Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 and 5, the “2050 target for biogenic methane emissions reductions”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m hoping to enter into the same format as last night’s, of rapid-fire questions and answers. Let me begin by asking the Minister of Climate Change: does he stand by his comments at the Belém conference that we must press forward and we must keep 1.5 degrees alive?

There’s obviously a whole lot of work that we need to do in this committee stage, given that we didn’t have a select committee. I propose that we do it clause by clause rather carefully. I do want to work, in this first session, around clause 4 of the bill. What clause 4 does is it does two things really.

Hon Erica Stanford: We know what it does. Ask a question.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Well, the Minister hasn’t told us. The first bit it does is it puts in the revised methane target, and it inserts it into the bill. That’s in clause 4(1). It amends the Climate Change Response Act to do that. The second part of clause 4 inserts a new section into the Act, requiring the Government to review the methane target in 2040. There’s a couple of aspects of that that we want to talk about. One is the particular date considering trading partners and considering no additional warming.

First of all, I want to focus very, very tightly on the revised methane target. That’s clause 4(1) and (2). It is quite a short bit there. Having said all that, one of the ways that the Government got to this new lower range was by appointing its own independent methane panel. There’s a huge set of issues there which could have been explored in select committee. It appointed the panel, despite the fact that we have a Climate Commission that does expert science and works with expert science on climate and that had already done a heap of work on methane that was credible and accepted by the broader scientific community. I want to understand why the Government thought it was necessary to set up their own independent methane panel. Could the Minister answer that please?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Since we’re not doing the standing up, sitting down thing, I’ll dump all my questions in one go, then, and just wanting to thank the previous speaker, my colleague, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for going clause by clause. We intend to do that as well.

I will start with clause 4(1). My questions are: which stakeholders were consulted as part of the shift from the 24 to 47 percent to the 14 to 24 percent target range? What was the criteria for deciding which stakeholders to consult as part of this process? Which ones were invited to take part in this process but did not decide to take part in this process and what were the reasons that they gave for not wanting to be part of the process?

My second question revolves around the decrease in the target from the 24 to 47 percent range to the new 14 to 24 percent target. What is the increase in emissions associated, assuming that the bottom range of the target, 14 percent, is the range that was met and assuming that the bottom range of the previous target was the one that was met, so calculating 24 to 14 percent in terms of the emissions increase from that?

My third question revolves around the question of distributional impacts. Was there anything done regarding which sectors of the economy were most likely to benefit from the change from 24 to 47 percent to 14 to 24 percent?

I also wanted to canvass some amendments that I’ve drafted around what this potential target could be. One of the amendments that I’ve drafted—I’m not sure if it’s there yet or if it’s still with the House Office—is letting the target be set by the independent Climate Change Commission. I think that would restore confidence in the independence of our commission and also make sure that what the Minister’s target is is actually considering the best possible range of scientific evidence.

I want to return to the question that the Minister hasn’t answered. Does he stand by the statement that he made at Belém that we must keep 1.5 alive, and is this revised target at either 14 or 24 percent compatible with a 1.5 degree pathway that he said we needed to keep alive in Belém? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Excuse me, Minister. Before I take the next call, I’ll just reiterate how I’d like to see the committee running, which is the question and answer, and I haven’t done that, so the Minister wasn’t aware that that’s how I’d like it to run. If you have a line of questions and your time runs out or you get to the end of your questions, I will continue to call you so that you can continue your line of questioning.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks for the clarification. In regard to the first question by the member, do I stand by those statements? Yes. The Government is committed to its international commitments and the targets in which we are committed to.

In regard to the questions around clause 4(1), in effect, that is the clause that is setting the target for 2050 amending section 5Q(1)(b)(ii) around the 14 to 24 percent.

In regard to the question around stakeholders engaged, a wide range of stakeholders were engaged as part of this process, including independent scientific review. We also got advice from the independent Climate Change Commission; a number of environmental groups, which that member will be well aware of; and the agricultural sector groups and also agricultural sector retailers and producers as well.

The question in regard to distributional impacts—absolutely, this Government did consider the economic consideration in regard to the impacts of target setting. That was used in order to inform the decision that we’re making.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just going to remind the Minister that he hasn’t answered my first question, which is about why he appointed a Methane Review Panel in the first place. It does underpin a lot of what has gone on in this research. I’m going to add to that question, because it really does matter. He actually got competing sets of advice. We know, in fact, that the Climate Commission recommended setting the methane range at 35 to 47 percent below 2017 levels. The Minister has made a very deliberate choice between the range recommended by the Climate Commission and the range recommended by the Methane Review Panel. I would actually like to understand why he chose to set aside the independent Climate Commission’s research and instead go for the research that came from this Methane Review Panel. I’d just like to remind the Minister that, of course, that Methane Review Panel had a very, very restricted focus. As I said in my second reading speech, it was directed to answer a very specific question, which assumed the concept of no additional warming was correct. Given that there was a huge assumption underpinning that panel’s work, why did he prefer that panel’s work instead of the work of the independent Climate Commission?

Well, it’s not correct to make the assumption that we preferred any advice over others. We took a wide range of advice in regards to making this decision. We set up an independent Methane Review Panel made up of independent scientists with expertise in this area, which provided advice into that process. They provided advice in regards to two separate scenarios, which is being considered alongside the advice from the Climate Commission. That is the rationale and the methodology which we followed.

Members, it’s time for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee is suspended until 2 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Members, the committee is resumed on the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. When we were debating the bill before the lunch break, we were on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 and 5, “2050 target for biogenic methane emissions reduction”. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Look, it’s the first opportunity I’ve had to intervene, or to contribute. It is on clause 4(1), which relates to the change of the targets.

The questions I have for the Minister—because I went to the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and I’ve heard his discussions about why this was changed, and he did mention costings. I’m just asking the Minister: what cost estimates were done, and what information was he provided around the change in targets, because my reference to the RIS here says that the benefits exceeded the costs, although these have largely not been quantified? Maybe the Minister can provide, firstly, for a start, what were the costs and what were the benefits of that changing target?

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question for the Minister also relates to clause 4(1), in terms of the changed target. This, of course, came through the advice that the Minister received through the independent review of methane, and in setting the terms of reference for that independent review, the idea of having no additional warming was introduced into this.

Now, this is a very contested area of science. There were some very good scientists who were included in that independent panel, but it is a contested area of science. I’d like to know what advice the Minister got, in terms of the political decision-making, of the relative merits of the scientific advice that he had to weigh up between the Climate Change Commission, who disagree with the idea of having no additional warming, and the advice he got from the independent review on methane targets. Given he was making political decision-making, what was the balance that he put in and what was the most pertinent contested science that he saw coming through on that?

I’ll keep in the cadence of what we were doing before the lunch break. I did answer the question with regard to clause 4(1), but to give a little bit more context around the benefits and the questions in regard to that, the regulatory impact statement does include the detail in regards to this. This was followed by a comprehensive economic analysis, and the outcome of that did indicate around net benefits of this change in terms of the economy. I guess in any consideration around the impacts of climate change policy and economic impact, that is something the Government took seriously.

The question around weighting between the different aspect of advice—well, at the end of the day, the Government got a wide range of advice, including from the sources noted from the member. In terms of precedent on science, the independent review panel provided two scenarios, which I talked about in my contribution to the answer before the lunch break, and, again, that in conjunction with other advice informed our decision.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m also on clause 4. There’s a broad question at stake here with the reason we care about methane emissions, and so if the Minister would be happy to take a few questions in a row, it might be useful to kind of elucidate where he stands on that.

I wonder if the Minister can explain the difference between a molecule of methane sourced from fossil gas or a molecule of methane from biogenic source, and I ask whether he recognises that there is no difference in the impact of methane, whatever its source, on the atmosphere, and whether he recognises the accepted science around methane being a superheating gas, having a global warming potential over a hundred years of 28 to 36 times more potency than carbon dioxide and, over 80 years, 20 times more potency. In that regard, the reason that methane is such a vital gas for us to cut the emissions of is exactly because of that superheating power it has to drive the atmosphere into chaos. I wonder if he can respond to those questions.

