time. There's also the matter of millions of tonnes' worth of "spare" NZUs that are stashed away in companies' accounts. These represent the right to produce millions of tonnes of future climate pollution. Companies are allowed to hold NZUs that they'll never need themselves - and many of them are holding big stockpiles. Because these could land on the secondary market any time, they can make the price more volatile and unpredictable - and push it down, if lots of them are released at once. "The long-running saga of the New Zealand ETS has been the surplus of units sitting in private accounts ... where there isn't really a clear purpose for those being in private accounts," says Kristen Green, a climate change consultant and economist. "You could be an international hedge fund and hold some units ... there's a pool that might be held by speculators, there could be some that foresters or emitters had hoarded over the last 10, 20 years when the market settings were a bit looser so they have built them up to sell," she says. At the latest estimate, there were thought to be roughly 50 million of these excess units, the equivalent of more than a year's worth of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions. Brunel of Marex says a surfeit of NZUs on the secondary market is the underlying factor behind the continued failure of auctions. "It appears to have been - and there's a lot of evidence to back it up - that a lot of small to medium forest owners have sold an excess amount of carbon," he says. He says many sheep and beef farmers have woodlots on their land to supplement their income with logs or NZUs. "If you go back a year and a half ago to when this started, economically, New Zealand wasn't in a great place, with high interest rates, and beef and sheep farmers struggle sometimes at the best of times." Typically, any forest owner who plans to eventually harvest their trees keeps some NZUs to cover the carbon they'll emit when they fell the trees. "What was clear was that some of these farmers that had units held back for harvest, decided not to harvest and sold those units into the market," says Brunel. He says log prices had also been relatively subdued, which might have made some forests less economic to harvest - and made selling the NZUs more attractive. "There was clearly an excess number of units being sold, which was picked up by emitters, which really kept the price subdued and somewhat weak. "It's making its way back now, we're almost at $60, but clearly those emitting companies didn't need the auctions to satisfy their demands," he says. The government - on the advice of the Climate Change Commission - has been trying to flush the surplus units out by selling fewer NZUs at auction, and Brunel says that should start having an impact. "The supply coming into the market is approximately 18-20 million tonnes a year, 6 million at auctions, 6 million of free allocation, and approximately 6 million of forestry. "But the actual demand or the requirement (for NZUs) to be surrendered every year is around 35 to 36 million tonnes, and that was brought about to try and eat into the stockpile. "Everyone knows there's a quantum of units that have built up over the last decade that are excess." Brunel says that as long as forestry planting stays reasonably constant over the next few years, those excess NZUs should start being used up by emitters, making the market more stable. The Climate Change Commission has advised the government to flush the surplus units out. Photo: RNZ / Dom Thomas Not quite. There's a twist. At the end of every year, any unsold NZUs from government auctions are meant to be cancelled. The next year's auctions start with a clean slate. But the Climate Change Commission has told the government it should reinject unsold NZUs from the string of failed auctions back into the market, in 2028-30. "Some people didn't expect that, even though the Climate Change Commission is technically correct," says Brunel. "If they weren't required at the auction, why bring those units back?" The government is still deciding whether to cancel the unsold units, and the commission has faced a lot of pushback. "The government should probably consider banking that win," says Brunel. "We're not going to decarbonise at $60 a tonne and by cancelling those units it would probably push the price higher. The auctions would also probably start clearing, which would be good for the government because it would get that revenue. "We really need to be reducing gross emissions, and I can't see that happening at the current price." Kristen Green says cancelling the unsold carbon would give the government some wiggle room when it comes to meet its future climate targets. "We don't have any kind of tangible measure in place for agricultural emissions, which is 50 percent of our emissions, and when you look at forestry, which is so uncertain about how many removals it will deliver, having that wiggle room is important. "I think the reaction from stakeholders has rightly been quite critical [of re-adding the units]. "The ironic thing here that makes you pull your hair out, is that the commission have also advised the government on its fourth emissions budget ... and part of that advice was, hey government, you should drop your emissions budgets ... by 15 million tonnes, which happens to be about the number of units they've said should be added on." Green says the commission was only following the law when it delivered the two pieces of conflicting advice, but from the perspective of those watching "it's maddening". If the government followed both pieces of advice to the letter, she says, "all those extra units would come straight back off again". It depends who you ask. The ETS has long been New Zealand's main tool for lowering emissions. Under the current government, it's virtually the only tool because the coalition government believes in a market-led approach and hasn't allocated any real funding for cutting carbon emissions. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has said the failed auctions and the cancelled NZUs are just the market working as intended to rebalance. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The government has also made it clear that it doesn't mind if the carbon price is too low to drive companies cut emissions - in its view, planting trees at a lower cost to soak carbon up is just as good, especially if it works out cheaper for emitters and households. Others - the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Climate Change Commission and the OECD among them - disagree. They say New Zealand is running a risk of suffering major regret in the future, when there's no more suitable land for planting pine trees and it still hasn't tackled the root sources of its carbon emissions. Plus, there will be swaths of land tied up in (potentially fire-prone) trees that can never be cut down ... unless their owners repay all the NZUs they've generated. "It depends on what your vision of the role of the ETS is," says Green. "It won't have any effect on gross emissions at the prices we're seeing today. "If you buy into the 2008-era vision of the ETS, which is being agnostic as to how many forestry removals you get and how many gross emissions reductions you get, then the current prices of $60 might not be an issue to you, and in fact you might see that as a positive because the cost to households is less than it might have been. "From a personal standpoint, if you want an effective transition over the long term, you need to start driving action on gross emissions and get system changes happening," she says. Brunel says you don't necessarily want the price rising fast, because it creates inflation. But a steady pushing upwards signals to companies that it's time to change, with minimal impact on inflation, he says. Currently, the persistently low prices are even affecting the government's climate plans. A major plank of the government's climate plans was allowing carbon capture and storage. Its calculations that it was on track for its climate targets partly rested on the assumption Taranaki's Todd Energy would commission a major carbon capture and storage project to put emissions underground at its Kapuni gas field, in around 2027. Todd Energy now says carbon prices are too low to make the scheme economic, unless it gets a subsidy. The government says it is re-calculating its emissions estimates based on recent developments, and will tweak its plans as needed. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
