Graham Kennedy: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Graham Kennedy: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:651;Page:311] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the motion put by the Hon Gerry Brownlee that a special select committee to review the emissions trading scheme and related matters be established. The Green Party may have been disposed to accept the establishment of a special committee had it been established on the basis of the more narrow terms of reference originally envisaged by the Prime Minister but we are not so disposed to accept the much more general terms that have been proposed by Mr Hide which are essentially based on the campaign slogan put across by that party to the effect that climate change is essentially a question of belief. That premise on which that political party campaigned is an extreme form—I put it to members—of political irresponsibility. When I look at the terms of reference proposed for the committee—and there are around 10 or so—I ask myself what I suggest all members of this House ask themselves: are each or any of these terms of reference essential for the clarification of the issue of climate change for the elucidation of the matter for the public and for the efficient governance of this House? My answer in each case is no.  
The first term is to “hear views from trade and diplomatic experts on the international relations aspect of this issue;”. I can personally vouch for the fact that that has been under way in this country by Governments for the past 25 years. The second term states: “consider the prospects for an international agreement on climate change post Kyoto 1 and the form such an agreement might take;”. That has been explored and discussed by professionals and political leaders around the world for at least the past 5 years. The third term states: “require a high-quality quantified regulatory impact analysis to be produced to identify the net benefits or costs to New Zealand of any policy action including international relations and commercial benefits and costs;”. That is essentially a national impact analysis which the various concerned ministries have undertaken—and put memoranda to Ministers for discussion and judgment—for the last decade I should say.  
Some of these terms have some passing merit but not when they deliberately seek to delay progress by this country by this Government on meeting our international obligations under Kyoto. The question of what is the most appropriate policy response to the challenge of climate change is a legitimate issue. Seeking to conflate that with the scientific question of the phenomenon of climate change its anthropogenic causes is not. I have noted in the last few days what I take to be a deliberate attempt to conflate the two. The House is not well served by that approach. If we wish to take a similar approach to distract the attention of this House we could engage in considerable innovation and consider the relationship between creationism and evolution; or whether the natural elemental components of the lunar body are rock or hard cheese—essentially we would be between them!  
I recall the facts that climate change was first mooted as a possible phenomenon in the course of the 1970s; that it was brought before national legislators particularly the US Congress in 1982; that a responsible international commission the Brundtland Commission was established in 1984 and reported back in 1987 endorsing the fact that climate change was a clear phenomenon; that the international community solemnly acting on the recommendations of the Brundtland Commission met in 1992—16 years ago—and adopted a framework convention that acknowledged the existence of climate change and the need to combat it; that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change worked prior to 1992 in support of that judgment; and that it has produced four assessment reports the most recent being within the last year each one acknowledging the existence of climate change and sounding an increasing note of alarm about its implications. All of this reflects the fallible but collective and informed judgment of the international community based on the advice of the scientific component and reflecting the judgment of the political component of the whole international community. New Zealand has reflected that and is participating in it.  
So where do we stand today? We have a proposal from a political party that attracted less than 4 percent of the vote that we put the brakes on it and go back to reinvent the wheel. The Prime Minister took the better part of 20 of those 25 years to be convinced that climate change was a real phenomenon. He expressed his suspicions—which I suppose is putting a gloss on it—as recently as 2005. But he now heads a Government that acknowledges the existence of climate change. One of its senior Ministers is currently negotiating the implications of the next protocol. Meanwhile this House is being invited to expend public money which is contrary to the campaign commitments of the party proposing this to re-educate or perhaps educate anything between one to five of its members on the basics—101—of climate change. I conclude by simply saying that the Green Party opposes the motion not for the sake of opposition alone but to guide this new Government in the right direction and in the same manner of efficiency that its predecessor displayed. Thank you.