Well, yes, I can. The Government is committed to ensuring that it meets its targets, in regard to the reduction of emissions, both in regard to carbon dioxide but also in regard to methane. The purpose of this bill is not around the composition of the molecules which we’re talking about. The purpose of this bill is to outline a target this Government is pursuing, and so, therefore, that question is out of scope. But we will be looking to reset, and we took a wide range of scientific advice, as I’ve outlined now on four occasions—I’m now duplicating and repeating myself—in order to make our decision.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to remind the Minister of Climate Change that before the lunch break I asked him why he preferred the advice from the Methane Review Panel to the advice from the Climate Commission. He said, “Well, we took a wide range of advice.”, but it’s clear from the bill itself that the advice he preferred, the advice he took, was the advice from the Methane Review Panel, because the range they recommended is the range that has ended up in the bill. Why, given the range of advice that the Minister says he got, did he focus on and choose to follow the advice from the Methane Review Panel? The evidence is clearly there—that is exactly what he did.

My colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor talked about the costs and benefits of the change that the Minister’s done, what modelling has been done. I want to draw the committee’s attention to the regulatory impact statement and, in particular, I think, pages 57 and 58, where there is a table that sets out the options that the Government examined, options one through six. Option one is the status quo. Option three is the option that was chosen, reducing biogenic methane to 14 to 24 percent below 2017 levels. Option four was setting the biogenic methane target at 24 percent—the low point of the range set in the Climate Change Response Act before this bill, but the high point of the range recommended by the Methane Review Group.

The interesting thing in terms of those options and the analysis accompanying them, the costs and benefits, the advantages and disadvantages of them, is that the preferred option, option three, the one that the Minister and the Government has chosen, has a rating of negative two compared to the status quo—the status quo sits at zero—so a rating of negative two. Option four, which would have set biogenic methane at 24 percent, has a rating of plus one. Even in the regulatory impact statement, the officials’ analysis is that our methane target should have been set at 24 percent—that was better than the status quo, for various reasons, and it was certainly a lot better than the option that has been chosen by the Minister and by the Government. I’d like to hear the Minister’s justification for choosing that.

Now, we could have dug into this in select committee to find out exactly why the Government preferred this target. We haven’t had that possibility, haven’t had the chance to have a select committee, so I would very much like to hear the Minister’s justification around why they chose this, frankly, substandard option.

Well, the Government will consider a wide range of advice. We will take into account a number of factors in terms of determining that decision making. The economic impact is one example of that. The ability to hit the target is another consideration; the science, in regards to the underlying points around that. I guess what the point is here is that we take in a wide range of input and advice from a range of sources in order to make an informed decision that meets the expectations of Government priority.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take my first call on this. I am very aware that because we are bypassing select committee, we need to have some time to dig into things. My question, really, is on Part 1, clause 4(1)—again. We understand that the Minister and the Government does recognise the need to reduce methane, so my question is really about the evaluation that has been done on the pathways to get there. We’ve heard from Mark Patterson earlier that there’s a little bit of hope that we might get there. I ask because the Minister seems to have some confidence that we can just keep on doing what we’re doing and maintain our trading relationships and maintain the functionality of our farming systems and of agriculture in the climate crisis that we are currently in.

My question is: what are the actual, now-ready technologies that are able to be employed to reduce biogenetic methane emissions? What evaluation has been done on low-impact farming methods—regenerative or organic farming, for example—and their ability to reduce biogenetic methane? I can say, as a member of the Rural Greens, that there are a whole lot of Rural Greens who are already showing the way, but I’m interested in what the Government’s doing to have a widespread application and where the Government is getting.

I’m also interested in understanding—because the Government does have some intention to reduce emissions, I understand—what are you planning? Are you planning a central, impartial extension system through some primary legislation that is yet to come to us, very much like the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries extension service that Roger Douglas destroyed? Is there something like that that we could anticipate? I’m also interested in whether you are planning to support farmers to move to those lower-impact systems through reducing herd size and focusing more on value rather than simple volume. Those are a number of questions that are really related to the Government’s intention, if I read this correctly, that—

Grant McCallum: You’re not.

SCOTT WILLIS: —we are going to see things move in a positive way for farming, or maybe—no, Mr McCallum over here says you’re not going to move in a positive way for farming. Possibly the Minister is, because we do want to support our farmers, and I want to understand what is actually going to be done—not the hopeful stuff, not the magical thinking. What is going to be done to get there? Thank you.

Yeah, very happy to answer those questions from the member. I do welcome the, I guess, pragmatic perspective there around the fact that we do need to look at solutions in order to reduce methane in agriculture.

This Government is very much supportive of the work under way, particularly around AgriZeroNZ. There are about 11 pathways in total that are going to be available by 2030. One of those in particular is around EcoPond. That technology has been rolled out, actually, by the farming industry—by Fonterra and Synlait—at the moment; 250 dairy farms will be rolled out in the coming years, which represents just over 3 percent of the total farm model. There’s a 90 percent reduction in methane as a result of that technology for the effluent portion of the farm, which is about 7 to 9 percent of the total methane output.

Really good example, but that’s something that the Government is supporting more broadly. Again, there’s no one single silver bolus that’s going to solve this problem, but we are—

Miles Anderson: Oh, how good. He’s on fire!

Hon SIMON WATTS: Thank you, I appreciate that. There is a range, and I think genetics, in particular, is an area which is a particular focus.

You asked about productivity—absolutely. I mean, all of this—there’s two sides to the same coin. A lot of these interventions, including the genetics, deals with temperature resilience for animals; it deals with increased productivity and also reduction methane from those animals. That is a positive consideration as well.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I still have questions around clause 4(1). I know there are a number of questions around this, but this really is the substantive legislative change that is happening here.

The Minister of Climate Change said in answer to an earlier question that he and his Government were committed to meeting targets. What I’m interest to know is which target the Minister was referring to in terms of the increase in temperature—whether that’s the 1.5 degree increase that is in the primary legislation.

If that is the case, how does he marry that with the advice that he received from his officials in May that the 14 percent reduction goal, which is the only legally binding part of the target, is consistent with stabilising the warming contributions of New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions and 2017 levels under the global mid-range—2 to 2.7 degrees? How does he marry his commitment around the 1.5 with the advice that he received that this scenario, that is included in clause 4(1)—how that puts together.

The other thing I’d like to know from the Minister is, of course, that the Government is making choices where they are going to have the costs of our climate emissions fall. They’re choosing to reduce that cost on 50 percent of our emission through changing this level. Did he consult with other parts of the economy that are going to have to pay the higher prices? Did he consult with manufacturers? Did he consult with electricity users who are going to end up paying more for their electricity because of these changes?

In regards to the question around 1.5, the expectation under the Paris Agreement is that countries including New Zealand make their best effort to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, and we do that through our nationally determined contributions or NDCs. Our two NDCs which we do have represent our contribution to that, and this bill that we’re talking about here makes no change in regards to that commitment.

The new domestic biogenic methane target that we’re referring to here—and, of course, retaining our net zero commitments at 2050—mean that the domestic measures that we are doing and undertaking do contribute towards those global efforts under the Paris Agreement, which is aligned and linked to limit warming to 1.5. It is our view that we are consistent with that range and we are committed to achieving our emissions budgets.

Mr Chair, thank you. I really appreciate the chance to take another call. I want to go back to the economics of this. My colleague Megan Woods raised the issue of what other sectors of the economy the Minister consulted with, but—and this is possibly in reference to the fact the Minister himself, in replying to me earlier, talked about how they’d work through all the options, including the economic implications. However, unfortunately, sitting in the economic implications are some strongly—in the regulatory impact statement—redacted amounts. We cannot tell what the advice was here. We don’t know what economic implications were considered. Is the Minister prepared to table that advice so that we actually understand the strength of that economic analysis?

