web analytics

Greens must not let ETS fail

Written By: - Date published: 2:20 pm, May 28th, 2008 - 45 comments
Categories: climate change, greens - Tags:

The Dompost reports that the Greens will not vote for the Emissions Trading Scheme if the introduction of transport fuels into the scheme and the end of free allocation of credits are delayed. Without the Greens, the Bill will probably not pass.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Greens’ position. The ETS is not all it could be as a scheme to tackle climate change. BUT it is the only game in town. If the ETS does not pass there will be no carbon pricing scheme. Don’t think for a second that National would introduce one. They want the ETS to fail and always have. When push comes to shove, National will always be on the side of the pollutors.

The Greens must be able to find some arrangement with labour to support the scheme in return for some policy concession – a subsidy on the construction of renewable power generation, for example, to encourage renewables and keep electricity prices down, or a major low-carbon technology research and development prpgramme.

It’s no use the Greens cutting off their nose to spite their face. Better to have the ETS in place as a foundation for climate change policy going forward than a policy vacuum.

45 comments on “Greens must not let ETS fail ”

  1. I think the Greens have to take a principled stand on this one and vote against the ETS. To do anything else would risk being perceived as being little more than “Labour lime”.

  2. T-rex 2

    Absolutely agree Steve.

    Brian, do you have any idea how transparent you are? National could make their fibre optic network out of you.

  3. Matthew Pilott 3

    If they vote against it, I’d see it as being analogous to Australia or the US refusing to ratify Kyoto – because it wasn’t a perfect treaty, they didn’t sign.

    Here’s the big news – nothing is perfect. In this case, they should take what they get (while being free, of course, to agitate for more), or NZ will have no useful legislation on the issue and the Greens will sacrifice a start towards their goals for the sake of making a stand.

    Bryan – how so? If this is the best ETS they can get, why not support it while working towards a better one?

    I never picked you for the “useless principled stand” kind of person.

  4. Lew 4

    Bryan Spondre: Since I believe you’re on record saying how climate change is bollocks, I fail to see why the Greens would take policy advice from you. A principled stand which resulted in the government being unable to pass the ETS bill would likely result in a National government refusing to consider such measures in their first term, and would relegate the Greens to the ranks of quixotic one-issue ideologues rather than bolstering their current reputation as flexible, co-operative, accessible politicians concerned with praxis. As Idiot/Savant said, perfect has been the enemy of good enough.

    I think the Greens are playing brinksmanship here – and I think Labour knows this and will partially concede to their agenda in the spirit of future collaboration. The question is whether the Greens are prepared to risk further jeopardising Labour’s election campaign by insisting on rolling back exemptions from the ETS. Is a strong ETS worth a National government?

    But I love the term `Labour lime’ – is it a BS original?

    L

  5. alex 5

    SP – agreed, Green should bite the bullet on the ETS.

    Also, why do Labour need the Greens for it to pass… I’m guessing this means NZ First are not supporting it… why not?

  6. Matthew/Lew: If this wasn’t election year then I would agree with you that the Greens might be better off going for a compromise. But I think the issue is rather like Winston’s rejection of the China FTA: a chance to differentiate themselves.

  7. alex. I understand the Maori Party is opposed, not sure why, and United Future is probably against but are dragging out their flip on it, like National was. I think NZF are for it. Don’t quote me, but i think that’s how they lie.

  8. Matthew Pilott 8

    Bryan – so it’s about playing the game, and not acting according to the interests of those who voted for them…?

    I actually doubt your premise Bryan – I don’t think environmentally conscious voters would be turned off by the Greens supporting a less-than-ideal ETS. I think they’d see it for what it is, bowing to pragmatism – and at least a tangible framework would be in place. That’s just a difference of opinion between us though, I doubt I can justify my thoughts on the issue any more reasonably than you could so we may have to disagree here!

    One big difference between Winston/FTA and Greens/ETS – the FTA was already going to happen, so Winson’s bickering wasn’t relevant. If the greens disagree, there may not be an ETS – a far more consequential disagreement!

  9. Joker 9

    Maybe we should give up the ETS and give This a try.

    Too many people for it to work in the UK but could be interesting here.

