Agenda Transcript: Jeanette Fitzsimons & Hans Blix

Agenda Transcript: Jeanette Fitzsimons & Hans Blix

RAWDON With Labour slipping in the polls they may need the Green Party support more than ever if they're in a position to form a government after the next election, but what do the Greens want in return. As world leaders prepare to gather in Sydney to discuss climate change at APEC Green's Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons is throwing down a gauntlet, she fears that Helen Clark maybe about to betray New Zealand on the issue of climate change. Jeanette Fitzsimons joins One News' Political Editor, Guyon Espiner.

GUYON Well Jeanette Fitzsimons let's cut straight to the chase, how would you rate Labour's record on combating climate change?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS – Green Party Co-leader
Labour's done more than any previous New Zealand government but it's not nearly enough. We have some aspirational goals but we need to put some substance behind those goals, I'm really concerned about the APEC meeting and the leaked draft communiqué that’s come out before that meeting where APEC seems to be about completely undermining Kyoto, getting rid of binding targets, setting aspirational goals so far into the future that it won't be us it'll be our grandchildren that have to deliver on them and no actual numbers, that is of course the US agenda, and that’s what I'm afraid that New Zealand is going to sign up to.

GUYON But isn't it good that those world leaders and some of the world's biggest emitters are actually talking about climate change and can't Helen Clark claim some credit for actually putting that on the agenda this last year and you know some of the world's biggest countries are actually going to be talking about doing something about it, isn't that a good thing?

JEANETTE Well leaving aside whether it was New Zealand or Australia, or both of them that put it on the agenda and I've heard both, the real issue here is that what the US and Australia are using APEC for is to set up an alternative forum to Kyoto that will undermine the gains of Kyoto and replace binding commitments and timeframes and timetables with a loose kind of aspiration.

GUYON Sure but what's the point in having a binding agreement with actual targets if you don’t have the big players on board, I mean don’t you need a solution that includes America China Australia, don’t you need those big players in the tent if you're gonna get anywhere.

JEANETTE We do absolutely need the US and Australia who are the highest per capita emitters in the world, and we also need China because although their per capita emissions are very low they're only a fifth of what ours are, they're such a big country that they have to be part of the agreement.

GUYON And they're not part of Kyoto so isn't it time to admit that Kyoto's actually a failure and we need to actually find a solution if it's not binding targets or it's not as good as you may want at least it's actually getting somewhere.

JEANETTE Kyoto was never intended to include developing countries, it was always a case of the OECD countries move first, the developing countries come in afterwards. China has actually done a great deal it's making more photo voltaic solar electric panels than the whole rest of the world put together, but what is happening at APEC is a subtle redefinition of what progress means, instead of saying we're going to reduce down to or below what we were doing in 1990 they're saying we're going to reduce the amount of energy we use for a unit of GDP, so they could meet the sort of targets they're talking about there but greenhouse emissions world wide would continue to grow and continue to grow fast because they're not prepared to change the way their economy functions. Now leading scientists have told us all the scientific evidence is that climate changed is proceeding much faster than any of the models predicted and Hanson one of the most respected scientists in the climate change world has said we've got a window of ten years to turn this thing around.

GUYON Okay well let's look about what's happening at home, how do you rate Labour's progress on its initiative in New Zealand?

JEANETTE We're still waiting to see actually. They abandoned their 2002 policy which was for a carbon charge and a number of other matters going with it which was not a perfect policy but not bad, they abandoned that in 2005, they're still developing an emissions trading scheme which is going to be announced in the next months, we don’t know what that will involve and it may be that we still won't know when they’ve announced it because they may be leaving a lot of the key details to be done by regulation after legislation's through.

GUYON So how do you rate their performance?

JEANETTE Well it's still the jury's out until they’ve announced it but not a whole lot so far, except that when the Prime Minister said let's try and go carbon neutral some time in the distant future it provided a bit of inspiration which is what we're talking about.

GUYON But hasn’t it just been rhetoric?

JEANETTE Yes it is just rhetoric at the moment but if it gets people thinking about it then we need somebody standing alongside Labour quite honestly that will put the substance behind the rhetoric.

