Green Party leader admits move to gift parliamentary questions seems a bit ‘weird’
James Shaw told Corin Dann on TVNZ’s Q+A programme this morning his party would gift its so-called ‘patsy’ questions to
opposition parties as a way of holding the government to account.
He denied it was part of a move towards the National party.
He also explained his Zero Carbon Act.
Q + A
Episode 3
JAMES SHAW
Interviewed by Corin Dann
CORINGood morning to Green Party leader and Climate Change Minister James Shaw. Before we get to some news that you’ve got,
just a quick comment – how do you think Jacinda Ardern has gone this week? As party leader, who’s a support partner, her
messaging with Winston Peters over Russia – are you satisfied and happy with how that’s all gone?
JAMESYes, I am. I mean, she was really clear about this and the language, in diplomatic terms, that she’s used has been very,
very strong.
CORINSo you’re happy with her. What about Winston Peters?
JAMESWell, I think it’s up to the Prime Minister. On the interview that you did this morning, she talked about the language
that he’s used and actually his fundamental principle was can we be treated fairly in the same way that the EU and
others are in terms of those trade relationships.
CORINSo you’re comfortable with his stance on Russia and this free-trade business and all that stuff?
JAMESI think that where we’ve ended up is a really good place, right? And I think the events that we’ve seen in Russia are
unacceptable – or from Russia are unacceptable. And for that reason, those trade negotiations were not reopened.
CORINSo you’re happy they got there in the end?
JAMESYeah, well, ultimately the Greens have always have concerns about trading relationships with countries that have got a
poor human rights record. I think that, as the Prime Minister said, there is no other plausible explanation other than
for Russia to have been behind this poisoning attack. That is clearly a violation of human rights. You know, it’s good
that it’s not being pursued.
CORINSure. Okay. Let’s get on to this issue. So I’m of the understanding that the Green Party is going to announce that you
will give your what are called patsy questions in Parliament – so you get, what, one per session, is that right? Primary
question – you’re going to give those questions to the Opposition for the rest of the term. Is that correct?
JAMESThat’s right. So it’s about 42 questions this year and about 50 next year, based on what we currently know about the
calendar. And that is because – and you know this from your time in the gallery, right – that patsy questions are
basically a waste of everybody’s time.
CORINThey make the government look good.
JAMESYeah, that’s right, but I think question time should be about holding the government to account. This is what we said
when we were in Opposition. Now that we are in government, we felt that it was important for us to act consistently with
what we said in Opposition.
CORINBut if you’re in government, why are you giving the Opposition an extra chance to bash you?
JAMESI know it sounds crazy, but we are crazy about democracy. So I know it seems like a weird move, but I honestly think
that the democracy will be better served if question time does what it is supposed to do, which is to hold the
government to account, and we are members of the government. I expect us to be held to account, not to use scripted
questions to kind of tell some bright, shiny story.
CORINBut why not use a scripted question if you want to promote what you’re doing with climate change and you feel like
you’re not getting the exposure you want, one of your MPs stands up in Parliament and says, ‘James Shaw, tell us about
climate change.’ You get the floor; you get the exposure in front of a whole bunch of journalists watching.
JAMESBut I don’t. When was the last time – you were in the gallery for a long time, Corin – when was the last time you
reported a patsy question?
CORINUh, it’s a fair point.
JAMESYeah. So if I want to make an announcement about climate change, I will just go off and do it.
CORINOh! Water down.
JAMESI am very excited about democracy.
CORINThat’s all right. We’ll get to climate change and water in a minute.
JAMESIf I want to do an announcement, I’ll just go and do an announcement. I think that the purpose of question time is to
hold the government to account, and so that is what we’re doing.
CORINOkay, so let’s just work through this for people who are not familiar with question time, because this is fascinating.
So normally the Opposition would get, what, two or three primary questions? There’s 12 questions at 2 o’clock on a
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. They go into Parliament; they sit down in the morning; they work out their lines of
attack. They get a whole bunch of supplementary questions. They’ll get an extra question from you. So they’ll get
another one of their MPs, one of their shadow ministers, will get the opportunity to attack your government. And would
you give them supplementary questions?