  10. mike 10

    The greens are desperate and are trying to look pricipled instead of like Labours lap dog.
    Any comprimise on the fuel tax introduction will be lept on by the Nats at a time when people are seriously struggling to pay the bills.

    It is playing the game Matt but this is election year.

  11. Edosan 11

    I doubt at the end of the day they will oppose it, but I think it’s important they put across their reservations to the public.
    National will want to hurry this in before the election so that they can blame any consequences on the labour administration should they get into power. If there are major problems with the ETS (becasue of its hurried nature) the Greens will have positioned themselves well for after the election as well.

  12. erikter 12

    Are you now advocating flexibility and malleability of principles in this case, the very same sin you accuse John Key of?

    The Greens have no choice but to stand their ground and reject the ETS in their current form. Otherwise, they will rightly seen and perceived by the electorate as Labour minions.

    The Standard’s pragmatism never ceases to amaze (when convenient, of course)!

  13. Stephen 13

    How do you balance that against being ‘independent’, but not getting anything done?

  14. Matthew: thats a good point about Winston and the FTA.

  15. Lew 15

    mike: “It is playing the game Matt but this is election year.”

    It hinges on how much support you think the Greens will gain if they refuse to support the ETS.

    Suppose that by `win’ I mean that Labour needs a coalition including the Greens to govern, but National can govern alone or with ACT only after the coming election. Let’s look at the possibilities:

    Scenario 1: Greens stand on principle, ETS doesn’t get passed, National wins. Cost: failure to implement core policy, weaker parliamentary influence. Benefit: seen as independent.

    Scenario 2: Greens stand on principle, ETS doesn’t get passed, Labour wins. Cost: 12 month delay on implementing ETS. Benefit: better ETS, much more parliamentary influence, seen as independent.

    Scenario 3: Greens accede and pass the ETS, National wins. Cost: weaker ETS than they’d like, weaker parliamentary influence. Benefit: Seen as independent, National could suffer if it repealed the ETS.

    Scenario 4: Greens accede and pass the ETS, Labour wins. Cost: Weaker ETS, not seen as independent. Benefit: Much more parliamentary influence, opportunity to improve the ETS, Labour would be somewhat indebted to them.

    The only scenario which sees the Green Party worse off than they are now is Scenario 1, which is one possibility from what all the righties are suggesting.

    erikter: “Are you now advocating flexibility and malleability of principles in this case, the very same sin you accuse John Key of?”

    It’s not the same. The Greens’ principles are known and declared, and as Edosan says they must make clear that they’re making a one-off concession to pragmatism. John Key’s principles are not well known and have never been firmly declared.

    At this point I think the government will throw the Greens a bone, making a minor but symbolic compromise on the ETS, and they will support it.

    L

    Captcha: `possible passage’. What the Greens want isn’t that the ETS ‘ passage be `possible’, it’s that it be guaranteed.

    Edit: Of course, there are other scenarios I haven’t canvassed here, such as the Greens being left out of parliament entirely or National needing a coalition to govern. These are an exercise for the reader 🙂

  16. Matthew Pilott 16

    The Greens have no choice but to stand their ground and reject the ETS in their current form

    Sorry erikter, that went right past me – how is voting towards an ETS going against the Greens’ principles?

    I’d be stoked if you can point to a passage in Green Party policy that explicitly states “The Greens are opposed to an ETS that is weakened from a previous iteration of said ETS” or similar, or I’ll have to accuse you of stirring…

    I haven’t personally accused Key of having any principles, let alone those of a malleable nature!

    Mike, does that automatically mean government should get nothing done in an election year, because all aspects of MMP have to be abandoned for a zero-sum attitude?

  17. Stephen 17

    Nice work Lew.

  18. dave 18

    The Greens need to be bit daring and inventive. Clark has committed herself to farmers and now the transport industry to defer the ETS. She needs to take a more direct approach.
    A carbon tax for farmers is needed. If they have spare cash it should go into cleanups now not buying shares or put in the bank to buy future credits for pollution. The ETS is a clumsy solution that invites speculation.
    The oil monopoly needs to be broken. I am for the state setting up a state oil company and doing swaps with Venezuela. A lower price would allow a carbon tax for electric rail and buses to replace cars.

