I think we need to understand that this target, just like its predecessors, is a complete fiction. Groser and National have no intention of ever adopting any measure that will make NZ's greenhouse gases deviate from continued 'business as usual' growth.

Note that the Ministry for the Environment website says;

"New Zealand will meet these responsibility targets through a mix of domestic emission reductions, the removal of carbon dioxide by forests and participation in international carbon markets."

Brian Fallow says the MFE's (dodgy) economic modelling assumes 80% of the "reduction" will be "met" by buying international carbon units.

From May of this year NZ has no access to international carbon markets due to NZ's inept posturing at Doha about not signing up for a second Kyoto committment period. When NZ did have access, traders imported millions of "hot air" units at prices as low as eleven cents a tonne. Obviously Groser wants more access to dodgy cheap emission units.

For the other 20%, they can then just repeat the Kyoto Gross-Net forest accounting fudge of saying the baseline is 'gross' or total emissions and that the target will be 'net' including credits for afforestation and reforestation. There we have it! Zero domestic reductions in emissions.

Note also the very conditional language in the INDC sent to the UNFCCC and in Groser's press release.

The target is provisional and conditional on 1) access to carbon markets, 2) land use and forest rules NZ agrees with (presumably to keep the Kyoto Gross Net fudge), and 3) effective and affordable mitigation technology for agriculture.

On that basis, NZ might start to reduce domestic emissions but only if the rest of the world at the UNFCCC Paris December 2015 meeting bends over backwards to meet Tim Groser's unattainable provisos.

Whatever approach Paris 2015 takes and whether it "succeeds" or not, the rules of whatever agreement, if there is one, will probably take several more years to thrash out. All of which enables NZ to claim the conditions haven't been met, so no reductions. Even if some perfect rules appear, NZ can say "Sorry our little-battling-punching-above-its-weight Agricultural Research Centre still hasn't given us affordable mitigation for pastoral agriculture.

This is really is a "heads we win, tails the atmosphere loses" approach.

Also the Government has no intention of reducing GHG emissions in it's 5% by 2020 target. They intend to "meet" the target through creative accounting with dubious carbon credits.
See NZ’s emissions target scam – Groser & Co’s creative accounting exposed

About the 61 and the 48 unsuccessful privately-initiated prosecutions; do these include the prosecutions laid by the RSPCA?
I recall reading that the RSPCA had achieved several successful private prosecutions for animal cruelty offences. Perhaps the RSPCA cases were concluded after 2009?

You would rather have Judy Turner in Parliament than Peter Dunne.

I would rather have a garden gnome in Parliament than Peter Dunne.