JAMESWe’re going to do that on a week-by-week basis.
CORINGiving them supplementaries as well?
JAMESYeah, well, up to a point. So we want to hold those more in reserve. So we’ll kind of see what the emerging questions
are. Sometimes there will be things that we want to jump in on. So, for example, when Steven Joyce was having a go at
Grant Robertson, I would often use our supplementary questions to point out that Steven Joyce’s $11.7 billion hole was
fake news. And so I think that that’s part of the context.
CORINHow does Labour feel about this?
JAMESI think reaction was mixed. I think that it would be fair to say that they thought the idea of handing the Opposition a
bigger stick to beat us with wasn’t universally thought of as a great idea. But I don’t think that they… They certainly
don’t think believe that we shouldn’t do it.
CORINAnd how did National feel about it? Can this be interpreted as – let’s be careful with how we phrase it – an olive
branch? A little step towards National?
JAMESNo.
CORINThat you can be open to working with them.
JAMESNo. I know it’s not convenient for us, right, but this is actually a point of principle for us. And it’s bit like when
in 2008 we opened up our expenses and said, look, we’re just going to start telling people what we’re spending every
month in Parliament. Other political parties thought that that was not a great idea, and now it is standard practice. In
fact, it’s part of standing orders. It’s just what we do.
CORINI’m just trying to get my head around this. I’m sure lots of people at home are as well. Are you trying to differentiate
yourself? So there’s the coalition government, Labour-NZ First, we’re a bit off to the side here. We’re on, what, the
crossbenches or something? We’re part of government but we’re not quite. What’s going on?
JAMESNo, what I’m trying to do is act consistently in government with what we said in Opposition. And in Opposition, we
consistently called for reform of parliamentary institutions, including question time. We often said that patsy
questions, we didn’t feel, served the purposes of a better democracy. Now that we are in government, I’m just trying to
make sure that we’re doing what we said we would do when we were in Opposition.
CORINAs one of my producers who, when they heard this this morning, said, ‘It’s attention-seeking, isn’t it? That’s what it
is.’
JAMESLook, I think people are going to read all sorts of things into this, right? They’ll say are we trying to do a deal with
National? Are we trying to seek attention? What is their ulterior motive?
CORINAnd are you happy for people to read that all into it?
JAMESWell, people are going to say what they’re going to say, right? Pundits are going to pundit.
CORINSo you are happy?
JAMESWell, it comes with the territory. I’m not saying it’s convenient for us, right, giving National a stick with which they
can have a go at us once a week or twice a week. But it is consistent with what we said, and frankly, I think it is part
of what the Green Party has always tried to do is push the boat out in terms of our parliamentary institutions,
experiment in ways with changing the democracy for the better.
CORINLet’s get to climate change. We’ve got a few minutes to go. But let’s get into it. So you’re doing your climate change
Zero Carbon Act. So you’re going to write into legislation across Parliament, all the laws, that we have to meet a
climate change target? Is that right?
JAMESYeah, so the Zero Carbon Act does two things. One of which is that it puts into law the goal of being a zero-emissions
economy by the year 2050, and it establishes an independent climate commission, which will…
CORIN…set a target.
JAMESWell, what it will do is to help guide the pathway towards that target of a zero emissions economy by setting what we
call carbon budgets. So essentially a kind of a pollution limit that we have to live within.
CORINAnd they would come out every five or six years?
JAMESYeah, that’s right.
CORINThe thing that I’m trying to get my head around here is that you’re locking in future governments to their policies,
their laws – they’re a democratically elected government – you’re locking them into a certain framework, aren’t you? So
there’s a constitutional issue here. Don’t we need bipartisan support for a change of this magnitude?