It would have to be pretty damn good, because, in actual fact, the option that the Minister has chosen is the second-lowest ranked option, and it’s worse than the status quo and worse than the officials’ preferred option. Now, given that the officials’ preferred option was to go for a 24 percent methane target, setting that at 24 percent, I wonder if the Minister would care to consider that, and, in fact, to support the amendment that I’ve got on the Table. It’s an amendment in which I suggest a variety of changes to the particular target that’s going to be set, but one of them says, “Well, hang on a second, why don’t we set this methane target at 23 to 25 percent?” There’s a really good reason for that. It targets that 24 percent. It sits right exactly there. That would actually be consistent with the advice that was offered by officials to aim for 24 percent now. The Minister has said, a number of times, that he has taken a range of advice, there’s various economic implications, and so on. That’s kind of a non-answer, because he’s not telling us why he preferred this, frankly, rather undercooked option—in fact, an option that is simply not as good as the other options that were on the table.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just a follow-up to my question around 1.5 degrees. The Minister, of course, referred to the Paris Agreement having the 1.5 degree target, but, of course, we have that target within our own domestic legislation. That is what is in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act, which does aim to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

I’m asking the Minister whether he’s committing to the target that is contained in that domestic legislation of 1.5, and if that is the case, how he marries that with advice that he received from his own officials that the changes he’s making put New Zealand on a track to 2 to 2.7 degrees, and whether or not he intends to change the target within the primary legislation.

The second question that I would like to ask goes back to that question around the other sectors of the economy, and whether or not the Minister will provide the House with a list with everyone who was consulted outside of the agricultural sector around the extra burden that they were going to have to carry and what those costs were. Given that we do have so much of the economic impact redacted in the advice that’s been provided alongside this legislation that we’re not having the chance to examine in the select committee and to fully understand the implications of the changes that are being made in clause 4(1) in terms of what the costs on different sectors of the economy are and whether that was broken down even further, what might the consequences be in terms of manufacturing, and was any modelling done on job losses because of the changes the Minister is making?

The other question I have for the Minister is just a very simple one: did he receive advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in relation to these changes?

In regards to question two that the member has just asked, I did answer that before the lunch break and provided a comprehensive list of stakeholders engaged. In regards to the last question around advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, we get a wide range of advice, including advice in the context of trade considerations of which that agency has responsibility.

In regards to the new question asked around official information, as the members will be aware from their background in Government, the Official Information Act has been adhered to and when releasing the documents that have been provided, legally privileged advice is redacted, and the information in regards to points that were raised by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell—components of that advice is included within the regulatory impact statement.

Will the Minister release to the House the advice that was given to him by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade?

I’ve got a “no” on that. I think my colleagues will still have some more questions to ask on clause 4, but I do just want to start moving on to clause 5, which is, ostensibly, about setting up a review for the target for biogenic methane emissions, saying that the Minister of Climate Change and the Minister of Agriculture must set up a review, and they set the date for that review as 2040. It looks quite innocuous, in some ways, but there are a couple of, if you like, hidden traps in it. In particular, I want to focus on new section 5QA(3)(a).

It says, “In making its assessment and recommendation, the review must consider the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions”—sounds good to me. But this is the bit I’m not so fussed about—“and what is required to achieve no additional global warming from New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions;”. That is interesting, because that introduces the concept of no additional warming, carbon neutrality, into the Climate Change Response Act. Now, that is a new metric, as I said in my speeches in, I think, the second reading of this bill. That is actually a new metric, and here it is being introduced into the Climate Change Response Act. Let’s remember there was no consultation with the public on this bill, there has been no select committee stage, and here we are introducing an entirely new concept into the Act.

In terms of no additional warming—it’s got an extra word in there: no additional “global” warming; it means exactly the same—it’s setting up that metric. Why does the Minister think that is an appropriate metric to use? Now, let’s remember that that independent methane review was not told whether or not to examine the concept of no additional warming; they were just told to assume no additional warming and then set out their proposed response to methane.

The assumption was that no additional warming is a good metric. But what evidence does the Minister have that that is actually a good metric to use? I say this particularly in light of the fact of the response around the world to New Zealand, and also Ireland is playing with this concept too. Eminent scientists around the world have said that this is an inappropriate metric to use with respect to climate change. Now, the Minister in his opening speech said, “Science, science, science”—so we know he trusts science. Well, here is the science from a whole set of pretty eminent climate scientists: Drew Shindell, who’s the professor of climate science at Duke University; Martin Manning, who’s the founding director of the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute here at Victoria University of Wellington; Joeri Rogelj, I think, is the professor of climate science and policy at the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College, London; Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University; Simon Redfern, professor in earth sciences at the University of Cambridge—and on and on it goes. There is a long, long list of really eminent, prominent scientists who say that no additional warming is not an appropriate metric.

I get the point that scientists on the Methane Review Ministerial Advisory Panel are also good scientists. I’ve spoken with some of them myself. The point is they were told to assume no additional warming. Of course, being good scientists, they answered that question. But why the assumption that no additional warming is a good metric, and how does the Minister respond to the scientists around the world who say that is not a good metric? I’d like to hear the Minister’s response, because it has actually driven the whole of this change, and yet that is a measure that has no support from climate scientists. Yes, we can do climate science, assuming that metric, but justify that assumption, Minister.

Thanks very much. Well, first and foremost, I don’t agree with the member’s statement in regards to “has no support”. That is simply not factually the case. In regards to making the assessment around why we have done what we’ve done, the requirement for the review is, in effect, the mid-point between now and when the target is required to be met in 2050. That obviously allows time for changes to be made. Importantly, though, if you look at the specific elements of what that review will consider, it will consider the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions and what is required to achieve no additional warming for New Zealand’s biogenic methane and New Zealand’s progress in regards to meeting those and what it has in terms of impacts in regards to the international science.

The member, sort of, in a way, put down the fact that Ireland was also looking at what New Zealand’s doing. Well, again, not to teach the member to suck eggs, but New Zealand and Ireland are both pastural-based farming nations. The scientists we referred to deal with cows in pens in sheds—a very different way in which we undertake agricultural production. New Zealand has unique circumstances, and the science panel that we put together understands our unique circumstances and made recommendations which Government considered.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a series of questions for the Minister regarding clause 4 in Part 1, and I’m just checking with you, Mr Chair, as I would like to kind of do a quick-fire round with the Minister, provided that the Minister has the response for that. If not, I’ll keep going.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Probably the main point there is as long as it’s not repetition, I’ll let the member do that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister before mentioned a response from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). I’m not seeing it in terms of the explicit response within the regulatory impact statement. My initial question is: what response did the Minister receive from MFAT regarding the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the impact this bill will have on CBAM?

That question is not in the scope of the bill.

The thing is it is very much in the scope of this if we’re going to be adjusting the emissions target, but also in terms of when we’re looking at clause 5 in terms of methane. The reason I’m asking this question is that, as we heard from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade last week in scrutiny, agriculture and forestry—agriculture in particular is the one that is the most concerning, because currently we do have a New Zealand - European Union free-trade agreement. We’re exporting 30 percent of agricultural products into the EU, and there is nothing in the free-trade agreement that excludes CBAM or their regulations from that, as a part of that.

I want to check with the Minister again—if we’re going to be doing that, currently, with a projection, we’re liable if agriculture is brought into CBAM, and we’re liable to pay for that, because it’s not exempted from the New Zealand - EU free-trade agreement. We’re liable for carbon tax worth $450 million per annum. Is that something that the Minister has considered in terms of the impact over here of increasing the target from 24 to 47 percent, and also from 14 to 24 percent? I have one follow-up question after this.

I don’t mean to be flippant, but it sort of comes in the title: carbon order adjustment. We’re talking about methane.

Just before I take the next call—and I will go to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—I just make the point that questions have relevance and not scope. Relevance is different from scope, so that’s just for the committee to bear in mind.