  19. The ETS is not, as you state, “the only game in town”. There are plenty of better options, but Labour simply refuses to countenance them. How this is the fault of the Greens is beyond me. The Greens can get a lot better than this rotten old bone of a climate policy – I say they wait. They have nothing to gain from this legislation, other than a better relationship with slimy Labour politicians.

  20. “The Greens need to be bit daring and inventive”

    Labour needs to be daring and inventive. The Greens have plenty of innovative ways to tackle climate change without causing hardship to New Zealanders, but they’re consistently ignored. Of course, having Winston, Dunne and Anderton at the cabinet table is a recipe for disaster.

  21. I have to agree with Brian Spondre. The Greens aren’t Labour’s lapdog or NZ First’s poodle either. If Labour and the Greens both want a viable emissions scheme and NZ First won’t play ball, then that’s how it has to play out. NZ First can line up with National and any other party that doesn’t understand how important this is NOW.

    To be fair, a large mass of the public don’t know why this is important now (or very much about a huge number of things, to be honest)…..and maybe that’s how it has to go. Ultimately, voters have to get their ‘proverbial’ together and PAY ATTENTION. Otherwise anyone who gets too far ahead of them will be scapegoated at the first sign of difficulties and the whole thing will backslide. For the ETS to stick, the electorate has to be behind it. No use being ‘out in front’ and getting your head chopped off. If now is not the time then let voters wear the consequences for that. It’s their call and their responsibility. Governments shouldn’t be babysitters for the accidentally or willfully ignorant. Baby will have a tantrum and shoot government in the head.

  22. nommopilot 22

    from what I can tell the ETS may actually do the opposite of what it intends: taxes from small companies trying to make themselves sustainable go toward subsidising expanded industrial farming and transport.

    I think if the legislation is worth than not having a scheme at all then the greens are right not to vote for it. Jeanette’s interview the other day (National Radio, monday I think) was excellent in pointing out the weaknesses and putting forward the green’s case. Just because it’s the only game in town doesn’t make it worth playing.

    I’d link to it, but the radio NZ website crashes my firefox immediately for some reason…

  23. nommopilot 23

    some of Jeanette’s suggestions IIRC included bringing nem farm conversions into the ETS immediately, and fertilizer.

    of course, if fertilizer were included that might see some increased emissions costs on the beehive as well…

    (captcha: biased was)

  24. merl 24

    I second George Darroch.

    Labour is taking the Greens for granted by expecting them to follow this policy as the lesser of two evils.

  25. Lew 25

    I was going to ask Keith Locke this at Back Benches last night, but never got the chance: `Are you confident that if Labour fails to pass the ETS, National will pass a better one if elected to government?’

    I’d like to hear answers from some of you greenies. It seems to me like y’all are either supremely confident of a Labour win, or supremely confident of the bluegreens.

    L

  26. alex 26

    bluegreens, heh.

  27. erikter 27

    “Labour is taking the Greens for granted by expecting them to follow this policy as the lesser of two evils.”

    Indeed. And it’s all possible because of the Greens’ flexible principles and accommodating nature. They are ready to compromise … if the price and perks are right.

    The Green Party lust for power is stronger than its principles.

  28. T-rex 28

    Erikter, you are a troll.

    Lew – as a green voter, I’d like the greens to get the best they can out of Labour. If Labour wants their support, they SHOULD make some concessions! I forget the exact percentage, but if the greens won 6% of the party vote last time around that means they represent around 200,000 people.

    I’m not confident National will pass any useful form of ETS. If the existing ETS fails due to lack of support from the greens I will be supremely pissed, but I think Labour should make some concession to get their support.

    I don’t, however, think that transport emissions should form part of that concession. The political cost (given peoples obsession with petrol price and the “out of touch” label that’s already being applied to Labour) is far higher than the minimal benefit of the impact it will have on usage. My view? They should push for increasing the subsidy towards the solar hot water initiative as the carrot. That will directly lower emissions AND reduce power demand.

  29. erikter 29

    No, I’m not a troll T-rex. I’m just stating the obvious: the Greens have been Labour’s doormat most of the time, and have compromised, if not surrendered, at every turn.

