The Deputy Prime Minister’s ‘war on woke’, and what to champion

Saturday, 29 March 2025

Sir Ian Taylor is the founder and managing director of Animation Research.

OPINION: After your recent declaration of “war on woke,” I found myself wondering if I too might be in the firing line of this war you have declared.

As I understand it, initially, to be woke simply meant to be awake. Aware. Enlightened even. Open to understanding perspectives beyond our own.

But somewhere along the way, that meaning shifted. Or perhaps, more accurately, the word itself got hi-jacked. It’s now become a slur, a shorthand for extremism, or a way to shut down ideas that feel uncomfortable or unfamiliar.

By reducing that word to a caricature, the anti-woke brigade don’t just target groups they disagree with. They end up gifting that title to those on the fringes of reasoned debate. Allowing them to wear it as a badge of honour, leaving those of us who genuinely care about building a more inclusive, compassionate, and forward-looking society with nowhere to stand.

And that’s a shame. Because I still believe in what the word once stood for — and I wear it with pride.

To me, being woke is not about ideology. It’s about responsibility. It’s about understanding the past so we can do better in the future. It’s about listening, learning, and acting with purpose. It’s not a political weapon — it’s a personal commitment.

So, when I hear the term ‘woke’ being used to dismiss rather than engage, to belittle rather than build, I worry that we’re losing something important — not just in our language, but in our leadership.

And it doesn’t have to be that way.

There are some things in your declaration of war that I do agree with. On climate change, I think you’ve raised some very real and valid points. They are points that should be discussed, but let’s do that in the spirit of Talanoa. The concept from our Polynesian ancestors who chose to always listen and talk, with respect, regardless of their own personal views.

You are right - New Zealand meeting its obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement won’t shift the needle on global emissions. We’re a small nation, and in pure numbers, we’re a blip. But the real question is: what can we do that does make a difference?

Well, we can lead with science. With innovation. With the kind of practical, world-changing ideas that allow us to punch far above our weight.

Take agriculture. As you point out, it’s the backbone of our economy and the lifeblood of many of our regions. And while it's also our largest source of emissions, New Zealand’s agricultural sector is globally recognised as one of the most emissions-efficient food producers on the planet.

Now, thanks to major advances in agri-tech - like methane-reducing vaccines and precision pasture management - we’re not just talking about lowering our footprint, we’re actively doing it. These are innovations that could transform global farming practices, and they’re being developed right here at home. IP we can sell that will make a difference to the world.

Imagine part of our trade deal with India including the sale of solutions that will reduce the carbon emissions of the largest dairy producer in the world.

Or look at what Fisher & Paykel Appliances is doing—using Kiwi science and innovation to reduce the carbon emissions of their whiteware products that are used across the entire globe – 50% by 2030 and 90% by 2050. That’s not compliance. That’s leadership.

And it doesn’t stop at agriculture or appliances. Let’s talk about forestry. Right now, we’re exporting raw logs at around $120 a tonne - one of the lowest-value uses for one of our most valuable resources. But what if we changed that?

What if we turned those logs into high-tech materials, carbon-storing biomaterials, next-gen construction products or bio-chemicals? We’d create up to 50 times more value, create high value jobs, and move toward a genuinely circular economy. That's the difference between exporting a commodity — and building a future.

And then there’s energy.

Right beneath our feet lies one of the world’s most promising opportunities: supercritical geothermal. Taupō is one of the closest places on Earth to this unlimited, 24/7, fossil-free energy source. This is energy that doesn’t sleep, doesn’t depend on the weather, and doesn’t need to be imported.

It’s the unlimited supply of clean energy that would drive the bio-manufacturing opportunities highlighted by Kiwi companies like NZ BioForest. The same unlimited supply of clean energy that could attract offshore investment in the giant data farms needed for the world of AI that is driving the next wave of global innovation.

Credit where credit’s due — your colleague Shane Jones has supported the first trial of this technology. That’s the kind of leadership we need: investing in bold, science-driven opportunities that could put us at the forefront of a global energy transition.

Now, Shane and I may not always agree — especially when it comes to looking after biodiversity — but I’d argue we can have both. We can power up economy and look after Freddy the Frog.

We don’t need to drill up Freddy’s home. We just need to be smart about where and how we innovate.

And here's something else we can't ignore. The electrification of Aotearoa.

I’m not sure if you were aware of this, but the world’s first fully electric house was built in Tauranga. Reefton was the first town in the Southern Hemisphere to have electric streetlights. It was right up there with cities like London, Paris, and New York.

Electrification is not new — it’s in our DNA.

If we electrify more of our transport, industry, and homes, we not only cut emissions — we stop sending billions of dollars overseas to pay for imported fossil fuels.

Mike Casey, through his own cherry orchard in Central Otago, has shown what’s possible. He replaced all fossil-fuel machinery with electric alternatives — and is now saving up to $60,000 a year on energy costs. Multiply that across every sector, and you begin to see the true economic power of going electric.

Electrification is not just an environmental solution—it’s a national savings plan. One estimate from Rewiring Aotearoa’s Investing in Tomorrow report puts that saving at $11 billion a year by 2040 if we electrify all our homes and cars. We keep more money in the country, create future-focused jobs, and reduce our dependence on imported energy we don’t control. $11 billion a year is a lot of hospitals, and we also reduce our carbon footprint. By 2040 the savings would accumulate to $95 billion.

Those would be great numbers to deliver to the Paris Accord don’t you think?

So, e hoa, here’s my question: Why don’t you champion this?

Your voice still carries weight — internationally, no less. Let’s not leave the Paris Accord. Let’s evolve it to recognise, and globally fund, science and innovation that actually reduces emissions worldwide, rather than engaging in off-sets and accounting tricks.

New Zealand could lead that conversation. We could be the country that shows what it looks like when science meets action, and when politics supports progress — not just compliance.

That’s the kaupapa I stand for. And yes, I suppose some might call it woke.

But I, for one, would be proud to wear that label.