Mr Chair, I am seeking the Minister’s clarification. That’s fine, but my understanding is that under section 5Q, it talks about emissions in general and not necessarily specifically when we’re looking at methane. If I’m inaccurate, I acknowledge that. But the idea of things like agricultural emissions being brought into this, it’s not simply a possibility, but at this stage we’re looking at it most likely being implemented in 2028 to 2030 by the EU. If the Minister doesn’t have a response to that, that’s fine; I acknowledge that. But I do want to check that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to prosecute a bit more deeply a question around our lowered ambition, because clearly this is a lower ambition. We’re moving our target from 14 to 24 percent. What advice has the Minister received on the potential impact of that lowered ambition on the global ambition? I refer to the regulatory impact statement, page 42, clause 150, in evaluating the feasibility of the different options: “option three is similar to option two … While both 14 per cent and 24 per cent are feasible with the current pipeline of mitigation technologies,”—and it’d be good to get to that later on, because that so-called “pipeline of mitigation technologies” that we’ve been waiting for for the best part of 10 years, we’re relying a lot on that. That will be a question later on. It’s “feasible with the current pipeline of mitigation technologies, a 14 per cent reduction in biogenic methane is more feasible than the status quo as meeting the target would require less change in the agriculture sector”.

Now, this seems to be the nub of the purpose of the legislation—to reduce the necessity for change in the agricultural sector. My question is: given the Minister wants to lower the ambition and to reduce the necessity of change in the agricultural system, what advice did he receive, if any, on the likelihood that other like nations, such as Ireland, might similarly reduce their ambitions and that we would get an effect of worse global heating impacts because we had led the pack on lowering ambition? What advice did he receive on the impact it would have on farmers—

Joseph Mooney: The Greens don’t like food production—cheaper food for people?

STEVE ABEL: “The Greens don’t like food production”? I think you should have a look at what the biggest threat to global food production is over the next century—you can google it; it’s climate change.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Take a call.

STEVE ABEL: Take a call. What effect did the Minister get advice on regarding how a lowered ambition would change the ability of the agricultural sector to produce food?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I do have a question for the Minister on clause 5, new section 5QA(3)(a). This is a really important part of the changes we’re making there, and it reads: “(3) In making its assessment and recommendation, the review must consider—(a) the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions and what is required to achieve no additional global warming”. Now, we’re doing this under urgency in the committee of the whole House stage, and I fear from the answers the Minister has given us already that he simply doesn’t understand the implications of that clause—because, certainly, what he has said in this committee indicates that he lacks an understanding of what that means.

There are two very contested sets of science that sit within that choice—within clause 5, new section 5QA(3)(a)—in terms of setting that terms of reference: “what is required to achieve no additional global warming”. That is the crux of the change to the target that is in here. The fact that the Government went out and had made a decision about a contested area of science—a political decision about a contested area of science—about whether or not we should be looking at no additional warming, which, effectively, in very simple terms, bakes in all the global warming that has happened before 2017. It is not looking to reduce; it waters down the target. What I want to know from the Minister, and what he has failed to adequately explain to the committee—and what this committee, in scrutinising this legislation, has to understand—is when did the Government make the political decision between two areas of contested science?

Now, science is always contested; knowledge is contested—that is fine, but when politicians make choices and come down on a side, what was the analysis and the advice that he received in choosing what went into clause 5, new section 5QA(3)(a) in terms of setting “no additional global warming” and when was that decision made? Who did he receive advice from? Did he receive advice from the Ministry for the Environment? What was their advice? We know that the independent Climate Change Commission certainly gave advice to the Minister not to go with the “no additional global warming”—i.e., to water down the target that is in the legislation. The Minister, in simply reading out that paragraph, indicated that he didn’t understand the complexity of what was in there, so we want to know when that decision was made, why that decision was made, how that decision was made, and who he received the advice from.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I asked a question earlier on Part 1 regarding clause 4(1), and I did receive a response—for that I’m grateful and appreciative. In that response, one of the questions I asked—because it is important when we reduce the target that the Government still has an intention to reduce methane. I asked the question about what actual technologies were available. I’m aware that the Minister of Climate Change has said, earlier this year, that Ruminant Biotech’s bolus would be available by the end of the year—the end of this year, 2025. Now, if I’ve heard correctly, the Minister is saying that the Ruminant Biotech bolus will be available next year.

When we have decades—decades—of promises of a bolus or vaccine being right around the corner, how can we believe the Minister that it is actually going to happen? How can we take the Minister at his word? Is there evidence? Can the Minister give us some date that we will see a technology that will reduce methane? That’s really where I’d like to go—and if the Minister could give a response. Thank you.

Yeah, very happy to do so. What the member failed to acknowledge is that when I provided the answer previously, I noted that EcoPond is a great example of an initiative that is currently happening now. That technology is already reducing methane on farm. The fact that industry is taking the lead to expand that across more dairy farms is a positive thing. There’s your example—you couldn’t say it much clearer than that.

The questions I noted before in regard to time line and process in regard to the decision making by Government in regard to this conversation were initiated through the coalition agreement from the outpost. That set the precedent and the context of this action; the work which we have undertaken, which we’ve now talked about on multiple occasions, was undertaken; and the Government made a decision in regard to that, which we are now talking through as part of that.

The first question raised by members of the Greens also in regard to comments around ambition and our global ambition—member Abel asked around that. As I noted before, the Government is committed and remains committed in regard to both our domestic and our international targets. The ambition in the context of the range at which it was set has to be achievable. One of the big challenges with the status quo target sets is that it was a very clear conversation when we worked with the agricultural sector that that was not going to be a mechanism that was going to be achievable. There is a predetermined consideration around the tools available, which is the technology that we were just discussing. But we are now at position in which we have a target that is realistic, it’s practical, and it is based on evidence-based science that has been undertaken. We’ve also put in place a review to reset and relook at that to make sure we take on board the new learnings and the new science to make sure that we continue to be on track. That’s what we’re doing as a Government.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to first respond to what the Minister said in terms of him not viewing the previous domestic target as achievable. One of the things that came forward in the letter that was sent to you, Minister—not you, the Chair; you the Minister—was the idea of instead of lowering the domestic targets, adjusting the international target, the nationally determined contribution instead. Was that something that he considered, as per the suggestion by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?

I want to turn to clause 5, new section 5QA(3)(c), in terms of our New Zealand trading partners’ progress in reducing their biogenic methane emissions, and link that to an earlier clause 4(1) around weakening our targets. Has the Minister seen analysis around our other trading partners? Has there been any other trading partner that we have that has similarly weakened their climate ambition, their climate targets, other than, of course, the United States of America? I think we all know about them. I think that we don’t need to elaborate—

Joseph Mooney: Did anyone else in the Green Party rely on three-quarters of the emissions coming from offshore?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Take a call, mate, take a call.

Joseph Mooney: I’m trying to. Three-quarters of emissions coming from offshore in the Green Party last term.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Take a call. Take one. Take a call, mate. Take a call. Take a call, mate. Take a call.

Joseph Mooney: I’m trying to! Let us!

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, take another one after this. My other question is around a response that was provided by the Minister when I asked who he had consulted. I want to ask around what was the preferred targets of the stakeholders that he’d identified that he’d consulted with, both in his response and also in the regulatory impact statement document that was identified here. What was the preferred methane target of DairyNZ? What was the preferred target of Fonterra? What was the preferred target of Beef + Lamb New Zealand? What was the preferred target of Groundswell NZ? What was the preferred target of Federated Farmers?

Now I’ll turn to the people that the Minister called “my mates”—well, look, they are my mates. If you did consult with LCANZI, what was their preferred target? That’s Lawyers for Climate Action New Zealand. What was the preferred target for Greenpeace New Zealand? What was the preferred target for 350 Aotearoa and any other—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: The independent Climate Change Commission.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, we know what the independent Climate Change Commission’s preferred target was. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call. Looking forward to the answers, Minister.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

There was enthusiasm on that side of the Chamber to take calls, but we’ll go to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I really do want to dig into this question of no additional global warming. In fact, in particular I have an amendment on the Table—I think, if the Minister considers this amendment, or, in fact, takes the opportunity to explain as to why this amendment isn’t needed. The amendment is focusing on new section 5QA(3)(a). In particular, what it does is it says, “delete ‘and what is required to achieve no additional global warming from New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions’ ”. Now, the first part of that paragraph (a) says to consider “the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions”. Great. That’s actually a really good thing to consider. Of course we back that part of the paragraph.