JAMESYeah, I think that we do need bipartisan support for a change of this magnitude, and this is one of the reasons why I’m
undertaking such a comprehensive and thorough approach to the design of the legislation is I want to make sure that the
concerns that the National Party and the ACT Party, to be fair, represent, that we hear those concerns and we make
absolute best effort to address those concerns, and I’m not saying that I’m relying on that vote, and I’m also not
saying that we’ll dilute the legislation to a point that it’s equally acceptable, but they’ve got genuine and valid
concerns, they represent real people and real industries out in the regions, and it’s important to try and meet those
concerns.
CORINSure. The bottom line is in the future, if, say, there was a recession in the future and a future National government in
15 years’ time or something decides that it needs to do something which will put us in breach of your Carbon Act,
somebody could go to the court and challenge that, right?
JAMESWell, the exact nature of the Zero Carbon Act and where the balance of powers between the commission and Parliament sit
is yet to be determined.
CORINThat’s massive, though, isn’t it? It’s like the Treaty of Waitangi.
JAMESYes. Or another way that I’ve been thinking about it is a bit like the Reserve Bank, right? So you’ve got a spectrum. At
one end you’ve got the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, which publishes reports and very thorough, and we
kind of look at those, but it’s kind of take it or leave it. At the other end of the spectrum, you’ve got the Reserve
Bank Act, which as a series of powers and it’s very difficult for Parliament or the executive to interfere with those in
any way. And then there’s a range of options in-between those.
CORINWhich way are you leaning? Further towards the Reserve Bank or further towards…?
JAMESWell, it’s multidimensional. It depends on which set of powers you’re talking about. So in the UK, the model is more
like the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. It’s what we call a transparency model. So they publish the
budgets and then they say to the government of the day, ‘Look, it’s up to you to determine how you meet those budgets.
CORINBut you’ve got to meet them?
JAMESWell, actually, the parliament actually has to adopt those budgets, but if it doesn’t, the government is obliged to come
up with a better offer, right? And that’s the built-in tension that they’ve created there. But also in the UK, because
they’re currently part of the European Union, they are part of the EU’s emissions trading scheme. Now they’re going to
have to determine if they’re going to have their own emissions trading scheme once Brexit happens. It’s arguable that
once they’ve got their own emissions trading scheme that they might adopt more of a Reserve Bank-type model when it
comes to the emissions trading scheme.
CORINTougher.
JAMESSo there’s a spectrum of things here.
CORINSo what happens in the future, 15 years, a hypothetical government decides that it’s not going to pass a law, so it
doesn’t run the risk of going to court, but it wants to come up with a policy that would allow, say, some mining or
something. What happens then if it’s in breach of your Carbon Act?
JAMESWell, I guess the onus will be on the government of the day to do that. I mean, Parliament ultimately is always supreme,
right? So a future government could come along and it could abolish the whole thing, but we want to make it as difficult
as possible for that to happen.
CORINSo it’s entrenched? And I don’t want to use that word, because that’s got…
JAMESYeah, it’s not strictly entrenched, but that’s ultimately why you want to try and get bipartisan support for it.
CORINJust finally, before we go – we’ve got about 20 seconds – in Simon Upton’s report, he basically said, ‘New Zealand has
done the work, the technical work. We’ve set up the ETS.’ We’ve got it all nice. The bureaucracy has done the job, but
nobody has been prepared to show some bite and actually come up with policies that will actually hurt us a bit, because we’ve actually
got to make the sacrifices. Are you the man that is going to come up with a policy that actually bites, make the
sacrifices and makes New Zealand do the hard work?
JAMESMy goal is that by the end of this Parliament, we have put in place the architecture for that transition to the
low-carbon economy. But I see this as the greatest economic opportunity in a generation, right? It’s not all sunk cost.
This is about investing in a cleaner, smarter, more productive and higher value economy. To me, that’s a tremendous
opportunity and that’s the way we should be thinking about it.
CORINWell, we will bring you back later in the year to talk about your Green Fund and your Green Transport Card and all that
sort of stuff, because it is fascinating. James Shaw, thank you very much for your time.
END
Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TVNZ 1 and one hour later on TVNZ 1 + 1.
Repeated Sunday evening at around 11:35pm. Streamed live at www.tvnz.co.nz
Thanks to the support from NZ On Air.