Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2188] 
11.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he stand by his statement in 2002 that “New Zealand should have made significant greenhouse gas reductions on business as usual and be set towards a permanent downward path for total gross emissions by 2012”; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
:  
No which is why that statement which is the overall goal of the policy is under review along with the rest of it. My personal view is that we will not be set towards a permanent downward path for gross emissions by 2012 but that by then New Zealand will have made significant greenhouse gas emission reductions on business as usual—indeed we already have. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does all of his and the Prime Minister’s rhetoric on global warming and their criticism of both George Bush and John Howard for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol stack up when during that member’s time as Minister New Zealand’s emissions have gone up by 10 percent compared with over the same period Australia’s going up by 5 percent and United States’ emissions going up by 2.5 percent? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I suspect our emissions have gone up by higher than that and certainly those of the other countries quoted have. However if the member is referring to gross emissions—which I presume he is—the fact of the matter is that under this Government we have had the most extraordinary growth rates that have been seen for 30 years and have failed to fully de-link energy use and other use from that growth rate. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: There was a question from the Minister about the figures. I seek the leave of the House to table the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the official figures for Australia New Zealand and the United States which show that emissions in New Zealand have gone up at four times the rate of those of the United States under George Bush’s Government. 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a convention in this House that if one wishes to table a document one waits until every member has asked every supplementary question one gives them the courtesy of hearing them out and then one seeks to table the document—not jump in halfway in between which is the penchant of that member to do. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I know that is the convention. It is certainly helpful if the leave is sought at the end but members are perfectly entitled to seek leave to table documents whenever they like. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What greenhouse gas emission reductions have been achieved through the Government’s Projects to Reduce Emissions programme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Projects to Reduce Emissions programme has delivered emission reductions of nearly 12 million tonnes and brought forward wind energy in this country by I guess about 5 years including the development of the largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere. If it were not for this Government’s climate change policy we would have seen a lot more thermally generated electricity in this country. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that if the Government abandons the commitment to get greenhouse gas emissions on a downward trend that would simply be a Trojan Horse for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol; and does he not agree that calling climate change science equivocal and pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol—both National Party proposals—is an irresponsible fundamentalist and frankly Luddite approach to this global crisis? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am pleased to say that Pete Hodgson is not responsible for National Party policy so the member’s question is clearly out of order and inaccurate. 
Metiria Turei 
: It is not uncommon for members to ask questions asking for responses to various policy proposals from other parties on issues. The Minister is perfectly capable of responding to that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: But it must always be within the ministerial responsibility. One can of course under the Standing Orders ask for an opinion relating to a matter in the portfolio. That is how I heard the question. That is perfectly acceptable within the Standing Orders. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In respect of the first part of the question I say that no it is not a Trojan Horse for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol—not under this Government. In respect of the second part of the question I am saddened that National which in the 1990s led the national and international debate so wisely and well and was so effective including at Kyoto— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You didn’t say so then! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —we did say so back then—has not now decided that climate change is something that needs to be taken seriously. We find it difficult to find anything that is much more serious than climate change. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald  
made by Dr Kevin Patterson a senior public official with the Ministry of Economic Development who said he was so disillusioned with the Government’s policies on climate change that he was considering joining the brain drain overseas and who said: “Pete Hodgson stuffed it up …”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That apparently senior official is a person whom to the best of my knowledge I have not met. That same person said that the carbon tax would be responsible for three-quarters of what we need to do on climate change. I do not think the most ardent optimist I know would conclude that that was a remotely reasonable remark. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Did the Minister as claimed by the Ministry of Economic Development senior official on energy policy Dr Kevin Patterson direct “staff to model the next target as if it had been accomplished.”; did he give that direction as stated by that senior public official? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No. What is more I do not even understand the allegation and I do not think the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development understands it either. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why is it so difficult for the Minister to understand that his Government grossly got wrong the numbers on the Kyoto Protocol—to the value of $1 billion—and that a senior official is now saying that that was because the Minister directed the ministry to make particular assumptions and that the Minister when it all went wrong then blamed the officials? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member needs to hear very clearly that these reports that come up to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues every May come up unasked by the Government and unmolested by the Government and that the only thing I ever did in respect of those reports in my time in the portfolio was to seek a review of the May 2005 data. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What could possibly motivate a senior public official and doctor Kevin Patterson to say in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “Pete Hodgson stuffed it up … he basically directed the staff to model the next target as if it had been accomplished.”; what would possibly motivate a public official to say that if it were not true? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I say again that to the best of my knowledge I have not met this apparently senior public official. I have not met that person to the best of my knowledge. That same person in the same interview said that the carbon tax would reduce the gap or something by about 75 percent. He is not apparently well aware of Government policy at all. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that the same official said that the Government with its project to reduce emissions and encourage more efficient energy use was “dreaming” and that the Government’s policies were a gross failure; if senior officials are saying that what does that say about the state of his climate change policies? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I repeat that I have never met this apparently senior official. He certainly is not a senior official today—certainly not. The member quotes the guy as saying this that and the other thing; my best guess is that he does not understand the New Zealand climate change policy very well at all. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister accept the premise in the statement made by Dr Kevin Patterson of the Ministry of Economic Development that this Government does not have a bolter’s hope of meeting its climate change obligations that the Minister signed New Zealand up to and that will now cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In my view it is very unlikely that we will meet our gross emissions target—that is to say a reduction to 1990 levels—by 2012. That is very unlikely. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You got it wrong. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not know of a country that will to be honest except for those that have had their economies trashed such as Russia and countries in Eastern Europe. But I say to the member that this Government is very serious indeed about making its contribution to what we see as one of the biggest global problems facing humanity and one that will disproportionately affect New Zealand. I would like the member to start coming onside about that. I quote back to him his own remarks in his state of the nation address when he said that if he falls “into the trap of becoming a full-time whinger I would appreciate one of you rescuing me with a gentle reminder.” I remind the member now. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the statement made by Dr Kevin Patterson who describes himself as a senior Government scientist in the Ministry of Economic Development. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.