Paul Henry's speech at the Act rally on Sunday was long, entertaining and superbly well crafted. Photo / Alex Burton
Simon Wilson is an award-winning senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues, with a focus on Auckland. He joined the Herald in 2018.
OPINION
In politics, everyone preaches to their own choir. Resources Minister Shane Jones has been hard at it in the wake of the enormous March for Nature in Queen St and throughout the country.
On RNZ he dismissed opposition to the Fast-track Approvals Bill as “Venezuelan, lotus-eating rhetoric” and “unicorn kissing” from “the Green politburo”.
For good measure, he threw in that “New Zealand’s a garden of Eden, it’s not some sort of climate purgatory put around by the Green sisterhood. We’ve had a gutsful of that. That’s why we’re going ahead with the oil and gas.”
There aren’t many New Zealanders who treat the threat of climate change so frivolously, or who — in my opinion — seem so threatened by women in leadership roles, for that matter. But Jones’ No 1 priority is to lock in the support of those who do feel like that.
It’s a shame, because there are important debates to be had about how New Zealand transitions away from fossil fuels, and he isn’t helping.
Paul Henry was preaching to his own choir the next day, as guest speaker at the Act Party’s $50-a-head Change Makers rally. He’s not a politician, but he did relish his role as something much more fun: party cheerleader.
Henry’s speech was long, entertaining and superbly well crafted — say what you like about him, he knows how to hold a staunchly right-wing crowd.
He said under the previous Government, “matches were lit to incinerate more of New Zealand” and called us “a sad little country squabbling amongst ourselves”.
Queen St was a disaster zone and “we can’t fix it because it is politically incorrect to hoover the streets of the antisocial”.
Pause for a moment: What’s he calling for there?
Act might be the country’s last hope, he had decided, but “it’s possible it’s beyond repair, in which case I’ll relocate”.
It was a masterful mash-up: grievance, superiority over the “sad little squabblers” and a smug acknowledgment of the privilege of wealth. He got a standing ovation.
It’s easy to preach to the choir because they’re already on your side, but at some point you have to do a bit more. The actual Act politicians who spoke mostly knew this, and some of them had more telling things to say.
The standout was Minister for Children Karen Chhour, who told the meeting about her desire to bring more safety and hope to children in the care of Oranga Tamariki. Many critics believe she’s going about it the wrong way, but it’s surprising that anyone would doubt her motives or her determination to get the work done.
Finding the best ways to look after our most vulnerable children is one of the most complex challenges we face. Looking at it from the outside, it’s hard to understand why there is not more consensus among politicians about how to go about it.
But there isn’t. The issue has fuelled bitterness and fury, perhaps because the stakes could not be higher and there have been so many failures, regardless of the approach.
On Sunday, Chhour, who is Māori, spoke about being on the receiving end of the fury. Some of her political opponents on the left, she said, accuse her in Parliament of “killing babies” and being “disgusting” and a “puppet” of other politicians.
“To imply I cannot think for myself is an utter disgrace,” she said.
She’s not alone in being attacked like this: as a group, Māori women are probably the most vilified of all MPs. The hatred they face is appalling and it becomes worse when it has a political dimension.
There are Māori members of Parliament right across the political spectrum now. It’s a very good thing. MMP has made this possible, and done much the same for other ethnicities.
This breadth of perspectives is a sign of political maturity and something to cherish.
Courts Minister Nicole McKee, too, had a perspective. “I’m a tough, staunch Ngāpuhi woman,” she said, “who thinks that everyone should have the ability to embrace their own tikanga.”
To me, that sounds both true and enormously problematic. Act and NZ First are the parties whose constant complaints about “Māori privilege” have unleashed a tide of anger against Māori attempting to do just that.
But it’s a broad debate.
Biggest surprise of the day came from local MP Simon Court, the MC for the afternoon. He attacked the “Jacinda Ardern, stay-at-home, put-a-teddy-in-your-window-and-don’t-talk-to-your-neighbour era, and good riddance to that”.
Whoa. Memo to the PM: Please do not let this man anywhere near the levers of power in a civil emergency.
Party leader David Seymour in his speech said a remarkable thing: “Our allies in Government say they’d get faster decisions without Act. That may well be true. But New Zealand does not need faster decisions, it needs better ones.”
Has he told Shane Jones and the other sponsors of the Fast-track Approvals Bill?
Seymour, truer to form, described the Zero Carbon Act as “mad” and confirmed later that its repeal was “very important” to Act.
Thankfully, the rest of the Government does not agree. Although Jones has his own ideas about the economy and the environment and, who knows, perhaps Seymour thinks they are mad as well.
Certainly, they test the bounds of logic.
Here’s why. Jones has always said we need gas as a transition fuel. Existing generation of renewable energy cannot keep up with growing electricity demands, and it will be cleaner to cover the gap by burning our own gas than importing Indonesian coal.
But he has a problem. Even if new drilling is permitted, there’s no guarantee it will happen. Those 20,000 people marching in Queen St on Saturday could be just the start of a very large mass movement. And the Green Party has warned prospective drilling companies that a future government could revoke their licences.
Jones himself revealed yesterday that the message has got through. “Every time I talk to domestic investors, they’re deeply fearful,” he told RNZ.
His solution is to think long term. “One option is to ... develop a long-term take contract, so that investors have the confidence over the next 30 years their investment will continue to generate a return.”
Which means he no longer thinks of gas as a transition fuel, but as a long-term option.
But hang on. Who thinks we’ll still be burning fossil fuels in 30 years?
In effect, Jones’ plan would mean writing blank cheques to corporates that are already massively profitable.
To their credit, and despite sizeable donations to them both from various corporate interests, neither National nor Act is likely to say yes to that.
Jones seems to be on his own with this. Preaching to his choir, but not impressing Vicar Luxon or his sidekick the Bishop.
What Jones wants, he says, is “energy consistency and security for our nation”. So do we all. But we’re not going to get it from ministers who insist on pitting the economy against the environment.
Happily, to quote the lotus-eating rhetoric of Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick, there is a better way.
As she noted yesterday, about 30 per cent of detached homes in Australia have solar panels on their roofs. Those panels supply about 14 per cent of total generation.
In this country, only 2.6 per cent of homes have solar panels, but new regulations could change that.
And, according to Transpower, wind accounts for only about 750MW, or 14 per cent, of our total 5400MW of electricity generation. But the power companies are sitting on consents for another 1900MW.
The reason they aren’t building them is the market: the way it’s constructed, they don’t think they’ll make enough money.
You’re reading this right. Jones, scourge of unicorn kissing everywhere, wants to “secure our energy future” with a high-risk, short-term, politically explosive commitment to fossil fuels. When we could build enough wind farms to meet about half our present electricity needs with projects already consented.
All it would take to get that done right now is a bit of sensible intervention from the Government. For politicians happy to decide what should be in school lunches, is that too much to ask?
Officers were photographed helping to paint protest signs.