However, the bit that I don’t understand the reason for is why then we need to have this extra bit that says, “and what is required to achieve no additional global warming from New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions;”. I would like the Minister to explain what that particular part of the paragraph adds to the review, because we’ve asked the Minister to explain what the implication of “no additional global warming” is. We’ve asked him to explain that particular metric. It’s a metric that he has now embedded into the legislation, and it seems appropriate that he be able to explain it. If he can’t explain it, then perhaps he would accept my amendment, because, if it can’t be explained—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got a time stamp on that?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yes. Not this particular version of it sitting on the—this is the copy I kept myself, I’m sorry, Mr Chair. There will be a—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It’s on the Table.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It’s on the Table—it’s been tabled.

Hon James Meager: Original, signed copy.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Tabled and signed—all the correct things have been done.

This is actually really important, Minister, because if we cannot understand why no additional global warming is appropriate, then we don’t need that in the Act. Well, all we need in the Act is the commitment to do a review that considers the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions. Please, Minister, what are those words “no additional global warming” doing? What extra do they bring? What is behind it? What is the reason for that metric? Why have you included it in the Act?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a couple of quick questions that I want to ask the Minister of Climate Change around new section 5QA, inserted by clause 5. The first is on 5QA(1), around the choice of Ministers that have been included in the initiation of the review. Now, you’ve got “The Minister”—presumably, the Minister of Climate Change—“and the Minister of Agriculture”. Has the Minister considered involving the Minister for the Environment or the Minister with delegation for the waste and resource recovery sector? Biogenic methane emissions, as we know, mostly come from, in New Zealand’s profile, the agriculture sector, but a portion of it, around 10 percent, comes from the decay of waste at our landfills. It seems to me that if we’re wanting to review our methane target in a holistic way, it would seem like a good idea to also involve one of the stakeholders in biogenic methane reduction, and that’s the Minister for the Environment, or the Minister who has delegation for the waste and resource recovery sector. I think there used to be a Minister for waste under the previous Labour Government, so that would be the equivalent, but I understand that this Government doesn’t currently have a Minister for waste.

My other target—sorry; my other target! My other question is around 5QA(4) around the “report on the review must be provided to the Ministers no later than 31 December 2040.” Now, I’m just curious why specifically that year was picked. It seems to me it would make sense to move that to 2030, which is when the first initial set of methane target has been set—a 10 percent reduction by 2030 on 2017 levels. Wouldn’t moving it to 2030 better align with the 2030 target and enable us to actually see what the real world—how we’ve actually managed to reduce emissions out to 2030, and then do a review then based on thus far? Again, those two questions—I’m looking forward to engagement from the Minister.

Thanks, members, for those questions. In regards to the points raised on no additional warming—and it linked to the conversation in regards to the 2040 review. I’ve already answered the question in regards to why 2040 was set as the date. In regards to that portion of why no additional warming, this is a consideration and will be a consideration of that review. It is useful to understand, obviously, as part of that review process what level of methane adds further to warming. That review will consider and occur alongside the Climate Change Commission’s review, and so those aspects of advice will then be used to inform future Governments in regards to policy settings.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Further to the questions around the date for the review, which I think were good questions—and that’s all covered off in clause 5, new section 5QA—one of the things I’d like to know from the Minister is who does he envision will do the review? The bill is silent on who the reviewer will be, and I think that is pertinent in the case of this review, given that there were two bodies—the independent Climate Change Commission, which is set up under statute, but then there was this ad hoc group set up to do the methane target review. Who is it and why is it not specified in the legislation? Did he receive advice about whether or not he should specify who would carry out this review set out in new section 5QA?

I also note that the committee hasn’t received answers to questions posed by one of my colleagues around the targets by various bodies such as DairyNZ, Fonterra, and what their preferred targets would be. I think that is important for the committee to consider—when we are considering the change of target that is set out in clause 4(1) of this legislation—what other parts of the economy were recommended, given that we don’t get the chance to ask these questions at select committee and we don’t get the departmental report that would put together all these submissions. The Minister says he’s talked to people, so I think the committee needs to know: what were the preferred targets of the various bodies he talked to?

The question infers and makes an assumption that those in all of those groupings did actually have a specific target in mind, and that’s not necessarily the case.

I think what is consistent across the broad range of stakeholders—from those that are on both sides of this conversation—is that they supported the concept of taking on board a range of advice, including those from independent and scientific sources. That’s what we did in order to inform the discussion. The discussion was very much of the view that the agricultural sector—particularly those who represented that sector—does and will and is already contributing positively in the context of this conversation and that they will do and continue to do so. But they want a pragmatic and practical pathway in order to achieve that outcome—not simply by introducing pricing without the tools to do so, not simply by culling the herd in order to hit a target, which simply is not realistic economically nor for the best outcomes of this country.

I think one of the situations we have in this committee of the whole House, in the absence of a select committee process, is the Parliament is trying to drill down into some of the advice from stakeholders that the Minister of Climate Change received. He’s talking very broadly about a range of stakeholders. He’s been asked specifically about some stakeholders and what their targets were. My question to the Minister is: did any stakeholders indicate specific targets that they would be comfortable with; if so, who were those stakeholders, and what were the targets?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I really want the Minister to elaborate on the statement he made—and I don’t have the Hansard in front of me and I don’t want to get it wrong, so please correct me if I’m wrong, Minister—that people on both sides supported the independent Methane Review Panel. I’m very surprised to hear that analysis. I’m just going to identify some stakeholders from the so-called our side. Can the Minister confirm whether they did confirm to the Minister that they supported the independent Methane Review Panel.

Did Greenpeace, if they were consulted, support the independent Methane Review Panel? Did 350, if they were consulted, support the independent review panel?

James Meager: Repetition.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Did Lawyers for Climate Action New Zealand indicate support for the independent review panel?

It’s not really repetition, because it’s quite a serious allegation to make. I think Greenpeace would be very offended by the notion that they supported the independent review panel, actually. I’m just trying to clarify and give the Minister an opportunity to identify exactly which stakeholders supported the independent review panel.

Now I’ll turn to the question around why it is that it seems like we’re doing an “apples to oranges” for comparison, Minister. As most people have correctly identified, New Zealand’s emissions profile is rather unique, with our high profile of biogenic methane emissions. By the choice of limiting the review to New Zealand’s trading partners’ progress in reducing their biogenic methane emissions, does that risk automatically pegging a lower level of ambition? The challenge for our partners in reducing their methane emissions is, of course, their emissions from fossil mining—from the fugitive methane emissions there. I feel like by pegging it to the trading partners for biogenic methane emissions, we’re almost deliberately setting it up so that the review is deliberately less ambitious than it could have been.

Another aspect that I would like the Minister to consider is was the prospect of intersectoral equity considered at all in being included in the assessment criteria, in new section 5QA(3), in the review? Now, when I say inter- and intra-sectoral equity, I mean in the context of the agricultural emissions sector having a lower level of expected emissions reductions—that’s literally here being reduced to 14 percent—compared to carbon dioxide emissions in sectors. Of course, that plays within the dynamics of the agricultural sector itself, because we’ve got horticulture, we’ve got the pig industry, and we’ve got the chicken industry, and they won’t be affected that much—well, they won’t be affected—by the target. Has the idea of inter- and intra-sectoral equity been considered as assessment criteria under new section 5QA(3)?

And I’m just wanting an answer to the previous question that I asked.

Thanks, Mr Chair. In regards to the question by the member in regards to does the Government have any view on who will undertake the review in 2040, the short answer is that the Government has not considered what will occur in 15 years’ time in significant detail, other than to say I’m sure that those at that point in time—maybe some in this committee—will put due thought to that.

In regards to the question around the economic analysis—and I think what the member was referring to in terms of the way in which that analysis impacts all parts of our broader economy and the different considerations between different industry sectorial groups within that point—absolutely. As I noted before in my answers to questions, the Government considered comprehensive economic analysis which did consider more broadly the implications in regards to the decisions that we were referring to.