GUYON Okay well let's look at that, let's turn this around, I mean what about your influence on the government, you’ve been propping up Labour governments really since 1999, carbon emissions have been growing, we're now the 11th highest emitter per capita in the world, I mean where is the Green influence on this government?

JEANETTE Well I don’t think you can say we've been propping up Labour governments, we voted against them on confidence and supply between 2002, 2005 and this term we are abstaining.

GUYON Those votes are critical though for that government to stand up though aren’t they?

JEANETTE Well when we negotiated our post election agreement our abstention was not critical, they had the numbers even if we voted against them, we agreed to abstain and give them that little bit of extra security in return for some positive moves in the energy front and on Buy Kiwi Made, but on the energy front we have got a solar water heating programme now, we are getting an energy efficiency conservation strategy.

GUYON I'm just looking though thinking about the influence that the Greens have and when one looks at it recently it's about banning smacking or moves to reduce consumption of junk food and I'm just wondering whether the Greens' focus on the environment hasn’t really come through in terms of any tangible gains that you’ve actually managed to influence the Labour government to do.

JEANETTE I think it's actually a question of what initiations get the most media coverage, we have actually been doing a lot of work on climate change and energy, it doesn’t always hit the headlines. For example there was no intention at all when the government brought out its discussion papers on climate change before Christmas to include the agriculture sector at all or even to include transport. We brought our proposals out in March which showed how you could include the agriculture sector by using the processing companies like Fonterra to take responsibility and when we brought out that policy and didn’t get our heads bitten off Labour now says they're going to include farming too. The worry is they may not do it for another five years which means the Kyoto period will be over before farming starts having to contribute.

GUYON Okay well let's talk about domestic strategy at home and where you may fit into any future government. What do your members want?

JEANETTE Oh our members want serious action on climate change.

GUYON What do they want and what do they think in terms of who you should actually go with and what might be palatable and what might be possible in terms of working with National or Labour. What do your members thing?

JEANETTE We're just starting on a discussion that will go round all the branches at the moment about how we might relate to other parties after the next election, so I can't tell you anything about that at the moment.

GUYON So you're asking your members whether they may be prepared to support a National government?

JEANETTE We'll be putting various proposals to our members about how we make decisions about what we do after the next election. The one thing I'm picking up from members is that they want us to be rather more independent as a party.

GUYON So you're moving away from Labour then?

JEANETTE We're moving away from saying we will automatically support Labour regardless, which is the way we went into the last election. Labour is still closer to us on policy than National is, but we still have to have that discussion and we have to see their policies, we'll make that decision on policy before the election.

GUYON Okay let me quote back to you something you said in your party conference in June, you said that the face of the National Party has changed with the departure of Don Brash, what we don’t know is whether the heart and the mind have. Do we know that now?

JEANETTE No I don’t think we will know that until National brings out its policies next year. We don’t know a lot about what Labour will be offering at the next election either.

GUYON You must be encouraged though a little bit, I mean John Key has set goals for climate change binding – or at least targets, he's got numbers there, you might have hear Murray McCully on this show last week talking about National's foreign policy and how it looks to be more multilateral and following Labour there, you must be encouraged to a degree by the new National Party.

JEANETTE I think it's good for New Zealand when anybody moderates the sort of extreme policies that National had under Don Brash and it is good to see those things happening and we still don’t know the full story and we'll have to wait quite a while longer to know that, but you know this long term target they have for climate change that’s a target that my grandson will have to deliver on. He'll be 45 in 2050, that’s too late, we've gotta have action in the next ten years or it will be too late.

GUYON Would it be fair to say that a deal with National's more likely now than it has ever been since you’ve been in parliament?

JEANETTE Oh I don’t want to talk about deals with National or anybody else at this moment. The key thing for us is the Green Party is an independent party pursuing its goals of sustainability and fairness, the real question is which of the two big parties will move closer to us, we're not like some kind of handbag that goes round chasing big parties to attach ourselves to somebody else, we want to see who's going to support our policies.