    Your suggestion of subsidies for solar power is to be taken as another green joke. When the time arrives for that technology, it will accessible to the masses and there will be no need for a subsidy.

    Like it or not, you cannot control a capitalist market.

  30. T-rex 30

    “They are ready to compromise if the price and perks are right.

    The Green Party lust for power is stronger than its principles.”

    They gain no power by being “labours doormat”, so your argument is inherently flawed to begin with. Furthermore, how is voting in favour of legislation that’s aligned with green policy unprincipled?

    Your suggestion of subsidies for solar power is to be taken as another green joke. When the time arrives for that technology, it will accessible to the masses and there will be no need for a subsidy.

    You quite clearly have absolutely no idea of how to encourage promising fringe technology to becomes mainstream. The argument you make here is exactly the same as that which was made when Germany introduced feed in tarrifs for renewable energy – especially solar. Everyone who made it has since been proven wrong.

  31. T-rex 31

    Actually I’ve got a better idea – the greens should push for the formation of a small-scale energy equivalent of pharmac, and in doing so bypass all the gougers (your capitalists) who are obstructing large scale uptake.

  32. We’re now, by law, no more than five and a half months away from an election. Labour has already had to back away from a significant portion of its flagship Emissions Trading legislation. Would we not all be better off if the proposed legislation was parked until after the election? Then, once the dust of the campaign has settled, there may even be the opportunity for cross-party consensus.

    We are seeing daily that the EFA is bad law, and we know how rushed that piece of legislation was. The ETS is far too important for indecent haste. I am reminded of a Latin proverb from my schooldays – many, many years ago, which seems very applicable to the passage of this legislation – Festina Lente – hasten slowly.

  33. The ETS has been under development for three years.

  34. So why the rush now?

  35. Lew 35

    Inventory2: This is a strawman as well, since it’s not being rushed as Steve says.

    The idea of cross-party consensus has merit, though, since an ETS passed by grand coalition would be almost immutable to future governments’ tinkering. The question Labour and the Greens have to ask themselves before considering that road is how much they trust National to implement an ETS scheme strong enough to make a significant difference to NZ’s Kyoto obligations. At present I don’t think either party has much confidence in National, and given Key’s recent equivocations I can’t say I blame them.

    This might fly if Key was to release some firm ETS policy.

    “So why the rush now?”

    Because if Labour can’t win the coming election it’s likely to be now or never.

    L

  36. T-rex 36

    Inventory – Whatever happens, we’re also only 3 1/2 years from the point where we have to start paying for our emissions. Personally, I’d rather see polluters internalise the costs of their emissions sooner rather than later, so people have a direct incentive to reduce emissions sooner rather than later. Distributed responsibility (which is what exists without an ETS) rarely gets anything done.

    Personally, I remain unconvinced by the man-made global warming argument. But considering most of the short term emissions reduction actions make good sense regardless I honestly don’t care. We’re facing an electricity shortage and an oil shortage, and are beginning to see the effects of ongoing ocean acidification. Don’t you think it would be a good idea to start installing efficient lightbulbs, insulating houses, and switching to high efficiency transport now? And regardless of whether coal/gas power plants contribute to global warming, they definitely are finite in availability.

    The ETS creates an additional economic incentive to do what already makes environmental AND economic sense. By the time we run out of no brainer behaviour changes in 10 years time maybe we’ll have more of an idea of what our goals should be.

    You sound like everyone else from big industry. “We LOVE the idea of an emissions reduction scheme, and would be HAPPY to pay for it, we’re just a little concerned about its present ‘structure’. So, while unreservedly supporting the idea, we’re pretty keen to carry on externalising our costs onto the public at large for another few years”. I’m not sure if that’s your intention or not… but the arguments align.

  37. It’s not in a rush, it’s been ongoing for three years, it’s going through the legislative process at the normal pace. God, what a dumb statement.

  38. Steve/Lew – I accept that this has been a long process – my reference to haste concerns the push to get this passed into law before this Parliament dissolves. When the House returned two weeks ago, there were 37 sitting days left this year – assuming an elkection at the latest possible date. We’re now down to 28 days, in turbo-charged, election-focused, point-scoring mode. There’s no guarantee that Labour has the numbers to advance the Bill, so what temptation is there to offer “sweeteners” for support. The run-up to an election is NOT the time for legislation of this significance.