In regards to the questions around clause 5, new section 5Q and clause 4(1), again, I’ve answered those on multiple occasions and I have nothing further to add.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. One of the things that I’m interested in, in terms of the groups that the Minister may or may not have consulted with—and I think we’re still waiting to hear that—is I am interested to know, in addition to some of the agricultural groups, whether the Minister consulted with, for example, the Major Electricity Users’ Group, given that it will be energy and transport users that will bear the cost of weakening this and watering down this target. Did he liaise with any of the peak bodies in the transport sector, given that it will also be transport that will bear increased costs of watering down these targets? If he didn’t consult with them, why didn’t he consult with them?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Mr Chair, thank you. I’m really finding it hard that the Minister of Climate Change hasn’t answered the questions around no additional warming, so I’m going to help the Minister out here a bit. There’s a really interesting paper from researchers in Ireland looking at the concept there. They call it temperature neutrality. It’s the same concept as no additional warming.

This is from research that was published in Environmental Research Letters earlier this year. It was a study that was conducted in collaboration with the University of Melbourne and University College Cork, and it looked at the concept of temperature neutrality or no additional warming. Let me just read this bit—because the Minister so far has not explained and doesn’t seem to be able to explain why it is appropriate to put the metric of no additional warming into the Act.

Let me read this: “Unlike the scientifically established goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, ‘temperature neutrality’ aims only to stabilise a country’s contribution to global warming, rather than reduce it to zero.” This approach requires only modest methane reductions from countries already emitting large amounts, enabling them to continue contributing significantly to global warming while claiming compliance with climate goals. If everyone does this, we are in deep trouble. That’s the conclusion of it.

In terms of the amendment that I put in, the Minister could achieve his review of biogenic methane and the effect it is having without having to put in there the concept of no additional warming. I want the Minister to explain why it is important that this concept of no additional warming, or in other cases it’s known as temperature neutrality—why is that being included in our Climate Change Response Act? It’s actually a really significant change to our Act, and the Minister does not seem to be able to explain it or why it is worth taking that approach.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It is actually a supplement to the question that was just asked by the Hon Deborah Russell, because in new section 5QA(3), inserted by clause 5, “In making its assessment and recommendation, the review must consider—(a) the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions and what is required to achieve no additional … warming”. Now, the irony of that sentence is that by including “no additional … warming”, it ignores the contemporary scientific evidence that that is a pseudoscientific concept itself. But my question is, in that evaluation of the latest science, will the Minister be taking an account of the growing—well, the already strong—body of evidence that no additional warming is pseudoscience; it is not a credible basis for a target?

The second question: paragraph (c) in that same section, “New Zealand’s trading partners’ progress”—the preceding sentence is “In making its assessment and recommendation, the review must consider”—“in reducing their biogenic methane emissions; and (d) the progress made and actions taken internationally to reduce biogenic methane emissions”. What is the scope of that evaluation? How will the Minister interpret what is found by that review?

To be more specific about it, there seems to be an assumption that if other countries are running more slowly than us on biogenic methane impacts, we will consider it all right to continue with a low ambition. But if it is found that other countries are ahead of us, will we sheet ourselves to those more ambitious countries who are reducing methane emissions at a greater rate?

My third question is, in terms of the focus on methane emissions, the Minister previously in the seat than the Minister currently there made a comment that culling the dairy herd or culling cows to meet emissions reductions would be senseless. Of course, the fact is that we’ve had substantial landuse change in the last 30 years, which saw a vast reduction, for example, in the size of our sheep flock, but not with a corresponding reduction in the overall value of the agriculture sector. It was simply a change in the type of production.

Grant McCallum: Value went up.

STEVE ABEL: That’s what I’m saying—value went up. We culled the herd massively and value went up.

Grant McCallum: No, we culled the sheep and put on cows.

STEVE ABEL: Thank you, you’re repeating my words exactly. I appreciate it, Grant. You’re paying attention. That’s my point exactly, is that.

The questions, surely, Minister, that you’re trying to establish is: what is the most efficient way for us to reduce methane emissions? Will you account for that simply as it regards to livestock production, or will you also recognise that land-use change to farm more efficient forms of food production or fibre production that is also valuable—

Grant McCallum: Really?

STEVE ABEL: Well, it’s actually the most certain means, Mr McCallum—

Grant McCallum: To what?

STEVE ABEL: —to achieving greenhouse gas reductions.

Grant McCallum: What are you going to change it to? Broccoli growing?

STEVE ABEL: Well, whatever you like. You can change it to whatever you like. But just, perhaps—

Grant McCallum: It’s easy to say—easy to say.

STEVE ABEL: I’m going to stop responding, Mr McCallum.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr McCallum, we do encourage interaction in the committee stage, but usually through the Minister or the chair or a call by the member—

STEVE ABEL: Yeah, you can take a call, Grant. You guys are very chatty over there.

My question for the Minister, to reiterate in simple terms: would he recognise, Minister, that the most certain way to effect the necessary reduction, methane reductions, is land-use change, and that that may mean that we’re producing different things, such as we might be producing more horticultural products, which I’m sure you, as Minister, would be happy to see.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a stand for the first time as an associate agriculture Minister, recognising I’m subbing in for the climate change Minister. There’s a multitude of questions that have been floating around that I’ll try to address sequentially, but do forgive me if I get them around the wrong way.

Questions from Dr Deborah Russell about the no additional warming metric being included in the Act, and she feels that that’s quite a shift away from the existing Climate Change Response Act—just to clarify, it is only one consideration of the eventual pending review. We do believe, and I’m sure science would agree, that it is useful to understand the contribution of methane to warming. There’s sort of been some quite derisory comments made regarding the concept of no additional warming. In fact, I heard one member call it pseudoscience, but this is the basis from which most climate policy has been formed in recent years. The advice from the methane review on this no additional warming concept was one of the Government’s considerations when deciding on this target, alongside—it has to be reconfirmed and reconfirmed again—the advice from the Climate Change Commission that has been taken on board. We have, as a Government, taken on multiple forms of advice from multiple different avenues and different parties, but the “no additional warming” target is there to identify a level of warming that should not be exceeded further. Happily, New Zealand is on track to meet its reduction targets.

To address some of the questions raised by Steve Abel—I’ve had a bit of déjà vu from Estimates just the other day. I feel like we’ve had this conversation quite recently, but he’s talking a lot about what the pipeline of mitigations looks like and where science and technology are going to lead us driving that land-use change. I think, in the Estimates discussion, we agreed that land-use change will occur, but it must be market driven. It must not be driven by us, here, sitting in this debating chamber and telling people what to do and where they should be investing their money and building their businesses.

As a nation, we have built our economy on the production of food and fibre. Dairy happens to be an extremely successful component of that. Dairy is just one sector of the agricultural economy that is doing very, very well, successfully driving down its emissions through technology. Yes, we could have the debate for hours on end about productivity per hectare or per kilo of milk solids and so on and so forth, but the fact remains. Dairy, as an example, is just one sector that is boosting its productivity whilst lowering its environmental footprint, and that should be celebrated.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Now, I have been watching this before I came in here. We’ll be looking for some new and fairly specific material from now on.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just picking up from an answer that the Minister in the chair just gave. It is a very important question for this committee to understand. This legislation introduces a very new measure in terms of our emissions in terms of achieving no additional global warming. Now, the Minister in the chair, in answer to a question, just said that most climate policies in recent years used this measure. Now, this is a new measure that is being instituted through this legislation. The committee needs to know from the Minister which policies in recent years have used this as the measure. This is, indeed, an amendment to the primary legislation that puts in place this measure. The committee needs to understand which policies have been informed by this measure.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, also related to the Minister’s contribution and then that contribution and question from the Hon Dr Megan Woods—two things. We’ve heard from Megan Woods—where is this evidence? What policy does the no additional global warming come from? My questions are in relation to what the Minister just said—that the way that we are doing dairy farming in New Zealand is having better results on the environment, or it was words to that effect. She was saying that in response to other members, and I really would like to know where she is getting that information from, what she is relying on to make that claim. Where is the advice that says that dairy is improving environmentally? That’s one question from me.

