Smith Nick: General Debate 
Smith Nick: General Debate 
[Volume:646;Page:15276] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have a very simple question for Mr Goff: why is it that a Labour Government has cut taxes for corporate companies but not for the average working person? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has asked me a question; I am happy to answer it. Will the member yield? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is up to the member whether he wants to yield. If the member yields then you can only answer the question and that is it. It is up to this member himself. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave for the member to take the next 5-minute call and have a second call so that he can answer the question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. The reality is that you cannot seek leave for someone else. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am seeking leave for the normal Standing Order that a member cannot take more than one call in a general debate to be suspended so that Mr Goff can take the next 5-minute call to answer the question on the minds of all New Zealanders and that is why Labour will not cut taxes for ordinary workers. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. The member is a long-experienced member of the House. He knows the rules or he should do by now. You cannot seek leave for someone else. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I moved a point of order asking the member to yield so that I could answer his question. That is a procedure that is possible in this House. You asked the member whether he would yield. He avoided he skipped he slithered his way around that question. Could we hear the answer to the question of whether he really wants the answer that he asked for? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to ask for a member to yield but it is up to the member himself whether he does so. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave for the Standing Order saying that a member may not take more than one call in a general debate to be suspended for the purposes of this general debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to do that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Will the member clarify that that will give the Government side of the House an extra 5 minutes in addition to the normal speaking time or is he really trying to slither around it by saying— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is going too far. We are getting into semantics. 
Dail Jones 
: I happened to notice that the next speaker is meant to be Mr Field. If he is not here that leaves a gap for someone to take the call. Would this work in well with Dr Smith’s suggestion and therefore will it be a Labour speaker? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Jones. I have it in front of me that the slot will be taken by Labour. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The problem for Labour members is that they want to talk about everything this afternoon bar their record. My colleague Bill English has pointed out their record in respect of personal tax. Labour members have given every excuse possible as to why they have put taxes up but will not give New Zealanders a tax break. The last 8 years are something that Labour members do not want to be reminded of. They want to pretend that they have been somewhere different for the last 8 years when it comes to issues like the mess in health or the lack of tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders. 
I want to draw the attention of this Labour Government to its record on climate change. We have heard the aspirations that we are going to be carbon neutral. We have heard so many speeches about how climate change is the most important issue of our time. The question I ask is: what is Labour’s record? Let us look at greenhouse gas emissions. Have they gone down by the 20 percent that Labour promised? When Labour came to Government in 1999 its members said they would cut emissions by 20 percent by 2005. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What’s happened? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They have gone up by 20 percent. Was there a typo? Did Labour miss the minus and put a plus in its place? It is even worse than that. Let us compare New Zealand’s record of emissions to that of other countries. We can line up with Australia where Prime Minister John Howard was accused of being a climate change sceptic. Under this “carbon-neutral” Labour Government New Zealand’s emissions have gone up at twice the rate of Australia’s. Carbon emissions have gone up by 2 percent in Japan. They have reduced by 2 percent in the United Kingdom. They have gone up by 5 percent in the United States. But in New Zealand—this great carbon-neutral paradise—they have gone up by 20 percent! 
Hon Bill English 
: Could they have done any worse? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have my doubts. Out of the 42 countries facing emissions reduction obligations under the Kyoto Protocol New Zealand is No. 38. Does that sound like we are a world leader on climate change? Does that sound like we are living up to carbon neutrality? 
Let us go the critical issue of forestry. In every single year from 1951 to 2003 New Zealand planted more trees than it cut down. That is a record our country can be proud of. But in the last 4 years 12 million more trees have been cut down than have been planted—a record that this Government conveniently wants to forget. Australia is on target to meet its Kyoto obligations and New Zealand is not because of the dumb forestry policies of this Government which sees that appalling record. 
Now we have the Government talking about its new aspiration. It says that 90 percent of power in New Zealand will be produced by renewable sources by 2025. Let us look at Labour’s record. In every year that Labour has been the Government the proportion of our electricity produced from renewable sources has declined. It was 73 percent when it became the Government; in figures out this week it is now down to 66 percent. The amazing thing is that while those members talk about carbon neutrality and about a renewable energy target of 90 percent 70 percent of new generating capacity has been thermal—70 percent. The Government has built the new Whirinaki oil power station with taxpayers’ money. Does that sound very carbon neutral? It built the new e3p generator at Huntly. It is the biggest new generating station since Huntly came online. That is a new thermal plant. Is it any wonder that we have seen our emissions go through the roof when we have had a trebling—a trebling—of the amount of electricity that is produced from coal? To members opposite I say that before they rave about climate change they should defend their record because it is appalling.