sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

There's likely to be some cross-party consensus on emissions budgets; Differences will arise when it comes to a plan on how to achieve these budgets

There's likely to be some cross-party consensus on emissions budgets; Differences will arise when it comes to a plan on how to achieve these budgets

The National Party generally supports the emissions reductions budgets proposed by the Climate Change Commission.

“We support, in general, that pathway with the budgets,” National’s Climate Change Spokesperson Stuart Smith said.

“The specifics of the budgets - it’s too early to say. I think to lower emissions by 8% in four years is a really tough ask. We’ll have to see.”

ACT on the other hand, opposes the budgets.

“If the Government wants to do what’s right by New Zealanders, it will shred this report and put it in a compost bin,” ACT leader David Seymour said.

“We should set a cap to reduce emissions in line with our [trading] partners, and let New Zealanders choose how they live, travel, and work within that cap.

“ACT was the only party to vote against the Zero Carbon Act and we got it right.”

The Maori Party said it would provide its position on the budgets once it fully reviews the Commission's report. 

The Commission said in its final report, publicly released on Wednesday, achieving cross-party support on emissions budgets “must be the highest priority”.

However, it recognised different political parties may have different views on how to achieve these reductions, so getting consensus on an emissions reduction plan may be more challenging.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw agreed. He confirmed he would seek consensus from other parties when the Government comes to creating its emissions budgets.

Legally, the Government has until December 31 to consider the Commission’s advice, set its budgets and finalise the country’s first emissions reduction plan, detailing the policies it will use to achieve the budgets.

Shaw noted the Commission, industries, investors and communities around the country have said cross-party consensus would provide certainty around the transition.  

“So we’ll offer every opportunity for the Opposition to come on board,” Shaw said.

Like the Commission, Shaw recognised different parties might have different views on how to achieve the budgets.

Indeed, Smith had a dig at the Government for emissions increasing and coal imports rising under its leadership and policies.

“National continues to believe the Emissions Trading Scheme should remain the primary tool to achieve our emissions targets,” Smith said.

Shaw didn’t say what would happen if the Government and Opposition couldn’t agree on budgets.

The Commission said, “In the absence of consensus, transparency remains critical. Debating the budgets in Parliament would enhance transparency by making sure that cross-party deliberations are captured on the parliamentary record.”

Here is a video of Shaw delivering his Ministerial Statement on the Commission's report:

Here is Smith's reponse:

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.




just check the current house price, electricity price, gas price, cost of a meal in restaurant, cost of fixing a car or a leaking tap, soon it will be cost of serving a mortgage.

why does the government so enjoy in increasing the cost of everything?

Xi is more fair than Jacinda.

What is the cost of destroying earth?


What's the cost of virtue signalling nonsense ? NZ's share of climate emissions total 0.1% of global, nothing we do will make the slightest real difference. However we will be able to pat ourselves on the back as we reflect on the opportunity costs of incurring future debt for our grandchildren to pay for our meaningless diversion of effort & scarce resources.


Never mind future grandchildren... the costs to implement this right now for us all will be severe and as usual the poorest hardest hit. Zero carbon.... how about zero consideration for how the average punter will afford to live? We'll have our own internally generated inflation. NZ will become prohibitively expensive to live in for the average punter and it's already prohibitively expensive. So what's next the govt gives us all a UBI just to afford the effects of these policies??? Don't want to come across dgm but really can't see this ending well. Time to diversify offshore.

The people who write these reports don't have the money worries that the general population have so they can't comprehend what you are saying.


In WW2 the American Sherman tanks were nicknamed “Ronsons” by their crews based on the outcome when they engaged German Tiger tank. They added that for them, it was as good as farting at thunder. This resonates with the firepower of NZ’s 0.1% of the size of actual problem here. Thinking to save the planet from this tiny remote platform platform is frankly naive and idealistic. NZ whatever it does will not make the slightest difference, if it just waits until the big boys have got their houses in order.

Might be fun to take your analogy further. The British armies response to the Tiger problem was to put the biggest gun they had which was the 17 pounder in the Sherman which wasn't really practical but they made it work and it solved the problem very effectively . If the NZ govt was involved I think their solution would be to install a sign that says bang. Or maybe scrap the tank altogether and smother the nazis with "kindness".

They'd get their public radio to speak entirely in German.

Would be a change from Maori.

Too right. If we want to make a real difference, we’d stop buying crap from China which burns about half the worlds annual coal output. Mind you, NZ has always overestimated its importance. Didn’t some obscure small town newspaper write an editorial in the 1930s, starting with: “We have repeatedly warned Herr Hitler…” One thing we are all overlooking though is the amount of carbon captured by Rod Carr’s beard.

Hadn’t heard that one, but in 1941 Herr Hitler took sufficient time and notice of NZ to thank Stanley Graham for taking the South Island for Nazi Germany.

Now there is a small minded thought. The idea that because we are in a smaller group of people (NZ), we somehow are less responsible for our actions, and a larger group needs to improve before us or it is not worth our while somehow. You know what, that same excuse could be used after the rest of the world did something too, 'oh well that is great what you all have achieved, we would like to help out also, but you know we are only 0.2% of world emissions, so we aren't going to make much difference no matter what we do'.