Then the second one—oh, I’m hearing sighs from the other side. It’s a basic question. If her policy position is that everything is fine, then she should demonstrate that. But my second point on this no additional global warming and the science relationship is why does this phrase not just simply say—so this is at new section 5QA(3)(a), inserted by clause 5—“the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions”, full stop, or it might be a semicolon there. We don’t need “and what is required to achieve no additional global warming from New Zealand’s biogenic methane emissions;”.

Like, surely what we need to know is what that latest science is, and that is exactly what the Minister was talking about as well. She just said, “Well, this is all based on international science about what happens from the emissions.”, and that is quite right, but not this idea of this made-up no additional global warming. That is quite different. The whole argument can be abated by simply saying “the latest science on the warming impact of biogenic methane emissions”. Those are the emissions that we have in New Zealand, the biogenic methane. Obviously, the huge amount of our methane emissions are biogenic. But would she consider that change, because that gets around a huge problem here?

I’m just going to endorse that latest comment from my colleague Rachel Brooking and point out that I do have an amendment there that would actually take out that phrase that refers to no additional global warming and just leave it at a review of biogenic methane, which would do the trick very nicely.

What I do want to consider, though, is I’ve put in a series of amendments looking to adjust the date of the review for this. Now, we set the biogenic methane target in the Climate Change Response Act—no, sorry, the zero carbon Act was 2019, wasn’t it? Here we are, just a few years later, having a methane review, even though we’ve already set a target just a few years ago. That was a gap of about five years. But in terms of doing the next methane review from this one, the gap is now pushed out to 15 years. That seems like a very long gap.

I’ve put in a series of amendments. I mean, the obvious one is just to take it to 2030—just a few years from now. If that’s too soon, 2031 would do the trick—I’ve got a paper to that effect. I avoided 2032, because likely we will have an election that year, I think, if my maths is correct. There are a variety of dates in which we could do a methane review, and there are different ways that it could be done—[Interruption] Take a call.

The point is that pushing it out by 15 years seems like a very long time, when the science does move on in this area. That’s the point. They’ve been trying to say there’s science that justifies this change. Now, we think that’s dubious because of the assumptions that were underpinning that science. But, nevertheless, if they’re asserting that there was new science within just five years, why would that not happen again? Let’s have a biogenic methane review in five years—maybe six or whatever. I just wonder if the Minister would consider bringing that review forward. Fifteen years seems like a very long time away in the context of a very fast-moving area of science.

I just wanted to address a couple of the questions around the no additional warming principle. It’s a matter of fact that the Government commissioned the methane review as a useful starting point of our analysis, and it should not be lost on members the vast amount of public feedback that has occurred historically in recent years that has inputted into this. Again, there have been multitudes of public consultations carried out during the second emissions reduction plan, the second nationally determined contribution, and the zero carbon bill.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: This isn’t even answering a question.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: To Dr Woods, I am addressing the multitude of questions around the inclusion of the no additional warming principle.

I should also remind members of the working group carried out under the previous Government called He Waka Eke Noa. I know that that will send shudders down a lot of farmers’ spines, just to remember it. But targets were set by the previous Government that are being revised by this Government, including the principle of no additional warming.

I appreciate that the Minister has just come into the chair. It does leave the Parliament in a bit of a quandary. We had the responsible Minister, in urgency, in the chair for just over an hour when there’s some very specific questions in terms of examining this legislation. I did ask the Minister who is in the chair—she made the claim that this change of no additional warming had underwritten and been part of a series of Government policies for a period of time. I wrote down the words the Minister said, and it will be in the Hansard, so the committee now needs to know, which policies? What is the list of policies that this new target that is being introduced with this legislation—what are the other policies before this that have been influenced by this new measure? That is a very big claim that the Minister made, and, in scrutinising this piece of legislation, the committee needs a list of those policies.

I appreciate that the Minister tried to address the broad principles of no additional global warming, but there’s some very specific questions that are sitting on the table. We understand the implications—it is a watering down. But what we have been asking, and what the responsible Minister failed to give an answer to, is, in making a political decision and in weighing up contested scientific advice—two very different things—what was the advice that the Minister relied on in order to make a political decision? Not the science, but who did he receive advice from? It is a difficult thing when a Minister has to weigh up contested scientific information in order to make a political call. The committee needs to understand that process—that would have come through the select committee process and there would have been an ability to question officials around that. We also want to know who made the decision? This is a political decision. There’s contested scientific advice and there are very talented scientists on both side of this. What we want to know is who made the political decision? We also want to know when that decision was made. These are very important questions in terms of our ability to scrutinise this legislation.

The other thing that the House is yet to receive an answer on is whether or not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) provided advice on the trade implications to the Minister on this. We know that there has been previous advice and that this legislation actually puts in jeopardy market access, potentially, under the EU and UK free-trade agreements. If we’re going to talk about standing up for our farmers, I think we should be talking about not putting in place two of the most important trade deals, which were negotiated under a Labour Government, that give our farmers market access into the UK and the EU. We have not had a straight answer from the Minister in the chair about whether or not MFAT provided advice on the trade implications and what that advice was.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have four questions, but I won’t do any of the preamble—I’ll just get straight to them. My question is around new section 5QA(3)(e) around the single percentage target. I’m just checking that that means it’s not a range. That doesn’t mean reducing the target to a single percentage target?

My second question is around paragraph (f), which is “any other matters specified by the Ministers when initiating the review.” What other matters can the Minister envision being considered in this section of the legislation? It is quite broad. It is quite, almost, sweeping in its drafting in that it can consider almost anything. Is that deliberate—the ability for the Minister to, basically, incorporate any point that they might wish to incorporate when doing this review?

My third question is on new section 5QA(5) around “The Ministers must jointly consider the report on the review.” Now, what happens if the Ministers who are doing this review together cannot come to an agreement? Is there is a dispute resolution mechanism? Is one of them going to trump the other in terms of does it depend on who’s more senior in Cabinet? In terms of “jointly consider”, what does that actually mean in practical terms? I want to take the opportunity to ask the Minister, because they are, I believe, the Minister of State for Trade and Investment.

The question that I asked the previous Minister while they were in the chair but I didn’t get an answer for, and that is: which other trading partners does the Minister know of or has received advice around which have also lowered their emissions reduction target, other than, of course, the United States of America? That’s a rather famous example.

While we’re on the issue of trade, I’ve drafted a series of amendments, time stamp 20.10 onwards, that would potentially link the target reduction to our international partners. If the Government wanted to prove that they are actually reducing emissions faster or along the same rate of our international trading partners, there’s an opportunity to do so by adopting some of my amendments. Thank you.

I’m going to offer the Minister an out here. Look, it’s quite clear that so far, neither the Minister in the chair or the Minister who was previously in their chair—they cannot explain no additional warming. They don’t understand it. They can’t explain it. They can’t say why it’s an appropriate metric. They certainly can’t say what the scientific backing is for it. That’s because—just admit it, Minister—the simple out here is to just admit that this is purely political.

All right. They’ve made a political choice. Now, if that’s the choice the Government has made, and they’ve made a political choice, just own it. Instead of trying to pretend it’s scientific, just own it. Own the fact that the methane review was set up and set up to answer a particular question which was: given no additional warming, what is the appropriate level of methane flow for methane reductions? That was a very political choice, so just own the politics. If that’s what has gone on here, just be honest about it. Own it. Admit that was what happened. Admit that was what was going on, and we’ll stop talking about it.

I wanted to address some of the questions from the Green Party member around the target. To be clear, the review can consider the single point target, but it doesn’t have to recommend it. The member then extrapolated out to how that impacts our trade arrangements, and particularly citing the likes of the EU free-trade agreement (FTA) and the UK FTA. Indeed, I would also add to that the Comprehensive and Progressive TransPacific Partnership agreement. They actually allow us to set domestic environmental laws that are appropriate for our own domestic situation within the bounds of our international obligations. As the Minister prior to me has made very, very clear, we remain absolutely committed and on track to meet our international obligations.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Now, members, asking this member in the chair the same questions as were asked previously doesn’t constitute new questions material, I might say. Now, I’m well aware that some of the members are not getting the answers they want and that may be a matter that they can comment on how they like. However, we still will need to look at some new material at this stage.

