Having spent a week in Copenhagen observing the conduct of climate change negotiations, I have to say I have serious concerns about how on top of international thinking on climate change this Government in general – and Tim Groser in particular – really is.
Groser was a well-regarded public servant for many years. Having entered politics on the National Party list in 2005, he now holds four portfolios in the present Government – Trade, International Climate Change Negotiations, Associate Foreign Affairs and Conservation.
In the first three, it’s become traditional for the opposition to be careful about criticism of the conduct of the portfolio-holder because there’s developed a general policy consensus about national priorities in those areas. As well, apart from a few self-confessedly pro-business commentators like Fran O’Sullivan, not many journalists in the mainstream media take much notice of what happens in them, except in quite high level terms. And in the trade portfolio, Groser is usually said to have done a good job of bringing to final fruition a lot of the hard work done by Phil Goff after 1999 to open export markets to New Zealand.
(In Conservation, Groser has been missing in action – perhaps largely because he’s been overseas so much – but also because the big beasts of the current administration – Brownlee, Joyce et al – are determined to pursue their pro-mining agenda, including in the national parks that it’s Groser’s job to protect. He has clearly worked out that it is better to get out of the way than get flattened in that particular area of his responsibility. He’d be better to get out of it altogether before he ends up sharing the blame for the looming disaster there.)
Thinking about the Government’s climate change policies, I’m not so concerned about the bungled, and then cancelled, briefings here in Copenhagen; or the withheld cabinet papers on our negotiating position; or the increasing frustration evident on the part of anyone who tries to engage with Ministers over the substance of our position; or even the fact that the rhetoric in John Key’s leader’s speech today bears no resemblance to the reality of our negotiating position. There are at least five longer-range pieces of the jigsaw.
First, there was the gutting of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Ministers clearly believed that the Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) was a legislative shoe-in, since they modelled many of the changes they made to Labour’s scheme on it. Even the week before the CPRS collapsed, Nick Smith had David Bennett asking patsy questions in Parliament attacking my warnings about the fragility of the numbers on the floor of the Australian Senate. This was a major misreading of the politics of our nearest neighbour, where we have our largest diplomatic presence. How did that happen?
Then there is the fact that the amended ETS is clearly predicated on no international agreement on climate change being reached for many years to come. There is no other way to explain the content of the amendments, given that they will actually increase NZ’s emissions, at a big cost to the taxpayer in subsidies to major polluters. This is another completely off-base assumption – while it is impossible to predict the exact outcome of the Copenhagen talks, the smart money has always been on significant progress being made here toward a deal in the next few years. All of the EU’s international diplomacy (and much of its domestic action) in this area is predicated on that assumption. So is the Obama administration’s courting of India and China, and its pursuit of cap and trade legislation at home. Again, to have made a legislative assumption that will all come to naught is little short breathtaking.
Thirdly, along with Nick Smith, Murray McCully and John Key, Groser massively misunderstood the mood of Commonwealth leaders at the recent Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM) in Trinidad and Tobago. Before departing, they were said to be determined that climate change would not ‘dominate’ proceedings, and even on the first day of the meeting, were publicly resisting the idea of NZ contributing to financing initiatives for transition in developing countries. I now have it on good authority that on the first evening of CHOGM, Gordon Brown and Kevin Rudd sat down with the other developed country leader who was out of step with the rest of the Commonwealth on climate change – Canada’s Stephen Harper – and put him right. Harper was then sent to deliver the message to Key. Again – how could we have so misread the mood of two of our closest friends and allies – the UK and Australia?
Then, over the past week, the national embarrassment of how we have treated Tuvalu. That small island neighbour of ours has been bullied – there’s no other word for it – by both Australia and New Zealand for daring to speak out on the urgency of climate change, and the urgency from its point of view of implementing precautionary measures. Groser did it in public statements; Bill English did it back home in Parliament. Yet Tuvalu was just saying what it – and other members of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) – have been on record about for over a year now. The virulence of the response – and Groser’s dogged backing of developed nations’ positioning – makes it look like our Government just realised that the small island nations were worried about climate change. Or maybe they were just surprised that they decided to ignore bullying and speak up. Either way, Tuvalu came out of left field for them. The response has justly caused lasting resentment in the Pacific – the place in the world where, strategically, it is most important that NZ be well-regarded. Smooth words in John Key’s leader’s speech here today won’t paper over those cracks.
Finally, there’s been the hamfisted attempt by Groser and others to manipulate the NZ media from afar – compensating for the lack of any positive progress on the issues that matter. First, the announcement of Key’s appearance in the BBC debate (oops – that didn’t end well). Then Thursday’s bizarre trumpeting of the global agriculture alliance (GAF). Never mind that compared to the Fast Forward Fund, which National scrapped, we’re looking at much less money for research on agricultural emissions, and that we’ve given up control of the ownership of that research, probably to US-based corporations. Package it up as good news, co-opt a member of Obama’s cabinet to sit on the podium with you, and time the announcement so it becomes the lead item on morning report. Voila – you have the appearance of progress. I hope it won’t fool anybody.
Evidently, Groser has a talent for transactional negotiating when it comes to opening up markets. But climate change is much more multi-dimensional. Andrew Robb (Turnbull’s original choice for a climate change spokesperson) – whom I know from the time we spent together at Minter Ellison is a very bright guy – evidently couldn’t get his head around it. If Key didn’t take fright at the quality of ministerial advice he was getting in this field after CHOGM, he should have by now. Let’s hope the PM uses his time here to listen to what world leaders have to say, instead of trusting the assurances from Tim Groser and his colleague that they have it all in hand. They plainly don’t.
