4. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Why is he not going to the Copenhagen conference like most other world leaders are?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this
The member’s assertion is incorrect. It is not true that most of the world’s leaders are going to the Copenhagen conference. The Prime Minister has previously stated that there is a 95 percent chance that he will not go to Copenhagen for that conference. That is because he is satisfied that the Minister for Climate Change Issues, the Hon Nick Smith, and the Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues (International Negotiations), the Hon Tim Groser, are more than capable of representing New Zealand’s position at the conference.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations that President Obama’s attendance at Copenhagen, announced today, will help ensure an agreement; if so, is he not attending because, as he has recently said, he is “quite relaxed” about the threat of climate change?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
The United States’ position on climate change and whatever commitments it may be prepared to offer at Copenhagen are, of course, very, very important. I point out to the member, though, that President Obama will be in Copenhagen about 1 week before the conference starts.
Chris Tremain
Mr SPEAKERThe member will sit down. I will not tolerate interjections with microphones open like that; it is simply not acceptable. I ask the member not to do that and I invite him to ask his supplementary question.
The member will now resume his seat. The member will not argue with the Speaker if he wishes to remain in the Chamber for this sitting day, which may go on for a while. I recommend to the member that if someone interjects while his microphone is open and he is asking a question, he should just ignore it because no one else can hear it. It is an unfair advantage to the member to use an open microphone in that way. I invite him to ask his supplementary question.
Hon David ParkerI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I presume the same rule will apply to members of the Government when they are answering a question and responding to an interjection.
Members will notice that when Ministers are not provoked by the question being asked, I am pretty tough when they start to climb into the Opposition. Anyone who thinks that I, as Speaker, am favouring the Government is not, I believe, seeing the situation properly, at all. I am sure that plenty of members in the Government are not terribly happy with the way the Speaker insists on some of them answering questions and stops them in mid-flight. So I suggest to the Hon David Parker that a little more discretion and courtesy would be appropriate.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It is, and it is an important one. I would like you to reflect on what you have just told the House. What you have said is that my colleague cannot respond to an interjection through his open microphone but Ministers can if they are provoked. I think that that is unfair and unbalanced.
What I was actually referring to was when Ministers are provoked in a question. If the member refers back to a supplementary question asked by his own colleague, just a short while ago in this sitting, he will recall that his colleague Charles Chauvel implied that the Minister had not been telling the truth. I let it go—I did not interrupt. But it was a very provocative question. Ministers receiving a provocative question like that are perfectly at liberty to give as good as they get. That has always been the ebb and flow of this House. We will not waste further time on this. I invite Charles Chauvel to ask his supplementary question.
Why is his Minister of Foreign Affairs planning to use the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting merely as an opportunity to “compare notes” on climate change negotiations when the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Danish Prime Minister, and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth are attending the meeting to seek a “strong political statement” on climate change ahead of the Copenhagen summit?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
As the member knows, everything that might be concluded by way of agreement starts with a comparison of one country’s position with another’s. That is an appropriate role for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues and the Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues (International Negotiations) go to Copenhagen with their heads held high, when his Government voted yesterday against legislating for binding emissions targets and is teaming up, in international climate change negotiations, with major polluters against the small Island States, to whom we generally pretend friendship?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
The Minister would not accept the assertion that the member implies in his question. He asks how the trade Minister and the climate change negotiations Minister, who is one and the same person, can hold his head up at the conference. What the Minister can say is that New Zealand has set targets. We do have an “all gases, all sectors” emissions trading scheme, and we are doing our bit to solve a worldwide problem.