Editorial: Co-operation better than point-scoring with future challenges

Dealing with farm emissions is proving just as difficult in other places with significant agriculture industries.

If an election is a three-yearly stocktake on New Zealand’s political system, then some of it feels past its shelf life.

The two main parties with the biggest share of support, who should be showing leadership, are often in this campaign trying not to spook people as they scramble in the political centre.

Reassurance is the main parties’ mood music. This approach can come across as not sufficiently levelling with the public about what’s required going forward and not being prepared to push actions through.

The Westminster system, with its point-scoring, confrontation, and party one-upmanship, seems inadequate for current and future challenges. International relations and trade are usually treated as bipartisan areas and a lot of our problems are global.

This campaign has also had a definite flavour of provocative say-anything populism - particularly about cultural wedge nerve points - that draws people’s attention away from big background issues that require serious, detailed planning.

Despite claims from some quarters that life in New Zealand is particularly bad, the nation shares many challenges with other countries and, for instance, has no control over consequences from the Ukraine war, climate impacts on food production, or China’s sluggish recovery from Covid.

Inflation and the cost of living have also been tough overseas, while crime spikes were noted elsewhere. Australian retailers saw an increase in theft, and a pandemic-linked spike in vehicle-snatching occurred in United States cities.

Dealing with farm emissions is proving just as difficult in other places with significant agriculture industries such as the Netherlands and Ireland. Countries are generally trying to boost renewable energy use and EV take-up. Transport infrastructure is under strain from global warming-fired intense weather barrages, which has flow-on effects, including that potholes are a scourge everywhere.

Housing/property is broadly a problem around the world and Business Insider recently suggested that the US could learn from New Zealand in how to deal with it - referring to the bipartisan deal between Labour and National that the latter has withdrawn from.

Housing, climate, tax reform, transport and infrastructure are among policy areas which really need more bipartisan co-operation, rather than less.

Putting rival agendas under scrutiny and holding governments to account is necessary, and there can be valid disagreements. But a lot of waste in dollars, work, and time can occur when projects introduced by one side are cancelled by the other.

Labour and National in agreement on a policy should theoretically have enough heft to make changes that would be in the country’s interest if they want to.

Agreement can happen: Yesterday National backed a new Labour policy for compulsory lessons in schools on developing financial skills. National deputy leader Nicola Willis said it was something the party also wanted included in the curriculum.

Pricing farm emissions was once on a common path, but is now on separate tracks - and it’s a slow train coming either way.

Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture make up 49 per cent of the country’s total. It’s also a crucial industry for New Zealand’s economy.

Labour last week delayed its plan from the beginning to the end of 2025 and possible entry into the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) if there’s no agreement has been pushed into 2026. Whether the plan even goes ahead will be determined by the election.

National wants a pricing system by 2030 and to keep agriculture out of the ETS. Generally, National lags in credibility on climate issues, especially with Greens co-leader James Shaw the current Minister for Climate Change.

It’s not an encouraging pace for necessary change from either main party.