GUYON Well let's talk about one of the big parties that slipping in the polls, why do you think Labour is slipping?

JEANETTE I think Labour has failed to give New Zealanders a vision for the future that they can believe in, and a path towards that vision. I actually think the vision that could save Labour is one of sustainability, of bringing our economy into tune with the natural environment and the resources that we depend on, and they kind of go there in the rhetoric but there's no clear path forward that they're following to get us there.

GUYON Do you think that they can form the next government?

JEANETTE I think it's too soon to tell, I don’t see why not, but a year is a very long time in politics. One thing I have learned from all the elections I've been involved in is the way the polls are a year and a bit before the election is not much of a reflection of what they're going to be at election time. So I think the question is still open.

RAWDON We're joined now by our panel, Brent Edwards and Chris Niesche. Before the break we were talking about the Greens view of the government and climate change. Chris it seems that the Greens aren’t particularly happy with the government at this stage.

CHRIS NIESCHE – Business Editor, NZ Herald
No they're not, but I was interested to hear Jeanette say that they will no longer unconditionally support Labour, but Jeanette I would have thought you have no choice, I would have thought your members would not swallow the Greens parliamentary wing supporting a National Party government?

JEANETTE Well that’s what we'll have to find out in the discussion process that is just beginning around the party, it may not be that the Greens hold the key to which side governs, it may be a question of what kind of relationship you have with whoever does govern, I mean there a lot more options than many people think about at this stage.

CHRIS I guess so but if the cards do fall that way, if the Greens are the kingmaker then can you really support National and would your members accept that if you tipped National into power instead of Labour?

JEANETTE We will have to see what the policies are closer to the time, we will put our policies out really clearly before the election, we will be challenging the other parties to see who can move closest to them, and that’s really all I can say at this stage.

RAWDON Does that mean you'd abstain on National government, remain mutual potentially?

JEANETTE It doesn’t mean any particular outcome at this stage until we've had the discussion.

BRENT EDWARDS – Political Editor, RNZ
I just wonder what sorts of conversations you have with the government at the moment because I think from Labour's perspective they see the Greens as just simply being too ambitious and unrealistic that Labour sees it as trying to make a deal that will stick, get the numbers that politically you can make achievements whether it be on climate change or some of the other issues that matter to the Greens, but that you don’t – you're not realistic enough about seeing where the support is, how far you can go.

JEANETTE I don’t think it's unrealistic to want a future for our grandchildren and that’s what it comes down to. When we're looking at climate change we've got ten years to make a difference and while New Zealand is very small if we were to take a strong lead and really change the way we did things in our economy that would have a huge impact on other countries watching, so I don’t believe it's unrealistic or too ambitious to want to reverse this suicidal mission that we're on and head in a sane and sustainable direction.

RAWDON Isn't that what we're doing I mean China yesterday on the news wires were embracing enthusiastically climate change being on the agenda at APEC, I mean that’s surely a hugely positive sign.

JEANETTE It's very positive in the case of China, what worries me about APEC is that what is being discussed in terms of that leaked communiqué is the US agenda which is no binding targets, no numbers some aspirational goals and you measure your success in terms of how much you’ve reduced the amount of energy you use to produce a unit of GDP, which means that if your GDP's gonna keep on doubling every 20 years or so then there is no way you will ever get your emissions down.

BRENT And how worried too because I think John Howard earlier this week in his speech lined out his sort of view on climate change and wants the APEC leaders to sign up to some sort of arrangement or agreement where they look also at the role technology can play and he specifically mentions nuclear power.

JEANETTE Well Kyoto was always about providing the opportunities for technology to help out, I mean Kyoto is an international cap in trade system whereby by embracing new technologies you get the opportunity to reduce your emissions and therefore the cost to you economy, so talking about technology is actually a red herring, what they actually mean is more use of coal with some attempt to capture and store the carbon from coal which is completely unproven, probably uneconomic and if it does ever work it won't even start to happen for ten years by which time that window of opportunity is closed. We've actually got to tackle the way we use energy now, New Zealand is still importing vehicles that use three times as much energy as they need to to go 100 kilometres. I mean there are a whole lot of really simple things we need to do that not even talking about not using cars we could still make some really big gains, then of course we could use cars rather more sensibly and less than we do. We're not even taking those steps at the moment.

