JUST BEFORE HE FLEW OUT, AND I BEGAN BY ASKING ABOUT HIS TRIP TO CHINA. CHINA IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE WITH SOME OF THE G20 CLIMATE MINISTERS. WE'VE GOT A BIG AGENDA OUT THERE. I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO BE SPEAKING ON ONE OF THE SESSIONS AROUND CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ADAPTATION, OBVIOUSLY A KEY AREA OF PASSION AND FOCUS FOR ME AS THE NEW CLIMATE MINISTER, BUT ALSO A KEY PRIORITY FOR OUR GOVERNMENT, AND SHARING SOME OF THE EXPERIENCES THAT NEW ZEALAND HAS HAD, IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS AND A NEED FOR AN OVERARCHING NATIONAL FRAMEWORK. AND I'LL BE SHARING SOME OF THAT WITH OTHER COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD. VERY GOOD. I WANTED TO START WITH A REALLY BASIC QUESTION. NEW ZEALAND MAKES UP A TINY FRACTION OF GLOBAL EMISSIONS. WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DO YOU THINK WE HAVE TO REDUCE THEM? LOOK, AS CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTER ` AND I'VE BEEN IN THE ROLE EIGHT MONTHS ` I TAKE THIS JOB VERY SERIOUSLY. WE ARE PART OF A GOVERNMENT THAT IS COMMITTED TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE TARGETS THAT WE HIT. AND WHILE, AT A TECHNICAL LEVEL, OUR CONTRIBUTION IN TERMS OF NUMBERS IS SMALL, OUR IMPACT IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND SET AN EXAMPLE IS SIGNIFICANT. AND AGRICULTURE IS AN AREA, PARTICULARLY, WHERE NEW ZEALAND WILL BE THE COUNTRY THAT WILL BE LEADING THE CHARGE IN HOW WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK EMISSIONS. AND THAT IS A BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR US. OFTEN CLIMATE CAN BE SEEN AS A NEGATIVE. IT'S ALL GLOOM AND DOOM. ACTUALLY, NEW ZEALAND HAS A SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY TO MEET OUR EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS, BUT ALSO USE BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION, RESEARCH, WHICH WE'RE VERY, VERY GOOD AT, TO ACTUALLY HELP SUPPORT OUR ECONOMY AND GROW OUR ECONOMY. AND I THINK WE CAN GET BOTH. UNDER THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT, THE DRAFT EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN HAD NEW ZEALAND HITTING ITS TARGETS IN 2035, HITTING THE TARGETS AGAIN IN 2050. YOUR EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN HAS NEW ZEALAND MISSING BOTH OF THOSE TARGETS ` MISSING THE TARGET IN 2035, MISSING NET ZERO IN 2050. IN SIMPLE TERMS, WHY IS THE EMISSIONS PICTURE WORSE THAN IT WAS A YEAR AGO? YEAH, LET'S UNPICK THE KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRIOR PLANS AND THE NEW PLANS. WHAT IS CLEAR IS THAT ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE INCREASE IN EMISSIONS PROFILE ARE THROUGH THINGS THAT ARE OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT CONTROL. SO THAT'S THE CHANGES IN THE WAY IN WHICH EMISSIONS ARE MEASURED THROUGH THE MODELLING, ETC.. TIWAI POINT AS WELL. TIWAI POINT STAYING IN PLAY. OBVIOUSLY THE LAST GOVERNMENT ASSUMED THAT WOULD BE GONE. WHAT ABOUT THAT OTHER THIRD? THE OTHER THIRD IS RELATED TO POLICY POSITION CHANGES. AND IF WE LOOK AT THE PERIOD ENDING 2030, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT HAS FOCUSED AROUND DELIVERING, THE IMPLICATIONS THERE IS WE'VE TAKEN STUFF AWAY FROM THE PRIOR GOVERNMENT ` WE'VE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT THAT ` AND WE'VE ADDED OTHER STUFF IN. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE HIGHER EMISSIONS LEADING UP TO 2030 BECAUSE OF YOUR GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE... IS THAT ACCURATE? IS IS THAT ACCURATE? WHAT IS ACCURATE IS... LET ME ASK, IS THAT ACCURATE? WILL NEW ZEALAND HAVE HIGHER EMISSIONS THAN WE WOULD HAVE UNDER THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT UNDER YOUR GOVERNMENT IN THE PERIOD LEADING TO 2030? WHAT IS ACCURATE IS TO SAY THAT THE EMISSIONS PROFILE AND THE PLAN THAT WE HAVE PUT IN PLACE WILL ENABLE US TO MEET OUR BUDGETS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 2030. THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION I ASKED, THOUGH. THE QUESTION I ASKED IS, UNDER YOUR GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES, WILL OUR EMISSIONS LEADING UP TO 2030 BE HIGHER THAN THEY WOULD UNDER THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT? TECHNICALLY, IN THE REGION OF ABOUT 1.5 MEGATONS OF POINT OF DIFFERENCE BY THE END OF 2030. SO THEY WILL BE. YEAH. LET'S TALK AGRICULTURE. YOU'VE DELAYED PRICING FOR AGRICULTURAL EMISSIONS FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE ANNEXE IN YOUR EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN, HOW MUCH WILL THAT DECISION INCREASE ACTUAL EMISSIONS BY 2030? SO THE IMPLICATIONS AROUND DELAYING PRICING FROM 1ST OF JANUARY 2025 TO 2030 IS IN THE REGION OF 0.9 MEGATONS. TO PUT INTO CONTEXT THAT, TIWAI STAYING IN NEW ZEALAND IS 4.7 MEGATONS, RIGHT? SO 0.9 PLAYS 4.7. IT HAS A FACTOR. BUT THE OTHER FOCUS FOR US IS THE REALITY IS THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE FARMERS WITH THE TOOLS TO BE ABLE TO REDUCE EMISSIONS. PRICING ALONE WILL HAVE AN OUTCOME, WHICH IS DECIMATING, IN OUR VIEW, DECIMATING OUR AGRICULTURAL SECTOR. THAT IS A MAJOR DRIVER OF OUR ECONOMY. I WILL ASK YOU ABOUT THAT IN JUST A MOMENT, ABOUT THE TOOLS THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO FARMERS. SO, YOUR OWN ADVICE, YOUR OWN OFFICIAL ADVICE SAID THIS ABOUT DELAYING PRICING FOR AGRICULTURE ANOTHER FIVE YEARS. QUOTE, 'THERE IS LIMITED EVIDENCE ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS WHY SHOULD OTHER INDUSTRIES HAVE TO SUBSIDISE AGRICULTURE IN ORDER FOR NEW ZEALAND TO MEET ITS TARGET? WELL, THEY'RE NOT SUBSIDISING AGRICULTURE. AGRICULTURE IS THE BACKBONE OF OUR ECONOMY. BUT THEY WILL HAVE TO, THOUGH, RIGHT? NO, THE REALITY IS EVERYONE NEEDS TO PLAY THEIR PART. BUT OTHER SECTORS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SUBSIDISE AGRICULTURE. EVERY SECTOR NEEDS TO PLAY ITS PART. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IN REGARDS TO AGRICULTURE, FOR THAT INDUSTRY TO BE ABLE TO REDUCE EMISSIONS. I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I'LL ASK ABOUT THOSE IN A MOMENT, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT OTHER SECTORS HAVING TO PICK UP THE SLACK IF AGRICULTURE ISN'T PAYING ITS WAY. AND THIS IS WHAT YOUR OFFICIAL ADVICE SAYS OF COURSE ` QUOTE, 'IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER INTERVENTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT 'TO REDUCE EMISSIONS IN THE AG SECTOR, 'IT WILL MEAN OTHER SECTORS OF THE NEW ZEALAND ECONOMY 'WILL BE BEARING THE SHARE OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 'THAT SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE AG SECTOR.' WHAT YOU CAN SEE IN TERMS OF OUR PROJECTIONS FORWARD IS THAT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO GET A HOLD AND FIND SOLUTIONS TO EMISSIONS WITHIN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR ARE SIGNIFICANT. WE'VE GOT ESTIMATES AROUND SOME OF THOSE THINGS, WHETHER IT'S VACCINES OR WHETHER IT'S IN REGARDS TO FEED SUPPLEMENTS. SOME OF THAT IMPACT IN 2030 TO 2035 IS SIGNIFICANT, AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN INCLUDED THOSE NUMBERS AT ALL IN OUR MODELLING. SO, LOOK, THE REALITY IS` SO, LOOK, THE REALITY IS` LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE YOU DO MENTION THAT IN YOUR EMISSIONS BUDGET, OR IN YOUR EMISSIONS PLAN. YOU SAY THAT A METHANE INHIBITOR COULD BE AVAILABLE FOR DAIRY CATTLE IN 2027. WHAT IS THAT METHANE INHIBITOR? THERE IS A NUMBER OF THOSE EXAMPLES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN TRIALS. I HAVEN'T GOT THE EXACT NAME OF THAT PRODUCT, BUT WHAT I AM ADVISED... THERE'S A LOT OF HOPE BEING PUT IN THESE TECHNOLOGIES, SO YOU MUST KNOW THEM. I'LL GIVE YOU A FLAVOUR OF HOW THE PLAN WAS PUT TOGETHER. SORRY, NO, TALK TO ME ABOUT THE METHANE INHIBITORS. BECAUSE THIS IS THIS IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL, THOUGH. IT IS, AND WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY WILL ANSWER THAT. MINISTER MCCLAY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THE AGRICULTURAL CHAPTER OF THIS, ALONGSIDE FORESTRY, MINISTER BROWN FOR TRANSPORT AND ENERGY. BUT YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF OUR CLIMATE PATH AND OUR PATH TO EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS. SO SURELY YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGIES WHICH ARE CENTRAL TO REDUCING EMISSIONS IN OUR BIGGEST EMITTING SECTOR. GETTING INTO THE SPECIFICS, AGRIZERO, WHICH IS A PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP ENTITY FUNDED WITH GOVERNMENT MONEY, IS WORKING ON A NUMBER OF THESE PRODUCTS AT THE MOMENT. THERE IS ACTUALLY A NUMBER OF THESE IN TRIAL IN DEVELOPMENT PHASE. AND WHILE I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NAMES OF EACH ONE, THERE ARE A NUMBER. WE'VE GIVEN ECOPOND, WHICH IS AN EXAMPLE WITHIN OUR PLAN, WHICH IS AVAILABLE OUT THERE IN THE MARKET. I'M SPECIFICALLY ASKING ABOUT THE METHANE INHIBITORS, THOUGH, SORRY. BECAUSE THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERED THESE TECHNOLOGIES AS WELL. AND IN THEIR MOST RECENT ADVICE FROM LAST MONTH, THEY TALKED ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. SO THERE'S 3-NOP, WHICH IS A METHANE INHIBITOR, BUT THAT'S TARGETED AS A FEED SUPPLEMENT. AND OF COURSE, NEW ZEALAND PRIDES ITSELF ON PASTORAL FARMING, NOT ON FEEDING COWS OUT OF BUCKETS. THE OTHER ONE IS A SLOW-RELEASE BOLUS METHANE INHIBITOR. BUT HERE'S WHAT THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION SAYS. 'THERE IS A SLOW RELEASE BOLUS METHANE INHIBITOR IN 'THAT COULD BE BETTER SUITED TO REDUCING METHANE EMISSIONS 'FROM DOMESTIC DAIRY PRODUCTION.' SO THAT'S US. 'OUR EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT THESE MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE COMMERCIALLY 'UNTIL 2039.' SO MY QUESTION IS, WHY DOES YOUR EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN SUGGEST THAT THAT TECHNOLOGY COULD BE AVAILABLE 12 YEARS EARLIER? YEAH. WELL, THE ADVICE THAT WE'VE GOT AND WE'RE USING IN OUR PLAN IS BASED ON THE LATEST ADVICE FROM OFFICIALS IN MPI IN REGARDS TO THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE OUT THERE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH FEEDBACK FROM PLAYERS SUCH AS AGRIZERO AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS. THE EXAMPLE AROUND THE SUPPLEMENTS FOR COWS ` AND I COME OFF A FARMING BACKGROUND, SO I CAN TALK TO THIS ` IS THAT THE ABILITY FOR THE COWS TO CONSUME ONE OF THOSE SUPPLEMENTS WHILE THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE MILKING PROCESS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING TRIALLED AT THE MOMENT. THAT HAS SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT UPSIDE IN TERMS OF METHANE REDUCTION. BUT LET'S GET BACK TO THE CORE POINT HERE. NEW ZEALAND FARMERS HAVE THE ABILITY ` AND I BACK NEW ZEALAND FARMERS ` IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH THE SOLUTIONS TO WHAT IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL CHALLENGES IN CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH IS BIOGENIC METHANE AND REDUCING LIVESTOCK EMISSIONS. THERE IS NO OTHER COMMERCIALISATION OF SCALE IN THE WORLD TODAY. AND HENCE WHY WE SAY PRICING ALONE, IN ABSENCE OF INVESTMENT AND R&D, IS NOT A PRAGMATIC PATHWAY. WE NEED TO DO BOTH, AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO DOING BOTH. BUT THERE IS RISK THAT COMES WITH R&D, RIGHT? THERE'S RISK WHICH COMES WITH INNOVATION. BUT I TELL YOU WHAT. THE RISK OF DOING NOTHING, JACK. THE RISK OF DOING NOTHING` THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING AT THE MOMENT. NO, WE'RE NOT. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I MEAN, OUR EMISSIONS PRICING IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT HAS BEEN FOREVER WHEN IT COMES TO AGRICULTURE. WE'RE INVESTING $400 MILLION IN R&D COME UP WITH A SOLUTION AND A BREAKTHROUGH IN THE SPACE. THAT'S NOT DOING NOTHING. WHAT HAPPENS IF IT DOESN'T WORK? WELL, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT. DOING NOTHING WILL NOT WORK. AND WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PUTTING A NUMBER OF... WE'RE SPREADING OUR OPTIONS IN TERMS OF OPTIONS. MY QUESTION IS, WHAT HAPPENS IF IT DOESN'T WORK? WHAT IF THESE METHANE INHIBITORS DON'T WORK? WHAT IF THEY'RE SUITED TO FEEDLOT FARMING, AS OPPOSED TO PASTORAL FARMING, AND WE CAN'T REDUCE METHANE THROUGH TECHNOLOGY? YOU KNOW, THAT IS A SCENARIO THAT POTENTIALLY IS AT PLAY. BUT THE REALITY IS WE'RE EXPLORING A DIVERSE... AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN? WELL, HENCE IN OUR SCHEDULE WITHIN OUR PLAN, THERE'S NOT JUST ONE OPTION SITTING THERE. THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE OR FOUR OR DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT WE'VE NOTED. YOU ARE RELYING ON THAT OPTION. WELL, WE HAVE TO RELY ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. YOU'RE RELYING ON SOMETHING YOU'VE JUST ACKNOWLEDGED MIGHT NOT WORK. WELL, I THINK, AS YOU KNOW, WITH ANY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ` TAKE AWAY CLIMATE CHANGE, PUT THAT IN ANY CONTEXT ` THERE IS ALWAYS A DEGREE OF RISK AROUND THAT, RIGHT? AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S UNREASONABLE. EXCEPT THAT THIS IS, IN THE EYES OF SOME PEOPLE, AN EXTINCTION CRISIS. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE COUNTERFACTUAL, THEN, RIGHT? BECAUSE IF WE'RE DOING NOTHING IN REGARDS TO THAT, THEN THE ONLY SOLUTION IS WHAT'S PROPOSED BY SOME ON THE OTHERS, WHICH IS REDUCING THE DAIRY HERD, REDUCING SHEEP AND BEEF. AND 80% OF OUR ECONOMY IS DRIVEN BY EXPORTS FROM THAT SECTOR. SO THE CORRELATION OF THAT SOLUTION IS DECIMATION OF THE NEW ZEALAND ECONOMY. IT'S NOT EXACTLY DECIMATION, IS IT? IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO IT. I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS SUGGESTING THAT NEW ZEALAND HAS ZERO FARMING, FOR EXAMPLE. BUT THOSE EXPORT MARKETS THAT WE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT? GUESS WHAT. IF WE DON'T MEET OUR PARIS TARGETS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE EXPORTING TO THE EU, FOR EXAMPLE. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. IF WE'RE NOT EXPORTING DAIRY PRODUCT, SHEEP AND BEEF PRODUCTS FROM NEW ZEALAND TO THE WORLD AND MAKING REVENUE, WE'RE ALSO NOT PAYING FOR PUBLIC SERVICES THAT KIWIS NEED ABSOLUTELY. SO, YOU HAVE INSTRUCTED AN INDEPENDENT PANEL TO ADVISE ON A TARGET THAT WOULD MEAN NO ADDITIONAL HEATING. THIS IS REGARDING THE METHANE TARGETS FOR 2050. THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, SIMON UPTON, A FORMER NATIONAL CABINET MINISTER, WAS REALLY CRITICAL OF THAT 'NO ADDITIONAL HEATING' CONCEPT. HE SAID, 'NEW ZEALAND HAS A RESPONSIBILITY 'TO TAKE A LEADING ROLE IN MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE. 'IT'S DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN THE ARGUMENT 'THAT THE AMBITION OF THE AG SECTOR SHOULD BE TO MAINTAIN THE WARMING 'FROM ITS BIOGENIC METHANE EMISSIONS AT THE CURRENT LEVEL.' WHAT DOESN'T HE UNDERSTAND? WELL, LOOK, HE'S RIGHT TO SAY THAT WE DO NEED TO TAKE A LEAD, AND WE NEED TO CONSIDER OPTIONS AROUND THAT. AS PART OF THE COALITION AGREEMENT, WE HAD AGREEMENT TO UNDERTAKE THIS REVIEW. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING ` WE'RE UNDERTAKING THAT BY THE END OF THE YEAR, AND WE'LL TAKE ON BOARD THE RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND THAT. BUT WHAT WE CAN'T BE ACCUSED OF IS NOT DOING ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO REDUCING EMISSIONS FOR METHANE, FOR LIVESTOCK, WHICH IS THE KEY ASPECT ` WE'RE DOING BOTH. HIS ISSUE WAS WITH THE WITH THE 'NO ADDITIONAL HEATING' CONCEPT, THOUGH. SO WHY IS HE WRONG ON THAT POINT? LOOK, OUR POSITION AROUND THAT, WE'VE PUT TOGETHER A CREDIBLE PANEL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS. WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR WITH THAT PANEL TO TAKE ON BOARD ALL ADVICE THAT'S BEEN UNDERTAKEN BEFORE, INCLUDING THE ADVICE THROUGH FROM MR UPSTON AND ALSO IN REGARDS TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION AS WELL. WE WANT A REVIEW THAT TAKES ON BOARD THE LATEST EVIDENCE AND SCIENCE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO GOVERNMENT. THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO, AND WE'LL TAKE ON BOARD THAT AT THE END OF THE YEAR. LET'S TALK TRANSPORT, OUR SECOND HIGHEST EMISSIONS SECTOR. YOU HAVE RELAXED THE CLEAN CAR STANDARD. HOW MUCH IS THAT GOING TO COST US IN ADDITIONAL EMISSIONS BY 2030? SO, AROUND ABOUT 5.7 MEGATONS OF EMISSIONS IN THE EMISSIONS BUDGET ENDING 2030. THAT'S CLEAN CAR DISCOUNT AND THE GIDI FUND, SO IT'LL BE A SUBSET OF THAT. THE GIDI FUND ` JUST SO PEOPLE ARE WITH US HERE, THIS IS THE FUND THAT HELPS TO SUPPORT INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES TRANSITION FROM USING BIG BOILERS AND THAT KIND OF THING. THAT'S CORRECT, YES. AND SO WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED THAT. AND THEN THE IMPLICATIONS ON THAT IN 2035 ARE ALSO IN A SIMILAR RANGE. BUT WE HAVE INTRODUCED NEW POLICY INTERVENTIONS THAT WILL MITIGATE THAT IMPACT. AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THOSE IN TERMS OF DOUBLING RENEWABLES BY 2050. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF OTHER ASPECTS. WE'VE GOT CARBON CAPTURE. THEY THEY WON'T MITIGATE THEM BY 2030 THOUGH, RIGHT? BY 2030, AS I SAID RIGHT AT THE OPENING QUESTION, THERE IS A SMALL DIFFERENTIAL. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT 2035, ACTUALLY THE NEW INITIATIVES THAT THIS GOVERNMENT ARE PUTTING IN PLACE EXCEED THE IMPACT OF THE INITIATIVES WE'RE TAKING AWAY FROM THE LAST GOVERNMENT. EXCEPT, OF COURSE, YOU'RE NOT HITTING YOUR 2035 TARGETS, AND THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT WAS. AS I SAID, IF YOU HAD SOMEONE ELSE SITTING IN THIS SEAT FROM THE OTHER SIDE, THEY WOULD ALSO BE DEALING WITH THE IMPLICATIONS AROUND A NEGATIVE` BUT WE DON'T. WE'VE GOT YOU. - NO, BUT I'M SAYING THAT TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE CHANGES, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHO'S SITTING IN THERE, WOULD NOT BE IN CONTROL. AND A THIRD OF THE CHANGES ARE YOUR GOVERNMENT'S POLICIIES. THAT'S RIGHT. AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS` ONE OF YOUR FIRST MOVES AS A NEW GOVERNMENT WAS TO SCRAP THE CLEAN CAR DISCOUNT, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE CLEAN CAR STANDARD. HOW MUCH WILL THAT INCREASE OUR EMISSIONS BY 2030? I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER FOR THAT, IS IT 1.4 MEGATONS? WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE 5.7, IT'S INCLUDED WITHIN THAT. OK, SO YOU'VE GOT 1.4 MEGATONS, I THINK, FOR THE CLEAN CAR DISCOUNT, ANOTHER MEGATON FOR THE CLEAN CAR STANDARD. YOU TALKED ABOUT MITIGATING SOME OF THOSE POLICIES. OF COURSE, YOU ARE INTRODUCING FAST CHARGERS. SO HOW MANY EMISSIONS WILL YOU SAVE BY 2030 WITH THOSE 10,000 EV FAST CHARGERS? SO, THERE'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS REDUCTION ` ABOUT 0.1 MEGATON FOR THE EV CHARGING NETWORK. 0.01? 0.1. BUT THAT ISN'T A SIGNIFICANT ASPECT, BUT IT'S A KEY ENABLER IN TERMS OF RANGE ANXIETY THAT WE HAVE AND ARE AWARE OF. LET'S BE CLEAR, THE SUBSIDY THAT WAS BEING GIVEN OUT OF AROUND $7000 TO $8000 FOR PEOPLE TO BUY EV VEHICLES WAS A SIGNIFICANT COST OF ABATEMENT. AND WE'VE TAKEN A LOW-COST APPROACH IN TERMS OF THAT. WE ARE SEEING THAT ACTUALLY EV SALES ` AND I JUST HAD LOOK AT THE DATA THIS MORNING ` ARE STARTING TO INCREASE. SO WHAT ARE THE EV SALES? I THINK AT THE MOMENT THE LATEST DATA THAT I HAD FROM OFFICIALS WAS AROUND 8.9% SALES INCREASE. WHAT WERE THEY AT THE HIGHEST POINT UNDER THE PREVIOUS POLICY? I HAVEN'T GOT THAT NUMBER RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. ALMOST 20%. RIGHT. AND SO IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THIS YEAR, THINK SALES OF EVS SLUMPED 75% COMPARED TO LAST YEAR IN NEW ZEALAND. SO LESS THAN ONE IN 20 NEW CARS IN MARCH REGISTERED IN NEW ZEALAND WAS AN EV. SO YOU TANKED THAT MARKET OVERNIGHT. LET'S BE CLEAR ALSO, WHEN PEOPLE ARE FACING A DEFICIT AND A COST-OF-LIVING CRISIS, BUYING A CAR ISN'T THE BIG PRIORITY FOR A HOUSEHOLD BUDGET. AND SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF FACTORS AT PLAY HERE. BUT WHAT WE CAN SEE IS THAT EV SALES IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF THIS YEAR IS INCREASING. IF YOU COULDN'T AFFORD A PHONE OR A COMPUTER, A LAPTOP, WOULD YOU CARE IF I GAVE YOU FREE WIFI? WELL, I DON'T NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, SEE THAT. THE REALITY IS, IN THAT EXAMPLE, A LOT OF KIWIS HAVE GOT THOSE ASSETS. WOULD YOU CARE? SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU ARE INCENTIVISE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CLEAN CAR DISCOUNT TO NOW HAVE EASY CHARGING AS WELL. WHY ARE YOU INVESTING IN PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY BENEFITED FROM THIS? ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE CHALLENGES AROUND RANGE ANXIETY WITH EV VEHICLES ` I.E. THE INABILITY TO CHARGE THEIR VEHICLES IS A CONCERN WHEN THEY CHARGE THEIR VEHICLES. I UNDERSTAND RANGE ANXIETY. BUT THESE PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE VEHICLES. THEY'VE ALREADY BENEFITED FROM SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS IN SUBSIDY UNDER THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT, AND NOW YOU'RE GIVING THEM FAST CHARGING AS WELL. NO, NO. WHEN SOMEONE IS CONSIDERING BUYING AN EV VEHICLE TODAY, ONE OF THEIR ISSUES AND CONCERNS IS AROUND AN INABILITY TO CHARGE, KNOWING THAT THIS GOVERNMENT IS INVESTING IN THAT CHARGING NETWORK BETWEEN NOW AND 2030 IS A POSITIVE. AND WE'RE NOT THE ONLY GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD LOOKING AT THIS. NO, BUT YOU WERE LOOKING TO OFFSET THE CLEAN-CAR DISCOUNT IN SOME WAY, SO NOT COMPLETELY, BUT WITH THIS POLICY. I NOTICE THAT 80% OF PEOPLE CHARGE THEIR EVS AT HOME THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME. SO THAT'S WHO WE'RE CHOSING TO INVEST IN. GROSS VS NET ` THIS A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED IN YOUR EMMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN. SO I WANT TO TALK TREES. YOUR PLAN RELIES HEAVILY ON PLANTING MORE EXOTIC PINE FORESTS TO OFFSET EMMISSIONS. THAT INCREASES THE RISK OF POTENTIAL WILDFIRES AND SLASH PROBLEMS, LIKE WE'VE EXPERIENCED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. AND PERHAPS EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT PERMANENTLY LOCKS UP LAND. WHAT DOES IT SHOW THAT YOUR LEADERSHIP THAT SHIFTS THE BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY ON TO FUTURE GENERATIONS? ONE THIRD IS COMING FROM FORESTRY. WE HAVE BEEN CLEAR IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT FORESTRY WILL CONTINUE TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME. THERE WAS UNCERTAINTY, AND WE HAVE LOCKED IT IN. WE ARE COGNITIVE OF GROSS EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND REMOVALS. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE P PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT HAD GREATER REDUCTIONS. IN REGARDS TO WHAT IS THE POINT OF DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF FORESTRY, IT IS NOT JUST EXOTICS. THERE IS A LOT AROUND NATIVES, BIODIVERSITY, WETLANDS. WE ARE BROADENING THAT OUT. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONCERNS AROUND MORE EXOTIC FORESTRY, PARTICULARLY ON PRODUCTIVE FARMLAND. NATIVES TAKE A LONG TIME TO GROW. HARDER TO GROW THAN PINE. IT DOESN'T STOP AT 2050. WHAT LIMITS ARE THERE ON THE NUMBER OF CARBON CREDITS IN PINE? WE ARE LOOKING AT RESTRICTIONS IN PLANTING TREES ON PRODUCTIVE FARMLAND. WE ARE LOOKING AT THE IMPLICATION THAT COULD HAVE, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU SET THOSE LIMITS, ON WHAT GOES INTO THE ETS. TO BE CLEAR, YOU ARE CONSIDERING IMPOSING LIMITS ON PINE BASED PART CARBON CREDITS. FOR NEW FORESTS GOING IN, NOT EXISTING. FOR THOSE LOOKING TO PLANT IN THE FUTURE, WE ARE LOOKING AT WHERE THOSE TREES ARE PLANTED AND BASING RESTRICTIONS ON PLANTING. RESTRICTIONS ON CARBON CREDITS? THE ABILITY FOR THOSE TO BE WITHIN THE ETS. NEW ZEALAND IS THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE OECD ALLOWING EFFECTIVELY UNLIMITED TREEPLANTING. NEW ZEALAND HAS ALWAYS HAD THAT POSITION. IT IS A COMBINATION OF FORESTRY AND REMOVALS. AND GROSS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS. I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THAT TRAJECTORY. WE HAVE A HUGE OPPORTUNITY IN NEW ZEALAND AND THE BIODIVERSITY SPACE, WHICH WE HAVE BROUGHT IN AS PART OF OUR STRATEGY. WE HAVE A HUGE CONSERVATION ESTATE. WE HAVE A HUGE AMOUNT OF FORESTRY THAT HAVE MANAGED APPROPRIATELY CAN BE USED AS A VALUE DRIVER TO MEET EMISSIONS AS WELL. IS A COUNTRY THAT HAS AN ABUNDANCE OF NATURAL RESOURCES, WE HAVE TO USE THAT TO OUR ADVANTAGE AND SHOW OTHER COUNTRIES HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE. FUTURE GENERATIONS ` THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN A CLOSET WITH THEIR CONCERNS AROUND PINE FORESTS BEYOND 2050. IT WILL BE THE RESPONSE ABILITY OF FUTURE GENERATIONS TO MAINTAIN THOSE PINE FOREST. YOU ARE LEAVING THEM NO CHOICE. THEY CAN'T CHOOSE TO USE THAT LAND FOR SOMETHING ELSE ONCE FORESTS HAVE BEEN PLANTED, BECAUSE OF THE MASSIVE EMISSIONS COMPLICATIONS. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE CHALLENGE HENCE WHY OUR DISCUSSION DOCUMENT INCLUDES ELEMENTS AROUND AFFORESTATION FOR NATIVES. IT IS IN ONE OR THE OTHER. IT SHIFTS THE BURDEN ONTO FUTURE GENERATIONS. IT IS CHANGING THE MIX OF FORESTRY. YOU STILL HAVE A MASSIVE INCENTIVE FOR PINE. THEY GROW SO QUICKLY. TO MY POINT, THIS WILL BE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO DEAL WITH. THE LAND IS LOCKED UP. THERE IS NO ONE SILVER BULLET TO ACHIEVING REDUCTIONS. YOU HAVE TO ATTACK IT ON MULTIPLE FRONTS. WE ARE TAKING A LOWEST COST PATHWAY TO ACHIEVE THAT. ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE. FORESTRY IS A COMPONENT OF THAT, NOT JUST EXOTICS BUT ALSO NATIVES. THAT ARE SENSIBLE, BECAUSE THE CLIMATE DOESN'T ONLY COUNT STUFF FROM EXOTICS. WE ARE JUST SAYING, LET'S NOT PICK WINNERS. FUTURE GENERATIONS ARE NOT WINNERS THROUGH THIS STRATEGY. THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. ONCE IT IS THERE, THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING, BECAUSE IF THEY CUT IT DOWN THERE ARE IMPLICATIONS. LET'S GET BACK TO BASICS. THE PLAN IS A CONSULTATION. IT MEETS THE BUDGETS BY 2030. AFTER THE BREAK, THE BAN ON OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION HAS NOW BEEN REVERSED ` WHAT WILL IT MEAN FOR NET-ZERO 2050? HOKI MAI, WELCOME BACK. IN PUTTING TOGETHER ITS EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN, THE GOVERNMENT HAS EMPHASISED ITS COMMITTED TO NET REDUCTIONS, AND IT SEES A BIG ROLE FOR CARBON PRICING. THE ETS IS GOING TO PLAY A MASSIVE ROLE, THE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME, IN YOUR STRATEGY GOING FORWARD. WHAT DO YOU THINK NEEDS TO CHANGE ABOUT THE ETS IN ORDER TO MAKE IT SUFFICIENTLY STRONG IN ORDER TO HIT OUR FUTURE TARGETS? - THREE KEY THINGS. ONE IS AROUND THE FACT THAT THE SECTOR HAS SAID THEY NEED TO SEE A CLEAR POLICY FORWARD LOOK AROUND WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL DO AND WHAT IT WON'T DO. THAT'S CLEARLY WITHIN THE DISCUSSION DOCUMENT, AND I'VE HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SECTOR. TWO, WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING THROUGH SOME UNIT SETTINGS WORK THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE CONSIDERING. WE'VE GOT CLIMATE CHANGE ADVICE AROUND THAT, WE'LL MAKE THOSE DECISIONS LATER THIS YEAR. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO, BASICALLY, IT'S A NUMBER OF AUCTION UNITS THAT WE AUCTION EACH YEAR. WE'RE SIMPLY LOOKING AT HOW MANY OF THOSE DOES THE GOVERNMENT AUCTION. THIS IS A SUPPLY CONVERSATION. WE MAY LOOK TO REDUCE THE NUMBER THAT WE AUCTION, AND IF WE DO THAT, THAT HAS IMPLICATIONS OR WE MAY LEAVE IT UNCHANGED. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING. SO THE PRICE COULD RISE? THERE IS A SCENARIO WHERE YOU REDUCE` IT'S SUPPLY AND DEMAND. YOU REDUCE SUPPLY, DEMAND STAYS THE SAME, THE PRICE GOES UP. THE PRICE NEEDS TO GO UP, RIGHT, IN ORDER FOR US TO HIT THOSE TARGETS? SO I DON'T COMMENT ON PRICES AS A MINISTER, BUT I DO WANT TO ENSURE, AND WE'VE BEEN CLEAR AS A COALITION GOVERNMENT, THAT WE'VE GOT CREDIBLE MARKETS IN THIS SPACE. AND THE THIRD THING IS AROUND MARKET GOVERNANCE. AND SO WE ARE LOOKING AT WORK AROUND THAT, THAT'S MAKING SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THE BELTS AND BRACES AROUND THE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME TO ENSURE THAT WE'VE GOT GOOD GOVERNANCE AROUND THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE THIRD PILLAR THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH AT THE MOMENT. DOES THE MODELLING IN THE SECOND EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ANALYSIS BY MBIE AS TO THE EMISSIONS IMPACT OF OVERTURNING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION BAN? YEAH. AND SO THE IMPLICATIONS, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS OF THE PRIOR GOVERNMENT AND THIS GOVERNMENT, IT HAD` EVEN THOUGH THE PRIOR GOVERNMENT HAD A BAN ON OIL AND GAS, THE MODELLING` EXPLORATION. EXPLORATION. THE MODELLING OF THE UNDERPINNING EMISSIONS HAD AN UNRESTRICTED ASSUMPTION WITHIN IT AND SO THAT IS UNCHANGED IN TERMS OF OUR MODELLING. THE IMPLICATION AROUND THAT IS` WILL CHANGE OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME. OBVIOUSLY WE'RE AT A CONVERSATION STAGE AT THE MOMENT, BUT YOU KNOW, BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES AROUND WHY ARE WE DOING THAT, WE'RE DOING THAT BECAUSE COAL PRODUCES TWICE THE AMOUNT OF EMISSIONS, THAN NATURAL GAS. YEAH. AND THE REALITY IS, IS BY STOPPING NATURAL GAS EXPLORATION, WE'RE HAVING TO IMPORT COAL THAT'S TWICE AS BAD FOR OUR CLIMATE THAN GAS. GAS IS A TRANSITIONAL MECHANISM AS WE DOUBLE RENEWABLES AND ALLOW THAT TO PLAY ITS PART. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE DEALING WITH A SCENARIO WHERE THE BANNING OF OIL AND GAS HAS MEANT THAT WE'VE HAD TO IMPORT COAL, AND THAT IS NOT GOOD FOR OUR CLIMATE OR THE GLOBE. SO MBIE SAYS REVERSING THAT BAN COULD COST US 51 MEGATONS IN EXTRA EMISSIONS BY 2050. YEAH, THAT'S OUT TO 2050 IN TERMS OF THAT EMISSIONS PROFILE. THAT'S HUGE THOUGH. LOOK, IT IS THAT, BUT THAT UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION THAT WAS UNDER THE PRIOR PLANS AS WELL. EVEN WITH OUR DOMESTIC POLICIES, IN ORDER TO MEET OUR 2030 TARGETS, WE ARE FACING POTENTIALLY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN OFFSHORE CREDITS. AND THIS WAS EXACTLY THE SAME UNDER THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT, OF COURSE. I'VE GOT A LINE HERE FROM THE CLIMATE COMMISSION, QUOTE, 'FULFILLING THESE COMMITMENTS WILL INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT COST 'TO THE GOVERNMENT, STARTING WITH THE CURRENT FISCAL FORECAST PERIOD.' THIS CURRENT FISCAL FORECAST PERIOD. YEAH. SO WHERE IN YOUR GOVERNMENT'S BUDGET WOULD I FIND THE ALLOCATION FOR THOSE CREDITS? LOOK, IT'S NOT CURRENTLY LISTED AS A LIABILITY. IT WASN'T LISTED AS A LIABILITY UNDER THE PRIOR GOVERNMENT. MINISTER WILLIS AND I HAVE REQUESTED ADVICE FROM TREASURY EARLY IN OUR TERM IN REGARDS TO WHAT'S THE LATEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE. TREASURY'S POSITION ON THIS IS THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THE THRESHOLD FOR LIABILITY. BUT LET'S BE REALLY CLEAR. THE NDC TARGETED 2030, WHICH IS OUR PARIS AGREEMENT TARGET, WHICH WE INHERITED AND WAS SIGNED BY THE PRIOR GOVERNMENT, IS A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE. I'VE BEEN VERY UPFRONT IN THE DOCUMENT AROUND THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THAT CHALLENGE AND THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT 77 MONTHS` ARE WE GOING TO HIT IT? WE'VE GOT 77 MONTHS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. ARE WE GOING TO HIT IT? WE CURRENTLY DID NOT` WE DIDN'T INHERIT A VIABLE PLAN TO HIT THAT TARGET. BUT I HAVE` ARE NOW CURRENTLY WORKING WITH MY COLLEAGUE MINISTERS AROUND WHAT OPTIONS WE HAVE AVAILABLE. IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE. THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE WE'RE GOING TO HIT IT. WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON THE OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US AS A GOVERNMENT TO DEAL WITH THAT. BUT THAT IS A SITUATION` WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPLICATIONS, THE INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS, IF NEW ZEALAND WAS TO MISS THAT NDC? WELL, LOOK, IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION. IT IS SIGNED. WE HAVE SIGNED UP AS A COUNTRY. BUT BE VERY CLEAR, WHEN I CAME IN AS CLIMATE MINISTER IN OCTOBER, I WAS NOT HANDED OVER A PLAN TO SAY 'THIS IS HOW WE WILL HIT IT'. THE PRIOR GOVERNMENT` YOU HAVE MADE A PLAN WHICH YOU HAVE ADMITTED YOURSELF INCREASES GROSS EMISSIONS BY 2030. FIRST EIGHT MONTHS IN THE JOB FOCUSES AROUND DOING` GETTING OUR DOMESTIC TARGETS ON TRACK AND A PLAN. WE'VE DONE THAT. BUT THIS IS REALLY VITAL. SO, TREASURY HAS SUGGESTED THAT THOSE LIABILITIES COULD COST $24 BILLION IN INTERNATIONAL CARBON CREDITS BY 2030. CAN NEW ZEALAND AFFORD THAT? WELL, THE RANGE OF ADVICE IN TERMS OF FISCAL COSTS, ASSUMING THAT YOU DELIVER AND SOLVE THAT PROBLEM ONLY THROUGH INTERNATIONAL CREDIT PURCHASE, IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 3.5 BILLION AND UP TO THE RANGE` 3.5 ` A LOT LESS THAN 24, BUT STILL A LOT. IT'S ALL A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY. AND I THINK THE CHALLENGE IS, IS THAT` AND THAT'S WHAT I'M REINFORCING, IS THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE. I DON'T HAVE THE` WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THE ANSWERS AROUND WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE, AND I'LL BE TAKING THAT THROUGH TO CABINET AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IT IS A PRIORITY FOR US. YEAH. BUT AGAIN, I'M JUST REFLECTING THE FACT THAT IT IS ONE AREA THAT WE HAVE INHERITED. WE ARE COMMITTED TO OUR TARGETS AS A GOVERNMENT, AND WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THEM. MAYBE NOT THAT NDC. YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF NEW ZEALAND TRANSITIONING WITHOUT SACRIFICING ECONOMIC GROWTH. OBVIOUSLY, THESE ARE TRICKY ECONOMIC TIMES. LABOUR'S PLAN WAS ON TRACK TO ACHIEVE THE NET ZERO 2050 GOALS. BUT WHAT WAS THE PROJECTED IMPACT ON ECONOMIC CONSUMPTION? DO YOU KNOW? WELL, THE OVERARCHING COST, IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC COSTS BETWEEN OUR PLANS IS SORT OF IN THE SAME REGION. BUT YOU SAID YOU WANT TO GET THERE WITHOUT SACRIFICING ECONOMIC GROWTH. YEAH. BUT WE'VE ALSO, PARTICULARLY IN THE AGRICULTURAL SPACE, BEEN REALLY CLEAR AROUND THE FACT THAT WE ARE GOING TO ENSURE THAT BY DELAYING PRICING, WE ARE TAKING THE PRESSURE OFF REDUCING, YOU KNOW, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT,THOUGH, BECAUSE, I MEAN, YOUR ENTIRE PLAN REVOLVES AROUND THE CENTRAL PREMISE. YOU WANT TO GET TO OUR TARGETS THE CHEAPEST WAY POSSIBLE, RIGHT? AND YET... CONSIDERING THIS EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN, LABOUR'S PLAN WOULD HAVE SEEN HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION REDUCED BY 0.4%, YOUR GOVERNMENT'S REDUCES IT BY 0.39%. 