National and Act’s leaders are both signalling sympathy for a special cross-party inquiry into adapting to the increasingly severe weather of climate change.
It’s an inquiry initiated by Climate Change Minister James Shaw in the dying days of the last Parliament, that would investigate how New Zealand will pay for the thousands of people displaced from their homes and businesses.
But the special committee inquiry (similar to that into abortion law in 2019) needs the approval of the new Parliament to proceed.
READ MORE:
* Govt suggests barring development in climate-exposed areas
* Defining issues: On the frontline of the climate crisis in Westport.
The disarray as storms and floods hit the upper North Island, Tairāwhiti and Hawkes Bay highlighted the enormously pressing need for adaptation solutions.
According to previously undisclosed Cabinet papers, the failure of central and local government to plan for managed retreat will leave families and businesses to a shambolic exodus from New Zealand’s coastline.
“If there is no intervention by central or local government, unmanaged retreat may occur through insurance withdrawal (and associated withdrawal of mortgage finance) or if, or when, predicted hazards eventuate.”
Ministers were warned that partial insurance retreat due to coastal inundation risk could start to happen in some areas from 2030 – and that was the most conservative estimate, based on 2012 sea level rise projections. Subsequent data from the National Climate Change Risk Assessment suggested an even shorter time horizon was possible.
“If this occurs people may be left with stranded assets; the distress and disruption caused is likely to be significant. Unmanaged retreat may also lead to maladaptation, high regret investment and an increase in inequitable outcomes.”
“Christopher Luxon is absolutely correct that ‘adapting to climate change will be a multi-decade effort across multiple governments’. Indeed, it may well entail ongoing efforts for many centuries, and may prove to be the most costly, complex, and enduring challenge that humanity has ever encountered.”
– Emeritus Professor Jonathan Boston
That warning from Climate Change Minister James Shaw in a 2021 Cabinet paper began to be borne out this year, as the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle forced thousands from their homes.
But the Climate Adaptation Act that the Labour-led Government had promised before this month’s election did not eventuate; there’s not even a bill drafted or introduced. It was delayed by difficulties drafting the other two bills in the triple-bill of resource management reforms – the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act.
Instead, in a last, desperate bid to salvage six years of work on climate adaptation before Parliament rose for the election, Shaw asked the environment select committee to call an inquiry into community-led retreat and adaptation funding – how the system would support vulnerable communities at high risk of severe weather events, and critically, how to pay for it.
He acknowledged the environment select committee would fade from existence when Parliament rose for the election – but it could at least call for submissions.
A Cabinet paper, presented on August 7 and now released publicly, reveals Shaw’s strategy to bridge the election gap and form a wider political consensus around the inquiry: “Given the need to ensure a cross party approach to these matters I intend to explore establishing a special committee post-election to continue the inquiry,” he told ministers.
“If this option is preferred, I will propose that the post-election special committee should include membership from the Māori Affairs Committee or that members be appointed that can contribute their te ao Māori perspective.”
He said the committee inquiry (if it goes ahead) would be supported by advisors from Ministry for the Environment and, given the links to other government work programmes, probably other government agencies with relevant technical expertise such as the Treasury, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and the National Emergency Management Agency.
The environment committee duly set the terms of reference and put out a call for submissions – and then the inquiry was largely forgotten by politicians and many in the public during the election campaign, Parliament’s Clerk quietly continued collecting and collating submissions.
“All parliamentary business lapses at the dissolution of Parliament so the new Environment Committee would need to make its own decision about whether to continue an inquiry,” Parliament’s Clerk David Wilson now tells Newsroom.
When Parliament returns, the House would need to take a vote on setting up a new ‘special committee’, such as the one it created for abortion legislation. “The Environment Committee can’t do that,” he says. “Submissions on the inquiry are still being accepted and held by my office.”
The deadline for submissions is next week, on November 1.
Then, when Parliament returns, MPs will vote to re-establish select committees for the 54th Parliament. Because the proposed special committee to inquire into climate adaptation has never been created, it would require a fresh motion before a dramatically-different House – it will now be dominated by National, Act and NZ First.
The climate adaptation bill was intended to be the third in the Labour-led Government’s trifecta of resource management reform bills.
The incoming government promises to repeal “Labour’s RMA 2.0 legislation” in its first 100 days in office – but there’s one shred of hope for the climate adaptation inquiry.
Asked whether an incoming National-led government would support the special committee inquiry, leader Christopher Luxon was positive about seeking such a cross-party solution. “National first has to form a government and appoint ministers,” a spokesperson acknowledges. “Following that, appointed ministers will start the process of putting policies and plans in place.
“Adapting to climate change will be a multi-decade effort across multiple governments. As Christopher Luxon has previously said, it’s incredibly complex work and National believes it requires a bipartisan approach.”
Act Party leader David Seymour is even more emphatic in his backing for the inquiry – while also highlighting stark differences from the outgoing government’s approach to climate change more broadly.
“I think adaptation is an important area of climate policy that has been massively underdone,” he tells Newsroom.
He’s upbeat about getting the vote before a new Parliament, saying negotiations to form a new government are going well. “We think we’ll arrive at a good arrangement.”
He thinks the Treasury’s Climate Emergency Response Fund, topped up by the proceeds of the emissions trading scheme, hasn’t been effective. Earlier this year, Act said the $4.5b fund should be used for adaptation – though it also want to refund much of the money directly to New Zealand households and, similarly, its probable coalition partner National wants to redirect the money into tax cuts.
“In the floods this year, it became clear that if a fraction of what was spent on mitigation by the CERF had been spent on adaptation, much harm might have been saved. Unfortunately, Labour and the Greens were keen to declare a climate emergency but not one cent of the $4.5 billion Fund was put to adaptation until a real emergency struck,” he says now.
“More generally, it should be clear that New Zealand cannot influence the global climate beyond doing its bit. The potential to prepare New Zealanders for the effects of extreme weather is a far more effective approach than the bureaucratic and ineffective mitigation strategies taken to date.”
Emeritus Professor Jonathan Boston, who was a member of this year’s Expert Working Group on Managed Retreat, has been calling for a cross-party accord. This week, he welcomed the incoming government’s support for elevating the issue beyond politics.
“Christopher Luxon is absolutely correct that ‘adapting to climate change will be a multi-decade effort across multiple governments’,” he says.
“Indeed, it may well entail ongoing efforts for many centuries, and may prove to be the most costly, complex, and enduring challenge that humanity has ever encountered. Almost certainly, it will be much harder than mitigating climate change, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that task has proven to be hard enough.
“I strongly commend Christopher Luxon’s support for a bipartisan approach to adaptation. Some form of cross-party accord on the key elements of a policy framework for adaptation, including how the various costs should be funded, will be essential in order to minimise the long-term costs of climate change and ensure that citizens, businesses, and local authorities have a secure and predictable basis for their long-term planning and investment decisions.”
The Expert Working Group, chaired by retired Supreme Court judge Sir Terence Arnold, published its report to ministers in August. It recommends homeowners, landlords and commercial property owners are compensated for managed retreat related to climate change, based on avoiding hardship.
There’s no compensation for bach and holiday-home owners in the recommendations, beyond possible assistance for removal, demolition and clean-up costs: “We did not consider that preserving people’s wealth or protecting property owners from the risks of property ownership were legitimate objectives of the funding system.”
It says a specific mix of compensation funding sources, including insurance, public funding, and levying homeowners to build up a prepaid fund, could be necessary to create the right incentives for all decision-making entities.
Note: For those making submissions, Parliament’s select committee submissions system will be unavailable from 9am to 5pm on Saturday October 28, while IT managers make scheduled system updates.
