Where in the Prime Minister's Statement was the recognition that Earth is finite, that New Zealand is finite in both size and capacity, and that one cannot continue to grow the global economy or our national economy at a continuous rate forever? Where is the recognition that both the global and national economy must be maintained at a sustainable rate that remains in harmony with the natural resources around us, that we cannot pass on to the next generation a country that has a net depletion in resources? Not, that is, if we wish to avoid having our names cursed, and among all our Prime Ministers this one wishes above all others to be liked, presumably in posterity as well as today.
The Prime Minister has delivered his opening statement to the House today; what he believes is the nearest thing to a statement of vision his Government can offer this country. I take the opportunity to contrast his National vision with the Green vision of New Zealand in 2010.
This 2010 statement of the Prime Minister is the first substantive elaboration of his original vision in the Speech from the Throne in December, just over a year ago, for the 2009 Budget was an exercise in retrenchment during the recession. So this 2010 statement is what the Government clearly wishes to be judged by. So let me offer a judgment. It is a judgment that reflects a different world view, a different perception of the world out there and the place of New Zealand within it. Right from the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister stated that the overarching objective of his Government was to drive the economy. This has come through loud and clear in today's statement. The Prime Minister stated: "our eyes will be firmly on the economy this year. The coming year will continue the Government's focus on the economy and on jobs." To achieve this, the Government has six main drivers: enhanced taxation, better public services, support for science, better regulation, infrastructural investment, and educational improvements.
These National Party drivers are for the goal of lifting our economic performance. Some of these are intrinsic goods, provided they are within the right context. But let me offer six alternative drivers for a prosperous and a sustainable economy, not one that is manically addicted to dirty growth. The Green Party's drivers are as follows: one, an alternative macro economic framework of sustainability; two, fiscal reform for sustainability; three, new macro economic accounts that employ sustainability indicators as well as traditional indicators and replaces GDP with the genuine progress indicator; four, sharing the available work and improving the work-life balance; five, tackling systemic inequality; and, six, reversing the culture of consumerism. These would replace the Government's six drivers to better effect for a green economy for New Zealand.
The main flaw in the National Party's economic vision is the false premise on which it rests. National believes that the way to lift the country's economic performance is through continuous economic growth. The Greens do not. National regards the contemporary age as constituting an evolutionary linear direction. It is business as usual for economic growth, both global and national. The global economy must recover from the recession and must recover its growth pattern, anything less than two percent growth is regarded as recessive. In advancing its world view of unlimited economic growth, National does not focus on the global context.
In contrast, the Greens contend that in today's world prosperity is possible without the mindless focus on come-what-may dirty economic growth that inspires the Government's benches. As it happens, we agree with the Government that there is need for greater innovation in the New Zealand economy. As Dr Russell Norman said earlier today, the sooner we embrace the green technology revolution the more prosperous will be our national future. It is the smart green economy that will deliver for our children. But that does not include coal mining, raping our conservation estate, feverishly surveying for oil within our territory, or polluting our waterways in the name of supplying a particular white liquid to Asia as a new kind of 21st century colonial farm.
The transition to a sustainable economy can be made in time to avert dangerous climate change, but it will not be made with the economic orthodoxy of the kind we were treated to this afternoon. As Tim Jackson points out: "Every society clings to a myth by which it lives." Our generation's myth is mindless economic growth. For the past five decades the pursuit of that growth has been the single overarching policy objective around the world. The global economy is almost five times the size it was half a century ago. If it continues to grow at this rate in the 21st century, and it is Government's policy that it does, the global economy will be 80 times larger by 2100. Just in the last quarter century the global economy has more than doubled, but 60 percent of the world's ecosystem has become degraded or overexploited. So the myth has failed us—at least the 2 billion fellow humans who live on $2 a day.
This afternoon we lamented the plight of the Haitian people. But this was because of a natural disaster. They have lived on the edge of existence for years and we have largely ignored their plight. The global economic crisis presents us with the unique opportunity to invest in truly far-reaching change to adopt a philosophy of global sustainability and a series of national policies designed to reflect that and to achieve a lasting prosperity for our children. Prosperity, as Jackson says, consists in our ability to flourish as human beings within the ecological limits of our planet. The challenge to our society is to create the conditions under which this is possible. That is a challenge that this Prime Minister shies away from. Steeped in orthodox economic and financial theory, and indeed supremely successful from such orthodoxy, he would rather regurgitate more of the same, even as he sees the train wreck approaching. He would rather not confront the obvious.
Where in the Prime Minister's Statement was the recognition that Earth is finite, that New Zealand is finite in both size and capacity, and that one cannot continue to grow the global economy or our national economy at a continuous rate forever? Where is the recognition that both the global and national economy must be maintained at a sustainable rate that remains in harmony with the natural resources around us, that we cannot pass on to the next generation a country that has a net depletion in resources? Not, that is, if we wish to avoid having our names cursed, and among all our Prime Ministers this one wishes above all others to be liked, presumably in posterity as well as today.
Where is the lament over the degradation and death of the coral reefs, the acidification of the oceans, the continuing deforestation of the lungs of the planet, the steady erosion of the soil, the diminution in fresh-water supply, the melting of the planet's ice? Does the Prime Minister really believe that New Zealand is immune from such global trends or if we are not immune we are at least sufficiently well off relative to others? That we can leave it to them to clear up while stealing a competitive march on trading rivals to enable our Kiwi battlers to get ahead?
Where is the acknowledgement that the global oil industry has reached or is about to reach peak production and that the coal industry around the world is so polluting to the atmosphere that we cannot avail ourselves of the source any further?
Where in today's oration was the concern above all else—the Prime Minister's abiding concern—over the prospect of climate change?
At Copenhagen—a conference he studiously sought to avoid and was persuaded to attend only to avoid censure from those he wishes to please—it was clearly established among the international community that a threshold of 2 degrees Celsius was essential to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate. Yet the Copenhagen Accord that passed for agreement at the conference proved to be a vapid document—a damp squid. Yet our Prime Minister declared it was a document he could live with. Well, of course it was; he will not live to see the consequences. Yet his children will.
The New Zealand youth delegation at Copenhagen wrote to him while he was there requesting a meeting. He ignored them. He did not reply. He simply left for home. This was the youth of his country who went to the most important global conference of all time, and he is representing all New Zealanders, and that includes them. They wished to meet him. He heads off for home. Is that the way to provide leadership? Is that how he values the next generation of the country he leads? Rather than disarmingly producing orthodoxy the Prime Minister should listen to the voice of youth, and they have some things to say.
Subscribe to email newsletters