  39. Matthew Pilott 39

    Thus spoke Erikter:

    Indeed. And it’s all possible because of the Greens’ flexible principles and accommodating nature. They are ready to compromise if the price and perks are right.

    The Green Party lust for power is stronger than its principles.

    Your suggestion of subsidies for solar power is to be taken as another green joke. When the time arrives for that technology, it will accessible to the masses and there will be no need for a subsidy.

    Like it or not, you cannot control a capitalist market.

    I think you got called a troll for comments such as these. A little harsh perhaps, but then baseless sweeping generalisations can be construed as such.

    Comment one: You’re quite sure that none of the policies the Green Party hoped to implement have happened? Name a couple of their ‘bottom lines’ they’ve been rolled on.

    And I’m still waiting for the Green policy that says “The Greens are opposed to an ETS that is weakened from a previous iteration of said ETS’ from your last comment – that you didn’t back up.

    Comment two: Tell that to the Germans. Have a look at their use of wind and solar power, and ask youself why Germany is leading the world at production and installation – and why price of production ($/MwH) has dropped so much. Maybe you can’t control a capitalist market, but with the right moves you can heavily influence it (which is good, given the market is a god-awful failure at internalising its own disasterous outcomes).

  40. Matthew Pilott 40

    The run-up to an election is NOT the time for legislation of this significance.

    Inventory2 – so you’re saying that during one third of the time, the government should have a moratorium on getting important things done? Surely not.

    So how do you decide that, say, Cullen can give a budget, but something like the ETS is a no-go. I’m afraid your viewpoint seems to lack a degree of practicality.

  41. T-rex 41

    Matt – High five

  42. alex 42

    Heh, the government should do nothing for one third of the time.

  43. Matthew Pilott 43

    T-rex – I somehow completely missed your comment at 9:58, but seemed to rather strongly echo it!

    Regarding your post at 11:25, I have one distinction. in the end, it is not producers that will pay for pollution – the costs are always passed on to the consumer. But internalising the costs of consumption is really what it is all about, even if the method is to internalise the costs of production.

    edit alex – none of that cynicism thank you very much!

  44. Draco TB 44

    When the time arrives for that technology, it will accessible to the masses and there will be no need for a subsidy.

    Like it or not, you cannot control a capitalist market.

    The time for that technology was thirty years ago.

    Like it or not, the capitalist market doesn’t actually work.