Thank you, Mr Chair. When a Minister does give an answer and we are in the committee of the whole House, that answer sometimes does require that questions are asked of it. It’s not just that we’re not getting the answers we want, Mr Chair; we’re not getting answers. That’s more the frustration, given that this is a piece of legislation that is being passed under urgency and this is the sole opportunity that the House has to interrogate this.

The Minister in the chair just said that New Zealand was committed to reaching its targets. Is the Minister confirming that New Zealand still has a target, as embodied in the legislation, of keeping global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to clarify a misinterpretation that the Minister might have made on my previous contribution. I wasn’t relating it to the free-trade agreement we had; I was just asking my previous question, which has still not been answered, around which of our trading partners, if any—other than the United States of America—have watered down their emissions reductions targets in the same way that we have? Does she know what the advice that she’s received around that would be?

I think there was also another misunderstanding of the single percentage target. I was asking whether that referred to a single-digit percentage target or whether that was just a sole number in a range of targets.

There were also two questions that I raised that haven’t been addressed—not answered but addressed at all—by the Minister. Those questions were around other matters specified around what the ambit of that could be, the “jointly consider” part of clause 5, new section 5QA(5), and what happens if the Ministers potentially can’t come to an agreement around what to consider?

I do just want to look at one further aspect of this. I’m referring the Minister, for her benefit, to new section 5QA(3)(d)—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Getting into the detail.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —we are—which we haven’t really discussed much. But it says, in terms of the methane review which is going to be done, the Minister must consider a number of issues, and one of them, in new section 5QA(3)(d), is the progress made and actions taken internationally to reduce biogenic methane emissions in order to meet emissions reduction targets such as the Paris Agreement. Now, of course, the Paris Agreement is expressed in terms of carbon, isn’t it, and not in terms of methane. That’s an interesting little difference there.

But I just want to understand the implications of this, having it reviewed, considering what’s being done internationally to reduce biogenic methane. Does that imply that instead of considering all gases—all right—we are considering biogenic methane worldwide rather than all gases worldwide? Is this implying that, in fact, we actually think that the entire world ought to be adopting a split gas target?

Now, it’s actually quite controversial that New Zealand has adopted a split gases target. Most of the world does not have it; they have a net zero target. We are I think one of the few—it might be us and Uruguay—who have a split gas target. If we’re going to try to then consider what other countries are doing in that, I just want to understand from the Minister whether the implication of this is that we think that other countries should adopt a split gas target too.

Given the way that methane operates differently from the way that other greenhouse gases operate, I think it’s actually plausible and reasonable—

Grant McCallum: Short-lived gas.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Which is much, much more potent. I think, Mr McCallum, you might need to take notice of this, because at the Conference of the Parties recently, when I was there, there was a lot of talk about the methane brake. The world is careering towards overheating, and the fastest way to deal with it is to pull the brake on methane. It’s going to have huge implications for your sector. I think by asking the whole world to consider it, it is raising the possibility of that methane brake. We need to consider this very seriously. If that methane brake is pulled, there will be trouble for our New Zealand farmers. We actually need to be moving on methane now. There are incredible risks being created. Minister, is that what is underlying this consideration of the actions taken internationally to reduce biogenic methane emissions?

I don’t know why the member feels to use such dramatic hyperbole—the words like “methane brake”. The fact of the matter is New Zealand farmers are already on target to hit their 2030 target of methane reduction. We are going to hit our 2050 global commitments as well as our domestic commitments. I don’t know why the Opposition seems so intent in moving away from this bill and trying to politicise this, but there have been a number of questions around what other countries might be doing. It is not for us to comment on other countries’ domestic targets. We’re here focusing on what New Zealand is doing. The international community, like New Zealanders, rightly expects that our agricultural sector will do its part in contributing to our climate change targets.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Koinei te pātai tuatahi ki a koe, tēnā koe.

[This is the first question to you, thank you.]

I have an amendment on new section 5QA(3), and you’ll see that in a bit. But I guess, in general, what I want to ask is: does this review in any way appreciate, understand, its constitutional obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and is it reflected? From what I can see, though it’s a very thin piece of work, it doesn’t show it; it doesn’t express it. Therefore, the question would be to hapū, to iwi, to post-settlement governance entities, to all of those bodies in which Māori do their business: can we have any confidence in the way in which it’s discussed here, in this change, Minister?

From what I can see, there’s not a single word or concept in here that understands the agreements from 1835 and 1840. I would expect that if it was smart in that regard, then it would reflect it. It does not in general, let alone in this particular clause. I’d be interested, but I’m not going to hold my breath to what might be offered. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendments to clause 4 be agreed to.

Francisco Hernandez’s three tabled amendments to clause 4(1), setting the percentage target by the New Zealand Parliament, a cross-party committee in Parliament, and the New Zealand people following a referendum are ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1), setting the percentage target by the Climate Change Commission be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s three tabled amendments to clause 4(1), setting the percentage target by the Minister of Agriculture and for the Environment be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1), setting the percentage target by the Minister of Climate Change be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1), setting the percentage target by the Climate Change Commission, ratified by a citizens’ assembly be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1), setting the percentage target as the European Union’s nationally determined contribution methane target or equivalent be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1), setting the percentage target as Singapore’s nationally determined contribution methane target or equivalent be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1), setting the percentage target as the United Kingdom’s nationally determined contribution methane target or equivalent be agreed to.

There are 10 other tabled amendments to clause 4(1) lodged by Francisco Hernandez that are the same in substance, referencing the methane reduction targets of different places. Having tested the will of the committee, these nine amendments are ruled out of order.

Francisco Hernandez’s three tabled amendments regarding setting targets by members of the Green Party are out of order as not being serious amendments.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1), replacing the range with a percentage target by the Prime Minister be agreed to.

Mr McCallum, you have quite a loud voice, so when you do comment on these amendments it carries. You might like to at least have a stage whisper.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1), replacing the range with a percentage target by the Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture following the review be agreed to.

Members, we have a number of amendments from Francisco Hernandez and the Hon Dr Deborah Russell to clause 4(1) that propose to replace the range with a different percentage range or a single percentage. In accordance with Standing Order 315(4), I will put the question on a representative selection of these amendments to test the will of the committee.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) to replace “14% to 24%” with “15% to 45%” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) to replace “14% to 24%” with “35% to 47%” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) to delete “replace 24% to 47% with 14% to 24%” and replace it with “retain 24% to 47%” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) to replace “14% to 24%” with “39% to 44%” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) to replace “14% to 24%” with “24%” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4(1) to replace “14% to 24%” with “45%” be agreed to.

Members, the committee has voted on a representative selection of amendments to clause 4(1) in so far as they replace the percentage range. The will of the committee having been tested, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s remaining tabled amendments altering the percentage to clause 4(1), and Francisco Hernandez’s remaining 29 tabled amendments, are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to delete clause 4(2) and clause 5 be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1), replacing new section 5QA(1), (2), (3)(a), and (4) be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1), replacing new section 5QA be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1), replacing new section 5QA(3) and (4) be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1), replacing new section 5QA(1) to replace the Minister of Agriculture with the Minister for the Environment be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1), replacing new section 5QA(1) to include the Minister delegated responsibility for New Zealand’s Waste and Resource Sector be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1), replacing new section 5QA(1) to include the Minister for the Environment be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(3)(a) to delete all the words after “warming impact of biogenic methane emissions” be agreed to.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1), new section 5QA(3)(a), deleting “biogenic” is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendments to clause 5(1), new section 5QA(3)(b)(c) and (c) to delete “biogenic” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 5(1), replacing new section 5QA(3)(c) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(3)(d), to replace “biogenic methane” with “greenhouse gas” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendments to clause 5(1), replacing new section 5QA(3)(f) and inserting new paragraph (g) be agreed to.

The question is that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(3), to insert new paragraph (g) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(4), to replace “2040” with “2030” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(4), to replace “2040” with “2031” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(4), to replace “2040” with “2033” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 5, new section 5QA(4), to replace “2040” with “2035” be agreed to.