RAWDON Ms Fitzsimons thank you for that. Guyon, Greens holding all the cards?

GUYON Well I think it's interesting I mean just how cautious Jeanette Fitzsimons is being about her options, I think we're really in a holding phase because the Greens are waiting to see what flesh is put on the bones of Labour's aspirational climate change policies, what's the details going to be like and what are National's policies going to be like, so I think you're in a bit of a holding phase there. I mean Chris's point's very interesting, could the Green membership actually stomach the party going with National ultimately, that would be a pretty hard move, but I think we're just really in a holding phase waiting for what the policies are going to look like before the Greens make up their mind.

RAWDON Great, thank you very much Guyon.

RAWDON One of the big international stories this week is Iran expanding its nuclear programme and President Bush warning of a holocaust. Visiting New Zealand right now is one of the world's leading experts on the nuclear threat, he's Dr Hans Blix the man made famous a few years ago as the Chief UN Inspector who announced he could find no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. America chose to ignore him and went ahead with their invasion with disastrous consequences. Earlier I spoke with Dr Blix and asked him whether before he went into Iraq, he thought he would find those weapons.

DR HANS BLIX – Disarmament Diplomat
Around 2000 I like everybody else thought there were weapons of mass destruction, because of the way that the Iraqis had behaved towards the inspectors, they stopped them at various installations and we thought if they stop them it must be because they want to hide something. So even 2002 even in the early part of 2003 I thought very likely there were weapons of mass destruction, but when I was asked about it I said I'm not hear to tell you my gut feelings I am there to inspect, and that’s what we did, and that’s what we told the Security Council about.

RAWDON And you had that gut feeling in spite of regular visits through the 80s and the 90s into Iraq you still had that gut feeling?

DR BLIX Well you see is was the head of the International Atomic Energy in 1997 and there we were convinced that we understood the whole nuclear programme and that we had eliminated all the infrastructure, so in 97 I said and in 98 … that there is no infrastructure to date to produce nuclear weapons and the Americans believed it, even in 2000 – well before the 9/11 I think the Americans including the Conservatives the … believed there were no nuclear weapons but 9/11 changed them and strengthened their determination that they wanted to take out Saddam Hussein for a variety of reasons.

RAWDON And instilled a lot of doubt internationally. So you were sent in to try and look for or to find weapons of destruction because there's a definitive difference as we now know isn't there?

DR BLIX Yeah there were a lot of weapons like chemical weapons that were unaccounted for and the US would perceive that as yes if they're unaccounted for they exist, well that of course is not logical, they might exist or they might not and I said so in the Security Council and warned about it. In addition of course we warned the Security Council that we had carried out some 700 inspections at 500 different sites, including some three dozen sites that had been given to us by intelligence, without finding anything. So the evidence that they had brought forward was crumbling and our evidence from being there for many many inspections was strengthening that the likelihood was that there were no weapons.

RAWDON What sort of pressure was this putting on you?

DR BLIX Well we were professionals, we were mandated by the Security Council, not just by the United States but the whole Security Council to be international civil servants, and that’s what we were. We didn’t tell the Council what they should do, they were the policy makers, we simply said this is our job and here you have the result of the professional inspections.

RAWDON You ended up by accusing the US and British governments of dramatising the threat from WMD in order to proactivate the war, that was a pretty brave move wasn’t it?

DR BLIX Well I did that after the war, after they'd started, it was not my job to tell them before the war it was the Security Council … to do so, but I think that it was a war that should never have taken place. The Security Council refused to authorise it and I think our inspections at least had that effect that the majority of the UN, the majority of the Security Council wanted inspections to continue and had we continued for the rest of the Spring of 2003 we would have been able to go to all the sites given to us by intelligence and we would have said that there is nothing and that would have made it harder to start the war.

RAWDON You are still heavily involved in nuclear commissions, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission is a commission which you chair, where do your concerns lie now, obviously not in Iraq itself?