0.1%. See also my comment on the PMs "nuclear free moment" below.

In my hypothetical example, the rest of the world had halved its emissions already, that is why I used 0.2% instead of your 0.1% value.

Except the rest of the world isn't halving their emissions.

Dear The Joneses
I’d prefer to think of it as a realistic thought. The US, Canada, Australia, China, India and Germany are doing far less than us. Bit like giving a party no ones going to come to. The fact is this: 0.1% of global emissions. You can’t really get past that. Slow but sure is the way. Wait for dependable, tested technologies. By the way, the new Nissan Leaf only takes 23 hours to go from 0-100% charge on a standard home system. And Vector now says one EV uses as much power as 20 homes.

If our trade partners are implementing reforms to reduce emissions then if we want to keep trading we will need to reduce emissions too.

Agree, just as long as we are aligned fairly & jointly with others & we all know that NZs contribution is insignificant. NZ politicians are too fond of attempting to punch above our weight as they bask in the international spotlight.

Every little isolated township in the world can come up with that 'we wont make the slightest difference' nonsense.

Anybody anywhere can say that.

Regardless of the right and wrong of the scheme, that excuse is plain dumb.


Er... how about not being able to afford to live in your own country which is rapidly going full banana republic just for the sake of some virtue signaling. NZ always has this intense identity complex and need to be seen to be the first, the best, the most extreme with their policies. Now it'll come first at bankrupting its own people solely for Jacinda's nuclear moment.


She is dangerous.

RNZ this morning, comment explaining the dire impact on low income and poorer sectors of the community includes a quote from our Prime Minister “The commissions advice requires action right across New Zealand the economy and including all New Zealanders, we are all going to have to play our part.” Ok ms Prime Minister please then explain how this reconciles with your government’s involvement in constructing a new jet airport on unspoiled landscape in Central Otago. Exactly how many tonnes of concrete and other industrial products are going into that, and you are quite content that the rest of New Zealanders should cough up out of their own livelihoods to compensate said emissions from this scheme. I have been around for a while, but this is one of the most blatant pieces of hypocrisy I can remember in any part of the free world.

And that billion dollar concrete and steel cycling bridge to nowhere.


People kee talking about our nuclear moment as if it was some amazing world changing event. It wasn't, it made not a jot of difference to worldwide nuclear proliferation. Actually it got worse with a number of new nuclear players coming in after our stand. It did however sour relations between us and our defence partners for decades to come. In short, it may have made a few people feel good about themselves, but when viewed objectively it made no real difference. If anything it was at the detriment to ourselves, just like implementing the findings of this report..

The PM says its NZs nuclear free moment, its looking much more like NZs Labour deregulation moment in the 1980s when they said look, we're leading the world again now.

When we paused to count the real cost in human misery we looked back and everyone else was far behind, taking a couple of decades to catch up - supporting their people better

And Nuclear energy is the cleanest source of energy available to the planet. Its all about energy density and resource extraction. Nuclear will play a massive component in the future, and NZ has locked ourselves out of it. Putting a reactor up in Northland where it is tectonically stable and has plenty of water supplies for cooling would solve all of Aucklands energy supply problems. And we wouldnt have to waste so much transporting it up from the SI

A small reactor like the ones used in US Naval vessels which have a 100% safety record over decades would be a pragmatic solution and release demand on current infrastructure to serve a growing demand to charge EV's, failure to seriously research and consider this solution will demonstrate that NZ is incapable of planning for a future. Of course if IWI claim to have invented Nuclear Reactors in 18 o plonk then it will be considered future policy.

Because a tax fixes everything.


KiwiBuild meet KiwiClimate.

Interesting article - tells us the debate is over, much like no Party dares raise the Nuke question.

Polling 1. Spindoctoring 0.

8% in 4 years would be tough if we are talking about genuine cuts.

However I can't see anything stopping New Zealand from just off-shoring our emissions. Marsden point are an excellent example of how this can be achieved and they're doing it voluntarily. We'll just move the dirty industry offshore and import the finished products back. I think Air New Zealand alone was responsible for 4 or 5% of New Zealands emissions, can they re-register offshore?

We can do this, we just need to get really creative.

Like create a little offshore island thats "Not NZ" and do the dirty stuff over there and send it back here. You need big money for that like China however with its ability to turn a sandy island into a full on military base.

Squishy - Cynical but a good idea.


You know its a bad day when David Seymour is the person in parliament making the most sense. Not because he is a good politician, he isn't, more because everyone else there is so completely inept. So far this government has increased the cost of fuel, rent, houses and food whilst overseeing stagnation in wages. Now on top of this they want to dramatically increase other expenses because of some ill thought out green agenda.
Australia is looking increasingly attractive.

Yep the Australians are going to throw all this green talk into the garbage bin. There is only one problem with Australia though, its full of Australians.

Crowds on red-tinged beaches, needing evacuated.

Why does that look good?

I agree with ACT on this one. NZ is a drop in the ocean compared to the worst culprits, which in order of pollution levels are: 1. China, 2. USA, 3. India, 4. Russia

They're the ones who need to step up, not us.