0.1% CHEAPER. IT'S 2024. LAST YEAR WAS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD, CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SAY THIS YEAR IS LIKELY TO BE EVEN HOTTER. YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS SCRAPPED THE BAN ON OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION. YOU'VE TANKED THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE MARKET OVERNIGHT. YOU'VE DELAYED EMISSIONS PRICING YET AGAIN FOR OUR BIGGEST EMITTING INDUSTRY. YOU'VE TAKEN MONEY FROM THE CLIMATE FUND TO PAY FOR TAX CUTS. YOUR PLAN FAILS TO GET US TO OUR 2035 OR 2050 TARGETS. AND DESPITE YOUR PROMISES TO SAVE US MONEY, IT'S 0.01% CHEAPER FOR HOUSEHOLDS. WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOU ARE SERIOUS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE? JACK, OUR PLAN DEMONSTRATES THAT WE WILL HIT OUR TARGETS BY 2025 AND 2030. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO PROVIDE A PATHWAY TO GET TO 2030, AND WE HAVE DONE THAT. WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CHALLENGES AHEAD OF US ARE SIGNIFICANT IN REGARDS TO DEALING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT WE'RE ALSO DEALING WITH A SITUATION WHERE THE NEW ZEALAND ECONOMY IS IN A VERY FRAGILE POSITION. WE HAVE TO FIND A PATHWAY THAT BOTH ACHIEVES OUR EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS AND ALSO PROTECTS OUR ECONOMY. AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE PLAN IN WHICH WE'VE TABLED ALLOWS US TO DO THAT. DOES THAT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THERE AREN'T CHALLENGES ON THE HORIZON? NO, IT DOES NOT. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. BUT I CAN TELL YOU WHAT, AS A COALITION GOVERNMENT, WE ARE COMMITTED TO TAKING THE ACTIONS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO REDUCE EMISSIONS WHILE PROTECTING AND GROWING OUR ECONOMY. AND WE'VE GOT A PLAN THAT DELIVERS IT. I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGING IN THE FUTURE. WE'RE PRAGMATIC AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU CAN'T DO ONE WITHOUT` WHILE SACRIFICING THE OTHER. THE WHOLE POINT, THOUGH, IS THAT YOU ARE INCREASING EMISSIONS. BY YOUR OWN COMMENTS IN THIS INTERVIEW., YOU ARE INCREASING EMISSIONS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT, AND SAVING US NO MONEY BY 2050. YOU'RE TALKING IN THE DEGREE OF` 0.01%. THE NUMBERS IN TERMS OF ONE MEGATON OR THOSE ARE SMALL I'M GOING FROM THE NUMBERS ON ECONOMIC CONSUMPTION IN YOUR OWN IN YOUR OWN PLAN ` 0.01%. AS I SAID, THE PLAN THAT WE'VE TABLED WILL MEET OUR BUDGETS BY 2030 AND 2025. THE MARGIN AT 2050, WHICH IS 25 YEARS OUT FROM NOW, IS PLUS OR MINUS THREE MEGATON ` AS I SAID, TIWAI'S IMPLICATION IS 5 ` IN ONE PERIOD. WE'RE AT THE MARGINS, BUT WE ARE COMMITTED TO MEETING OUR TARGETS. CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTER SIMON WATTS. JUST A LITTLE FACT CHECK THERE ` ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S ADVICE, DELAYING AGRICULTURAL EMISSIONS PRICING WILL RESULT IN 1.9 MILLION TONS OF EMISSIONS BY 2030, NOT 0.9 AS THE MINISTER STATED. IF YOU WANT TO CONTACT Q+A TEAM, PLEASE, KORERO MAI. THESE ARE OUR MAIN PLATFORMS. YOU CAN EMAIL US OR FIND US ON X OR FACEBOOK. AFTER THE BREAK ` TAURANGA RETURNS TO DEMOCRACY. WE'RE THERE WITH THE CITY'S NEW MAYOR. MAHE DRYSDALE LOOKS SET TO BE THE NEW MAYOR OF TAURANGA. AFTER THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL WAS DISBANDED AND REPLACED BY COMMISSIONERS, PRELIMINARY RESULTS SHOW VOTERS HAVE ELECTED EIGHT BRAND NEW POLITICIANS TO THE 10-PERSON COUNCIL, FOR AN EXTRA-LONG TERM, UNTIL 2028. THE MAYOR-ELECT MAHE DRYSDALE IS WITH US THIS MORNING. GOOD MORNING AND CONGRATULATIONS. WHAT I GOING TO BE YOUR PRIORITIES AS MAYOR? WORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE CITIZENS. I THINK THAT HAS BEEN LACKING IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, AND AM VERY EXCITED FOR THE CITY. OTHER ANY POLICIES YOU WANT TO PRIORITISE? ITS ABOUT GETTING THE TEAM TOGETHER AND DECIDING ON THE PRIORITIES. I WANT US ALL WORKING TOWARDS THE SAME THING. WHAT I HAVE SEEN FROM PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE IS SOLVING TRAFFIC BOTTLENECKS AND HOUSING. WE HAVE SOME MASSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE TO BUILD SO IT IS ABOUT GETTING VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RATEPAYERS. AS I SAY WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER AS A TEAM OF 10 TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE PRIORITIES ARE. PRELIMINARY RESULTS SHOW TURN OUT IS JUST OVER 30%. THOSE NUMBERS COULD INCREASE, AT THE MOMENT THEY DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SPECIAL VOTES, BUT THAT IS A WOEFUL TURNOUT. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT SAYS ABOUT THE APPETITE FOR DEMOCRACY? IT IS A TOUGH ONE. I UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS WILL GET US TO ABOUT 40% TURNOUT ONCE THOSE SPECIAL VOTES ARE COUNTED, BUT THAT IS STILL POOR. FOR ME, WE CAN START COMMUNICATING TO THE COMMUNITY, START ENGAGING WITH THEM SO THEY ACTUALLY TAKE AN INTEREST IN WHAT HAPPENS, THAT IS REALLY THE CHALLENGE FOR US OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, GETTING MORE PEOPLE ENGAGED. WE WANT MORE PEOPLE DECIDING THE FUTURE OF THE CITY. DO YOU THINK THAT APPETITE MIGHT HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED? EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT IT... I DON'T KNOW. YOU CAN ONLY LEAD A HORSE TO WATER. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO VOTE THAT'S UP TO THEM. I WANT THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE GETTING AND WHAT KIND OF EFFECT IT HAS ON THEM ON A DAILY BASIS. THAT IS WHERE MY PRIORITIES LIE. I 100% BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY. I AM KEEN TO GET THAT TEAM TOGETHER SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO WHAT WE HAD WHAT DO YOU THINK WIL STOP TAURANGA FROM EXPERIENCING THE SAME PROBLEMS AS LAST TIME? ULTIMATELY WE WORK FOR THE RATEPAYER AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT AND DELIVER WHAT THEY WANT, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE WANT OR THE AGENDAS WE BRING TO THE TABLE. WHAT TO DO THE PEOPLE ONCE, LET'S DO IT AND LET'S DELIVER. EIGHT OF THE 10 PEOPLE ELECTED TO THE COUNCIL ARE BRAND-NEW. DOES THIS COUNCIL HAVE THE EXPERIENCE REQUIRED TO GOVERN? ABSOLUTELY. THERE ARE SOME VERY GOOD SKILLS AROUND THE TABLE, SOME FANTASTIC EXPERIENCE. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO COME FROM LOCAL BODY OR COME FROM BEING A POLITICIAN AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THOSE DIFFERENT VIEWS SO WE CAN START FROM A CLEAN SLATE AND DELIVER. THAT AS I RAN FOR THIS POSITION, BECAUSE OF STARTING FROM SCRATCH AND I'M REALLY EXCITED. YOUR UNCLE WAS ALSO STANDING IN THE SELECTION. HAVE YOU HEARD FROM HIM OVERNIGHT? YES THEY SENT ME A CONGRATULATIONS YESTERDAY. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, IN A DEMOCRACY YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE RESULT AND HE HAS VERY MUCH DONE THAT. I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING TOGETHER WITH THEM AND HAVING A CHAT. GIVEN TURNOUT AT THIS STAGE, LOOKS LIKE UNDER 40%. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL MANDATE TO LEAD TAURANGA? YOU CAN ONLY GO ON WHAT THE VOTERS SAY. THEY HAVE SAID WE WANT A POSITIVE FUTURE FOR THE CITY. WE WILL HAVE SOME FRESH FACES TO GO AND DELIVER THAT AND WE WANT THAT TEAM WORKING TOGETHER. THAT IS VERY MUCH THE MANDATE I'VE TAKEN FROM IT. I WOULD LOVE TO ENGAGE THE PEOPLE SO THAT WE CAN GET BETTER VOTER TURNOUT IN FOUR YEARS TIME. I BELIEVE THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO. IT IS A BIT ARCHAIC, PEOPLE PROBABLY DON'T CHECK THEIR LETTERBOXES. THAT IS PROBABLY SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK TO DO, BUT PROBABLY A MORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ISSUE. YOU HAVE A FOUR-YEAR TERM, WHICH IS UNUSUALLY LONG COURSE. HOW SHOULD VOTERS JUDGE YOUR SUCCESS IN 2028? THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS, IF THE CITY IS IN BETTER SHAPE THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW, THAN AS A TEAM WE HAVE SUCCEEDED. THAT IS VERY MUCH WHAT PEOPLE IN THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES IF THEY FEEL IT IS MUCH MORE VIBRANT AND WE ARE STARTING TO DELIVER ON THE POTENTIAL. I WANT TO MAKE IT THE BEST CITY IN NEW ZEALAND. CONGRATULATIONS AND BEST OF LUCK. SHORTLY WE'LL TAKE YOU LIVE TO DONALD TRUMP'S FIRST RALLY SINCE HIS ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION. BUT NEXT ` THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION HAS CONFIRMED THEY'RE LOOKING THE USE OF CAMPAIGN RESOURCES BY ONE OF TE PATI MAORI'S NEW MPS. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION HAS CONFIRMED IT'S LOOKING INTO CAMPAIGN DONATION AND EXPENSE DECLARATIONS FROM TE PATI MAORI MP TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP. AS WHENA OWEN FIRST REPORTED ON Q+A, A VAN REGISTERED TO MANUREWA MARAE WAS USED FOR TAKUTAI KEMP'S CAMPAIGN. BUT ON HER ELECTORAL DECLARATION, THERE'S NO REFERENCE TO THE MARAE OR THE USE OF ITS VAN. AND A LEGAL EXPERT SAYS THAT RISKS BREACHING BOTH THE CHARITIES ACT AND THE ELECTORAL ACT. SO, THAT'S RIGHT, WHANAU. IT'S ALL ABOUT VOTING. WHEN TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP WAS STANDING IN LAST YEAR'S ELECTION, HER CAMPAIGN VAN PLAYED A PROMINENT ROLE. I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT THIS. I'VE SEEN THIS ` TE PATI MAORI HAVE USED A QR CODE. ON Q+A WE REVEALED THE VAN IS ACTUALLY REGISTERED TO MANUREWA MARAE, WHERE TAKUTAI KEMP WAS CEO UP UNTIL HER ELECTION TO PARLIAMENT. THE PROBLEM IS, BECAUSE HER RETURN IS SO SPARSE WITH THE DETAILS, THE PROBLEM IS, BECAUSE HER RETURN IS SO SPARSE WITH THE DETAILS, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHETHER THE RULES HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED HERE. MANUREWA MARAE IS A REGISTERED CHARITY. CHARITIES ARE BARRED FROM SUPPORTING PARTIES OR CANDIDATES AND MAKING POLITICAL DONATIONS AND HAVE RESTRICTIONS ON LETTING CANDIDATES USE THEIR RESOURCES. IF THE MARAE HAS GIVEN HER THE USE OF THE VAN FOR FREE, THEN THAT IS A DONATION TO HER CANDIDACY. AND GIVEN THAT SHE HAD THE VAN FOR APPARENTLY QUITE SOME TIME, HAD HER FACE AND HER PARTY BRANDING ON THE VAN, AND USED THE VAN FOR QUITE A NUMBER OF CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE VALUE OF THAT GIFT FROM THE MARAE IS OVER $1500. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED AS A DONATION TO THE CANDIDATE IN HER ELECTORAL RETURN. AND THERE'S NO SUCH RECORD OF SUCH A DONATION. RENTING A SIMILAR VAN FOR THE FULL ELECTION CAMPAIGN PERIOD WOULD HAVE COST JUST UNDER $6000. SO IF IT WAS A DONATION, IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN DECLARED. IN HER RETURN, TAKUTAI KEMP LISTS $48,000 IN DONATIONS. BUT NOWHERE ARE THE WORDS 'MANUREWA MARAE'. THE FACT THAT THE USE OF THIS VAN FOR BOTH ADVERTISING PURPOSES AND AS A VEHICLE THAT WAS APPARENTLY USED IN HER CANDIDACY HASN'T BEEN RECORDED IN THIS RETURN OPENS UP THE QUESTION OF, HOW WAS IT PROVIDED? OUTSIDE OF A DONATION, THERE IS ANOTHER POSSIBILITY ` IF THE VEHICLE WAS RENTED FROM THE MARAE AT FULL COMMERCIAL VALUE, IT WOULDN'T NEED TO BE RECORDED AS A DONATION. INSTEAD, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE RECORDED AS A CAMPAIGN EXPENSE. BECAUSE THE VAN IS PART OF HER ELECTORAL ADVERTISING. SO ANY MONEY SHE'S PAID TO THE MARAE FOR USING THE VAN FOR ELECTORAL PURPOSES IS PAYMENT FOR AN ELECTORAL EXPENSE. AND UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT, YOU'RE MEANT TO RECORD WHO YOU GIVE THOSE ELECTORAL EXPENSES TO, WHO YOU MAKE THOSE PAYMENTS TO, PRECISELY SO YOU CAN SEE WHO YOU'RE PAYING TO HELP YOU WITH YOUR CANDIDACY. IN TAKUTAI KEMP'S EXPENSE FORM, THERE ARE COSTS FOR WHAT SHE CALLS VEHICLE SIGNAGE AND VAN SIGNAGE. THIS IS HER SIGN-WRITTEN VEHICLE, AND THIS IS HER SIGN-WRITTEN VAN. BUT AGAIN, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RETURN THAT EXPLICITLY ACCOUNTS FOR THE ACTUAL USE OF THE MARAE'S VAN. YOU'RE MEANT TO INCLUDE WHO YOU MAKE YOUR PAYMENTS TO, SO YOU CAN SEE THINGS LIKE, HAS THIS VAN BEEN PAID FOR AS A COMMERCIAL AFFAIR ` IN WHICH CASE THERE IS NO DONATION ` OR HAS THERE BEEN NO PAYMENT, IN WHICH CASE THERE HAS BEEN A DONATION. SO PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT BECAUSE THE RETURN DOESN'T HAVE THE NECESSARY DETAILS, THESE QUESTIONS REMAIN UNANSWERED AT THE MOMENT. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IS CURRENTLY INVESTIGATING SEPARATE ALLEGATIONS AROUND THE MISUSE OF DATA COLLECTED AT MANUREWA MARAE. BUT LAST WEEK ON Q+A, WE ASKED TO PARTY MAORI CO-LEADER DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER ABOUT HER FELLOW CANDIDATE'S ELECTORAL RETURNS. WHAT CONFIDENCE DO YOU HAVE THAT ALL OF TE PATI MAORI'S CANDIDATES DECLARED ALL DONATIONS AND CAMPAIGN EXPENSES AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT HEADING INTO THE LAST ELECTION? YEAH, LOOK, WE'RE THE ONLY PARTY THAT I KNOW OF THAT OVER-DISCLOSED ABOUT OURSELVES. WE ASKED HER AGAIN THIS WEEK, AND SHE STOOD BY HER COMMENTS. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP DECLINED OUR REQUEST FOR AN INTERVIEW. CHARITY SERVICES IS CONTINUING TO INVESTIGATE, AND THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION CONFIRMED THIS WEEK THEY'RE NOW LOOKING INTO THE MATTER. SO YOU KNOW, AS WELL AS WATCHING OUR SHOW ON YOUTUBE, YOU CAN FIND OUR INTERVIEWS ON TVNZ+. JUST CLICK ON 'NEWS', AND YOU CAN FIND ALL OF Q+A'S WORK, PLUS THE BEST OF TVNZ'S NEWSROOM. AFTER THE BREAK ` AN ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION, A NATIONAL CONVENTION AND HIGH-PROFILE LEADERS TRYING TO DISSUADE A SITTING PRESIDENT FROM SEEKING RE-ELECTION. IS THE RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE EFFECTIVELY OVER? AND I SAID, LET TRUMP-A-MANIA RUN WILD, BROTHER! LET TRUMP-A-MANIA RULE AGAIN! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! IT HAS BEEN A WILD WEEK IN U.S. POLITICS, EVEN BY U.S. POLITICAL STANDARDS. AS WE GO TO AIR THIS MORNING, DONALD TRUMP IS HOLDING HIS FIRST PUBLIC RALLY SINCE LAST WEEKEND'S ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION. OUR MAN IN THE U.S., 1 NEWS U.S. CORRESPONDENT LOGAN CHURCH, IS THERE IN GRAND RAPIDS MICHIGAN. HOW IS THE ATMOSPHERE TODAY? AS WE SPEAK, DONALD TRUMP IS SPEAKING IN THE ARENA BEHIND ME. THERE ARE ABOUT 12,000 PEOPLE. THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE THAT PEOPLE HAD TO COME OUTSIDE WATCHING THE RALLY ON THEIR CELL PHONES, SO MANY PEOPLE WANTED TO ATTEND THE FIRST RALLY AFTER THE TERRIBLE EVENTS LAST WEEK. THE LINE TO GET IN WENT RIGHT BACK DOWN THE STREET AS FAR AS YOU COULD SEE, AROUND THE CORNER, AND SEVERAL KILOMETRES THAT WAY. MANY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET IN. I SPOKE TO A NUMBER. THE BEST PRESIDENT! TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP! WE LIKE HIS IDEAS TO FIX OUR COUNTRY. OUR COUNTRY IS NOT IN A GOOD PLACE. IT WAS ATROCIOUS WHAT HAPPENED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP. WE NEED TO BE MORE HUMAN AGAIN. IT DOESN'T MATTER YOUR POLITICAL AFFILIATION. THERE IS A REASON HE IS STILL AROUND. IF HE HAD DIED, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOT OF UPRISING IN THE COUNTRY. IT IS FAIR TO SAY THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POLICE HERE. KNOW ONE IS TAKING CHANCES AFTER BUTLER PENNSYLVANIA. ALL THE STREETS AROUND THE ARENA HAVE BEEN LOCKED OFF. FROM WHAT IS HAPPENING BEHIND YOU, THERE IS LOTS OF CIVIL DISCOURSE. PEOPLE CHANTING. A LOT OF DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTERS. INTERESTING SCENES OUTSIDE THAT EVENT IN GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN. TOOK US THROUGH THE EVENTS OF THIS WEEK. YOU HAVE BEEN IN MILWAUKEE. WHAT WAS YOUR SENSE OF THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION? AT THAT EVENT, AND HERE AS YOU CAN SEE AND HEAR, THERE IS A LOT OF PASSION. EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN I SPOKE TO WATCHED WHAT HAPPENED IN BUTLER, PENNSYLVANIA, AND THEY ALL TOLD ME THEY BELIEVE DONALD TRUMP HAD BEEN SPARED BY GOD, AND HE NOW HAS THIS DIVINE MENTAL TO LEAD THE NATION.. *MANTLE THAT ARENA AS AN IDEOLOGICAL BUBBLE. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DONALD TRUMP'S PARTY. IT IS HIS WAY OR THE HIGHWAY. IT WAS INTERESTING LISTENING TO SOME OF THE SPEECHES RON DESANTIS, FORMER POLITICAL OPPONENT, NIKKI HALEY, THEY WERE ALL SAYING WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. I SPOKE TO A POLITICAL COMMENTATOR WHO SAID REPUBLICANS WHO DISAGREE WITH TRUMP HAVE HAD TO LEAVE THE PARTY OR GROVEL. ONE MAN WHO HAS SEEN HOW THE PARTY HAS CHANGED USED TO BE A CONGRESSMAN FROM WISCONSIN, WHERE MILWAUKEE IS, WHERE THE RNC TOOK PLACE. I CHATTED TO HIM. CLEARLY, IT'S A MUCH DIFFERENT PARTY THAN IT WAS BACK THEN, IN FACT, WHEN I WAS ACTIVE. AND, TO SOME DEGREE, I FEEL LEFT BEHIND. IT'S MUCH MORE A POLULIST PARTY THAN IT WAS BEFORE. AND THERE'S A LARGE HISTORY OF POPULISM IN THE UNITED STATES. THERE WAS AT THE TURN OF THE 20TH CENTURY. THERE WAS IN THE 1930s. THERE EVEN WAS WITH ROSS PEROT IN THE 1990s. I THINK THE ONE THING THAT'S HAPPENED THIS TIME IS IT'S SEEMED TO ACTUALLY REALIGN PART OF AMERICAN POLITICS, WHERE IT'S MUCH LESS FOCUSED ON SUBURBS WHICH USED TO BE THE BATTLEGROUNDS ` SO NOW YOU SEE THE DEMOCRATS VERY MUCH CONTROLLING BIG CITIES. WE'VE BECOME, IN SOME WAYS, THE PARTY OF SMALL TOWNS AND SMALL-TOWN VALUES, AND THE SUBURBS ARE SORT OF LEFT HANGING. AND AS WE GO TO SETTLE THE ELECTION, IT'LL BE NINE OR 10 STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, ONE OF THEM'S GONNA BE WISCONSIN. AND ALL EYES ARE ACTUALLY ON THE MILWAUKEE SUBURBS, WHICH ARE PROBABLY 15 MINUTES THAT WAY AND 15 MINUTES, WHICH MAY NOT ONLY DECIDE WISCONSIN, IT MIGHT LITERALLY DECIDE THE U.S. ELECTION. IF YOU WANT A SIGN AS TO WHERE DONALD TRUMP WANTS TO TAKE THE PARTY, LOOK NO FURTHER THAN HIS RUNNING MATE, JD VANCE. HE IS A LOT YOUNGER AND SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE. IT IS AN INDICATION WHERE DONALD TRUMP WANTS TO TAKE THE PARTY GOING FORWARD, AND MAYBE A SUCCESSION PLAN. IT WAS A FASCINATING APPOINTMENT. WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE PRESIDENT, JOE BIDEN, AND HIS CANDIDACY? AS DONALD TRUMP IS HERE IN GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, JOE BIDEN IS STILL ISOLATING FROM COVID 19. THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN DEALING WITH AN INCREASING NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HIS PARTY WANTING HIM TO STEP ASIDE. THE POLITICAL COMMENTATORS ALL WONDER WHETHER JOE BIDEN WILL STEP ASIDE. JOE BIDEN DOESN'T LOOK LIKE HE WANTS TO STEP ASIDE. HE PLANS TO STAY PUT. HE RELEASED A STATEMENT YESTERDAY SAYING THE STAKES ARE HIGH AND 'WE WILL WIN.' WHETHER HE CAN WHEN, IN THE LONG RUN, WHO KNOWS. DONALD TRUMP IS DOING WELL. HE IS IN THE LEAD. AT THE DEMOCRATS DID WANT TO PUT SOMEONE ELSE IN, THERE IS A PATH TO VICTORY FOR DEMOCRATS. BUT IT IS AN UPHILL BATTLE. THE RACE HERE WILL BE DOWN TO THOSE SMALL TOWNS. THEY HAVE TWO OPTIONS. YOU HAVE THE REPUBLICANS, WHO LOOK ORGANISED, AND THE DEMOCRATS, WHO ARE NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHO THEIR CANDIDATE WILL BE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, LOGAN. HAVING HAD EXPERIENCE IN LOCATIONS OVER THE YEARS, THAT WAS A REMARKABLE PERFORMANCE AND TRYING CIRCUMSTANCES. GO AND MEET YOUR NEW FRIENDS AND ALTHOUGH SUPPORTERS OUTSIDE DONALD TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN RALLY IN MICHIGAN TODAY. ONE OF THOSE ALL-IMPORTANT SWING STATES LIKELY TO DECIDE THE ELECTION. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THEIR CONVENTION ON AUGUST 19. IF THERE WAS A TIME TO CHOOSE A NEW DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, AND OPEN CONVENTION COULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY. WE COULD HAVE MORE OF THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT JOE BIDEN WILL REMAIN AS CANDIDATE. KUA MUTU, THAT'S Q+A FOR THIS WEEK. FROM THE Q+A TEAM, THANKS FOR WATCHING, AND NGA MIHI KI A KOUTOU I NGA KARERE. HEI TERA WIKI. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY AT 9AM. CAPTIONS BY JASON CONRAN AND JAMES BROWN. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2024.