Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5592] 
8.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Did New Zealand tell the Bonn climate change conference that the Government’s emissions reduction target of 10 to 20 percent below 1990 levels is dependent on developed countries as a whole cutting their emissions to 30 to 40 percent below 1990 levels? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 No the 10 to 20 percent target range is dependent on comparable efforts by developed countries. I note that to date other countries have announced target ranges—from the United States at zero percent or stabilisation at 1990 levels through to the European Union’s promised reductions of between 20 and 30 percent. The conditionality around New Zealand’s target range is broadly comparable with that set by Australia of a 15 to 25 percent reduction on 2000 levels taking into account different baselines and economic circumstances. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister denying that when the New Zealand negotiator at the Bonn conference was asked by the Philippines what New Zealand expected from other countries our negotiator answered that we expected that other developed countries would reduce their emissions by 30 to 40 percent? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is incorrect. I have read the transcript of exactly what was said by our climate change ambassador. What he said in it is quite correct: a 10 to 20 percent range for New Zealand given our unique circumstances—around 50 percent of our emissions coming from agriculture and the fact we are starting from 24 percent behind with the growth in emissions—means that a comparable economic amount and an economic impact would be for other countries to take those targets. But can I make very plain that New Zealand’s target is not conditional on those other countries making targets in the range that the member suggests. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does the Minister agree in light of his answer just now which effectively says that New Zealand is in a unique position on climate change that our grossly inefficient vehicle fleet gives us a unique opportunity to reduce energy emissions in a cost-effective way as outlined in the Green Party’s plan released just 2 weeks ago? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government has a broad range of policies to address the challenge of climate change. Only earlier today my colleague Gerry Brownlee was talking about the home insulation package. We have legislation that has just been passed to provide incentives for electric cars. As we speak I know that the select committee that has done the review on the emissions trading scheme is nearing the end of its work. It is my ambition to have emissions trading policy settled by the time of the Copenhagen conference. Important work is being done on agricultural emissions. Important investments are being made in public transport. The Government has many initiatives to reduce emissions and to meet its international obligations. 
Hekia Parata 
: Has the Minister received any advice as to the international response to our 2020 target? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I am advised by our climate change ambassador that New Zealand’s announcement of the 10 to 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels was very well received including positive comments from Australia from the European Union and specifically from Denmark and the United States. I note particularly that the Pew Center on Global Climate Change which is well respected for its international work around climate change congratulated New Zealand and said that we had set a very ambitious target given our national circumstances. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does the Minister agree that although New Zealand is in a unique position in climate change with regard to its agriculture we are also with our huge indigenous and plantation forestry assets in a unique opportunity to sequester carbon as outlined in the Green Party’s plan? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think it is important in the debate around forestry and climate change to recognise that forestry buys us time rather than actually provides a long-term solution. Although right now our huge increase in emissions is being offset by the trees that were planted in the 1990s when those trees become of harvestable age in the 2020s New Zealand’s climate change position will be quite difficult. So yes forestry has a role to play; we should not overstate it because it simply buys us time. 
Hekia Parata 
: Did the Minister or his Associate Minister recommend a more ambitious target to Cabinet? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Today I have released the Cabinet paper associated with the decisions that the Cabinet took around the climate change goal. I and my Associate Minister Tim Groser did recommend a slightly tougher target—a 12 to 20 percent range. The Cabinet paper shows that Treasury actually recommended a far more conservative target range. So Cabinet made a decision to reduce its target range—a decision that I think was quite appropriate. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister said that he had read the transcript from the meeting and then proceeded to quote the statements from the New Zealand ambassador in that transcript which to me is reading from an official document. If the Minister is quoting from the New Zealand ambassador from the transcript of their meeting then he should table that document—it is an official document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was watching the Minister very carefully during his answer. I believed he referred to what the ambassador had said but I did not see him in any way holding up a document from which he was quoting; he was going from memory of what the ambassador said. Under those circumstances I do not believe that the Minister can be asked to table the document. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister then saying based on his answers to the earlier questions that it does not matter whether the developed countries in the world actually collectively reach a 25 to 40 percent reduction which as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is the only way we can keep global warming under 2 degrees; how is that consistent with the New Zealand statement which was put at the conference that says we will make only 10 to 20 percent reduction if we keep it under 2 degrees? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member misquotes what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists said. It is absolutely proper that the scientists advise Governments including this Government as to the reduction in emissions required to avert dangerous climate change. But it is not for scientists to assess what is the fair allocation of emissions reduction between different countries; that is very much a socio-political debate not a scientific debate.