DR BLIX No, well here is the baby of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. A report that we submitted to the UN on the 1st of June in the last year, and this is sort of overview a road map to disarmament. We have the feeling that 70 years after the end of the Cold War it is absurd that we now have another arms race, and Gore has told us that with one inconvenient truth about climate change, but Koffee Annan began to talk about the sleepwalking into new arms races and that’s where we are, the Brits have decided on a Trident the nuclear Trident programme to continue, the US … station wants to have another standard nuclear weapon, the North Koreans have tested a device, the Chinese have shot off one of their weather satellites and the Russians are making more nuclear missiles. So we have a race going on.

RAWDON And are the Iranians in this race?

DR BLIX Well that’s questionable whether they are, I mean many people suspect that they will because of the secrecy and that they will use an enrichment capability also to make a weapon. It may be that they haven’t made up their mind, they may say that well if we have if we have enrichment capability of industrial scale then we are two years closer to a bomb if we were to decide it.

RAWDON So they can make a bomb?

DR BLIX If they have industrial scale capability for enrichment then they would have the material they could make the bomb within a couple of years. They will be two years closer perhaps to a nuclear weapon and that’s why my commission also finds it desirable to dissuade the Iranians from moving further on to enrichment and rather rely upon imported enriched uranium. But this is a diplomatic negotiation, I think that the waving of the sticks or three American aircraft carriers in the Gulf is more counterproductive than anything else. They might tell themselves well look this shows we need a weapon to protect ourselves.

RAWDON What about someone like George Bush saying that Iran could plunge the Middle East into a nuclear holocaust?

DR BLIX Well the US could also plunge it into a holocaust and Bush himself says that all the options are on the table, and if you say that all options are on the table doesn’t it also that you include the nuclear option. I don’t know I haven’t heard the Iranians say that, they Iranians say that we do not want to have enrichment for any other purpose than fuel for our reactors and we cannot rely upon anybody else to deliver fuel, we see what the Russians did to the Ukrainians in the gas area, so how could we rely upon anybody, that’s what they are saying. Nevertheless tension is arising with the Iranian programme and therefore it's desirable to find diplomatic ways out, not threatening them with weapons because I think that will if anything strengthen the hardliners.

RAWDON But diplomatically it seems to me that that is America removing themselves from the area which leaves this vacuum which Achmenidijad wants to fill.

DR BLIX I think they have other cards to play and I think it's very instructive to look at the negotiations with North Korea where I think the US has been doing very well in the last few years. They are saying to the North Koreans look you don’t need nuclear weapons, we are going to assure you we are not going to invade you and we will not try to replace your regime, although we dislike it we think it's pretty horrible, so don’t need the nuclear weapons and secondly if you come along and if you do away with all this we will also have diplomatic relations with you, we don’t like you but we'll have diplomatic relations and you will have relations with Japan. Now what about a year on – we don’t hear anything of that, they're not saying to the Iranians that if you stop the enrichment endeavours then we will give you a promise that we will detect you. The Iranians remember that Mosadek was removed by the CIA in 1953 so such an assurance would be of use, then also say to the Iranians that look if we have an agreement then we will have diplomatic relations as they said with North Korea, Is it harder to have diplomatic relations with Iran than with North Korea? Here are two vital chips that they're not using that, whether it would work I cannot promise you but I certainly think that they should be there on the table, or somewhere near the table.

RAWDON So there's still a lot of muscle flexing going on but not a lot of progress?

DR BLIX I think so, I think the view at Washington maybe divided, there are some of those who want to wave their sticks all the time and there are others who are more bent on diplomacy.

RAWDON Brent he's been very generous to Iran, does that surprise you?

BRENT Oh not really in a way but I think Iran does remain a problem simply because of the regime that’s there and the uncertainty, but I think he makes the point equally the United States and its possible response remains a problem, I think with the present George Bush saying that all options are on the table there are real concerns. Will the US make the same mistake or an even worse mistake than they’ve made in Iraq. Now if they did with Iran I mean that could actually cause huge problems in that region.