  45. Jamesey 45

    erikter

    Hmm, like the railroad, electricity, atomic, airline, car and computer industries came about without extensive government intervention on their behalf.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Advancing our relationship in India
    Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta departs for India tomorrow as she continues to reconnect Aotearoa New Zealand to the world.  The visit will begin in New Delhi where the Foreign Minister will meet with the Vice President Hon Jagdeep Dhankar and her Indian Government counterparts, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 hours ago
  • Government Northland housing investment to spark transformational change
    Over $10 million infrastructure funding to unlock housing in Whangārei The purchase of a 3.279 hectare site in Kerikeri to enable 56 new homes Northland becomes eligible for $100 million scheme for affordable rentals Multiple Northland communities will benefit from multiple Government housing investments, delivering thousands of new homes for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Battle of Ohaeawai remembered
    A memorial event at a key battle site in the New Zealand land wars is an important event to mark the progress in relations between Māori and the Crown as we head towards Waitangi Day, Minister for Te Arawhiti Kelvin Davis said. The Battle of Ohaeawai in June 1845 saw ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • More Police deployed to the frontline
    More Police officers are being deployed to the frontline with the graduation of 54 new constables from the Royal New Zealand Police College today. The graduation ceremony for Recruit Wing 362 at Te Rauparaha Arena in Porirua was the first official event for Stuart Nash since his reappointment as Police ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Further support for upper North Island regions hit by significant weather
    The Government is unlocking an additional $700,000 in support for regions that have been badly hit by the recent flooding and storm damage in the upper North Island. “We’re supporting the response and recovery of Auckland, Waikato, Coromandel, Northland, and Bay of Plenty regions, through activating Enhanced Taskforce Green to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • The Princess Royal to visit New Zealand
    Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has welcomed the announcement that Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal, Princess Anne, will visit New Zealand this month. “Princess Anne is travelling to Aotearoa at the request of the NZ Army’s Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals, of which she is Colonel in Chief, to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Government and horticulture sector target $12b in exports by 2035
    A new Government and industry strategy launched today has its sights on growing the value of New Zealand’s horticultural production to $12 billion by 2035, Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor said. “Our food and fibre exports are vital to New Zealand’s economic security. We’re focussed on long-term strategies that build on ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Cost of living support extended for families and businesses
    25 cents per litre petrol excise duty cut extended to 30 June 2023 – reducing an average 60 litre tank of petrol by $17.25 Road User Charge discount will be re-introduced and continue through until 30 June Half price public transport fares extended to the end of June 2023 saving ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • More Kiwis in work as rising wages match inflation
    The strong economy has attracted more people into the workforce, with a record number of New Zealanders in paid work and wages rising to help with cost of living pressures. “The Government’s economic plan is delivering on more better-paid jobs, growing wages and creating more opportunities for more New Zealanders,” ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Government boosts fund for Auckland flooding
    The Government is providing a further $1 million to the Mayoral Relief Fund to help communities in Auckland following flooding, Minister for Emergency Management Kieran McAnulty announced today. “Cabinet today agreed that, given the severity of the event, a further $1 million contribution be made. Cabinet wishes to be proactive ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • New Cabinet focused on bread and butter issues
    The new Cabinet will be focused on core bread and butter issues like the cost of living, education, health, housing and keeping communities and businesses safe, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has announced. “We need a greater focus on what’s in front of New Zealanders right now. The new Cabinet line ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Prime Minister to meet with PM Albanese
    Prime Minister Chris Hipkins will travel to Canberra next week for an in person meeting with Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. “The trans-Tasman relationship is New Zealand’s closest and most important, and it was crucial to me that my first overseas trip as Prime Minister was to Australia,” Chris Hipkins ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Government makes first payment to Auckland Flooding fund
    The Government is providing establishment funding of $100,000 to the Mayoral Relief Fund to help communities in Auckland following flooding, Minister for Emergency Management Kieran McAnulty announced. “We moved quickly to make available this funding to support Aucklanders while the full extent of the damage is being assessed,” Kieran McAnulty ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government steps up to assist Auckland during flooding
    As the Mayor of Auckland has announced a state of emergency, the Government, through NEMA, is able to step up support for those affected by flooding in Auckland. “I’d urge people to follow the advice of authorities and check Auckland Emergency Management for the latest information. As always, the Government ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Poroporoaki: Titewhai Te Huia Hinewhare Harawira
    Ka papā te whatitiri, Hikohiko ana te uira, wāhi rua mai ana rā runga mai o Huruiki maunga Kua hinga te māreikura o te Nota, a Titewhai Harawira Nā reira, e te kahurangi, takoto, e moe Ka mōwai koa a Whakapara, kua uhia te Tai Tokerau e te kapua pōuri ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Enhanced Task Force Green Approved following Cyclone Hale
    Carmel Sepuloni, Minister for Social Development and Employment, has activated Enhanced Taskforce Green (ETFG) in response to flooding and damaged caused by Cyclone Hale in the Tairāwhiti region. Up to $500,000 will be made available to employ job seekers to support the clean-up. We are still investigating whether other parts ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • General Election to be held on 14 October 2023
    The 2023 General Election will be held on Saturday 14 October 2023, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced today. “Announcing the election date early in the year provides New Zealanders with certainty and has become the practice of this Government and the previous one, and I believe is best practice,” Jacinda ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announces resignation
    Jacinda Ardern has announced she will step down as Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party. Her resignation will take effect on the appointment of a new Prime Minister. A caucus vote to elect a new Party Leader will occur in 3 days’ time on Sunday the 22nd of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Trade and Agriculture Minister to attend World Economic Forum and Global Forum for Food and Agricult...
    The Government is maintaining its strong trade focus in 2023 with Trade and Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor visiting Europe this week to discuss the role of agricultural trade in climate change and food security, WTO reform and New Zealand agricultural innovation. Damien O’Connor will travel tomorrow to Switzerland to attend the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago