National leader Christopher Luxon. Photo / Mark Mitchell
OPINION
This month, Christopher Luxon will face a crucial test when the Government releases its Emissions Reduction Plan.
He can lead his party to a credible position on climate change or reveal himself as a man captured by the conservative elements of his party and putting politics ahead of his own principles.
The report by NZ SeaRise released this week makes clear that climate change is no longer a far-off issue of melting icebergs and drowning polar bears – it is an existential threat to New Zealand's economy and living standards.
The report showed that crucial parts of New Zealand's economic infrastructure are at risk from sea-level rise, not at some far-off point in the future, but within the next 10 to 20 years.
But the politics of stopping this aren't easy. There's no free lunch here; the actions we need to take to stop this economic carnage all come with upfront costs – costs that will be felt in voters' hip pockets.
That's why for much of the last 20 years, the National Party has avoided taking a serious position on climate change. Successive leaders have given speeches acknowledging the need to act, but then opposed the policies that would actually halt emissions.
It's a position that works if you only care about winning votes – you make it sound like you're in favour of fixing the problem while not risking upsetting anyone by actually doing anything about it, and you get to attack your opponents for piling costs on families at the same time.
It's a comfy position for a politician to be in, but it's a disaster for the country.
National's coalition partner Act has recognised this, and David Seymour has put forward a coherent climate policy. They advocate putting a proper price on carbon, trusting businesses and consumers to reduce their emissions in response to the price signal, and then passing the revenue raised by that pricing back to families through a carbon dividend.
You can disagree with the distributional impacts of the policy, but it's a serious attempt to actually try to fix the problem and save us from the worst impacts of climate change.
There was hope when Luxon took over National's leadership that he might try to move National out of its climate cul-de-sac.
In his former life as a chief executive, this stuff clearly mattered to him. At Air NZ he established a sustainability board to advise the company on what to do to reduce its emissions and implemented all its advice.
But as a politician, Luxon has found himself a prisoner of the various constituencies within his party that are opposed to responding to climate change in a meaningful way. He hasn't wanted to get offside with the farming lobby, including the increasingly radical Groundswell group. Nor has he wanted to force a fight with the climate sceptics in his caucus at a time when unity is paramount.
So, none of his three major speeches this year have included any climate policy. His only firm commitment has been to reopen large swathes of New Zealand's coastline for offshore oil drilling. Under Luxon, National has opposed the Clean Car Discount policy which has tripled EV sales, opposed any moves on sustainable fuels and attacked new public transport investment.
The hardest thing to do as a political leader is to take your supporters where you know the country needs to go, even when they might not naturally support that.
This is the real definition of political leadership and you have to be able to do it if you want to make a difference.
It's a journey Jacinda Ardern has had to go through on climate change – convincing Labour's union base, the factory workers, the oil workers, and the coalminers, that climate action is needed. It's a journey John Key took National on with race relations – ending the divisive rhetoric of the Brash years and landing major Treaty settlements.
On climate, Luxon now has a chance to do the same.
The question will be, is he up to it?
Hayden Munro was the campaign manager for Labour's successful 2020 election win. He now works in corporate PR for Wellington-based firm Capital Communications and Government Relations.