RAWDON And we're seeing this more and more in the media, people discussing the fact we've got 18 more months of George Bush, is he cornered, the amount of power he has, is that a frightening prospect?

CHRIS It is, judging by past form, Hans Blix may be pushing a diplomatic solution here but judging on what we've seen from this administration in Iraq we'll just keep our fingers crossed for the next 18 months I think.

RAWDON Is diplomacy with Iran completely out of the question or is this how we've been sort of led to think about Iran through our own western media?

BRENT Oh I think diplomacy isn't out of the question, I think there is a real cultural misunderstanding about Iran I don’t think many of us in the west would see that regime as a particularly good regime, against it's own people it can be quite brutal, but I think there are opportunities to talk and those need to be taken rather than I think at the moment with the rhetoric with Bush it's let's not talk we'll take action.

RAWDON Fair enough.

RAWDON Let's touch back on what Jeanette Fitzsimons was saying. Do you think the Greens have been delivering to their supporters?

CHRIS Yeah it's hard to say actually, more than anyone else has I guess, which is sort of an obvious think to say, where else can Green supporters go if you sort of care about the environment you're passionate about the environment and you want someone to do something then really you’ve gotta go with the Greens haven’t you?

RAWDON Sure what about you know I mean Jeanette Fitzsimons yesterday in her press release she was saying she was shocked to see New Zealand had joined Russia, it's shameful to see New Zealand wanting to use the New Zealand's actions in Vienna make a mockery of the government, this is strong language isn't it considering she wasn’t really going to commit to standing up against the Labour government today?

BRENT Well there have been growing tensions actually between the Greens and Labour for some time now. I think the Green Party as Jeanette I think really referred to, are getting frustrated that there's quite a lot of rhetoric from Labour but so far they haven’t seen any real action on climate change, and as I say on the other side Labour are frustrated with the Greens because they believe the Greens aren’t politically realistic enough about what can be achieved, that Labour sees itself as getting the deals that it can to move the issue forward. But I think the Greens in that sense politically are delivering to their supporters because they won't compromise their beliefs, they will support Labour as far as they can but not in terms of compromising their beliefs particularly around climate change and they bring real fervour to that issue that perhaps you don’t see from Labour.

RAWDON Chris, you're a business specialist, what do the Greens bring to the business community?

CHRIS I don’t think they bring anything to be honest. I don’t think the business community would have much time for the Greens at all, I can't think of a policy of theirs that the business community would like. Buy New Zealand Made I guess is sort of not too bad but you know that really feeds in from their dislike of free trade.

RAWDON What about the businesses themselves taking on the responsibility to tackle the climate change issue?

CHRIS Well I guess with carbon trading some businesses are gonna be taking on that responsibility.

RAWDON Increasingly, obviously?

CHRIS Yeah well they’ll have to. Large emitters and so on and large users of power will have to get into carbon trading and work out a way and then there will be market incentives for those businesses to reduce their emissions.

RAWDON Isn't Jeanette Fitzsimons wanting to offer that though to businesses, to get targets specific targets so that businesses are well I guess forced into approaching the situation properly or responsibly?

CHRIS I guess so I guess from the point of view of some business though they would be concerned about how realistic those targets were.

RAWDON Fair enough. What do you think we're gonna see out of APEC as far as climate change goes?

BRENT Well I'm not quite sure really, I mean the interesting thing is that they are discussing it, it's on the agenda and in fact is really put up as the number one issue on the agenda where go back two years it wasn’t there at all, last year it wasn’t on the agenda but the Prime Minister Helen Clark took credit for getting it discussed and now it's been put on the agenda, so that is a plus but I think that Jeanette Fitzsimons probably does have some genuine fears about the politics around it and will the United States and Australia are they going to use it to try and undermine the sort of push for the more specific targets, more concrete targets around climate change. So there'll be a lot of debate and particularly I think with John Howard he was pushing quite strongly the idea of nuclear power as a way of helping combat climate change, I'll be very interested to see Helen Clark's response to that next weekend.

RAWDON Brent, Chris thank you for that.

ENDS

© Scoop Media