Graham KennedyDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I want to pick up on the comments that have been made especially by the Hon David Parker but also by the Minister Dr Nick Smith about climate change. Let me first acknowledge the new and what I take to be refreshing outlook that the new Minister the Hon Paula Bennett is taking to the climate portfolio. She is laying down the foundation for a much more positive approach to this enormous challenge and I want to convey to her my appreciation for that and my support for her efforts in this direction whatever policy differences we may have on specific issues. We in the Green Party welcome the challenge just issued by the Hon Nick Smith—we will get back to you. So what might be the biggest policy differences between National and Green approaches? It has to do I think with the magnitude of the global response that she identified to the committee and the sense of urgency that flows from that. The Government's approach reflects a particular world view. It is recognition belated though genuine today that climate change is a serious problem but it can be handled by the normal machinery of international diplomacy and New Zealand should calibrate its transformation pathway within the context of traditional notions of economic competition. The Green approach is different. It is that climate change is a qualitatively new problem of unprecedented magnitude and potentially catastrophic consequences and it can be handled only through innovative approaches to international diplomacy. We believe that the debate and tension between the top-down and the bottom-up methods to be a false dichotomy and we think New Zealand needs to calibrate its pathway with a new perception of global economic cooperation. What might this mean in practice? It means that we need to have regard for where the global response is heading in the post-Paris era of climate policy. The Paris conference itself acknowledged in the decision adopting the agreement that the intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) do not fall within the 2 degree scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030 and much greater emission reductions will be required. The latest and most authoritative calculation on this appeared in last week's edition of the scientific journal Nature. A consortium of the world's top scientists calculated that the current pledges are on a path of 2.6 to 3.1 degrees Celsius. Let us acknowledge incidentally that this is a 66 percent chance; and a 33 percent chance it could be worse. Let us acknowledge also that 2 degrees is dangerous; 3 degrees is catastrophic. We are playing roulette with the planet once unwittingly now consciously. What might this mean for New Zealand? In testifying before the committee the Minister considered New Zealand's INDC of 11 percent to be ambitious but achievable. The Infometrics consultancy paper that underpins that target makes it clear that our INDC includes international trading. So the 11 percent figure is not just our domestic reduction but our share of the total global response. In fact from the authoritative research done around the world New Zealand's responsibility level for that share is larger than 11 percent by a factor of five to eight. So there is scope for debate about the adequacy of our current policy. That said I believe that the Minister's new approach opens the door to a genuine cross-party dialogue on climate policy in this House—something that has been lacking for over a decade. I detect a new-found interest among colleagues along these lines in 2016 and I pledge the Green Party's positive engagement in such a development. There will be areas where we differ but an enduring cross-party foundation for climate policy in this country is critically important and long overdue.