Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7956. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Firstly I commend my colleague Hekia Parata as a new member of Parliament who has made a great contribution not just in this debate but in terms of getting her head around one of the most complex issues within Parliament. 
I have long had a deep respect for Jeanette Fitzsimons. She is a person who is well informed around this issue and I owe it to her to respond to some of the points that she raised in the debate. I say to Jeanette Fitzsimons that I have for many years enjoyed her input and debate around these issues. However I will challenge the member who prides herself on accuracy and understanding such issues on a number of claims that she made. The first thing to address is the comment that there is not a single measure in this bill that will improve environmental outcomes. Let me just quickly in the short 5 minutes I have take her through a number. First transport will be entering the sector 6 months earlier than the existing scheme—that is on 1 July next year. But I take the view that the benefits of the reduction in emissions are directly proportional to the price. So that is the first example of where there is a benefit. 
The second one and this is important is that under the modified emissions trading scheme a significant number of industries get fewer allocations or no allocations under the more principled in my view approach to the allocation. Let me explain why. Under the existing scheme it just says “90 percent of 2005” and then there is a threshold that was proposed. 
Hon David Parker 
: The cap. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No let us be clear. To get an allocation one had to meet the competitiveness test that one is industry-exposed and one had an absolute to meet. A number of companies that were expecting to receive an allocation under the existing scheme whose intensity—that figure of 800 tonnes per $1 million and 1600 tonnes—meets neither of those and that under the existing scheme would get an allocation would not get one under this scheme. It is also true that a number of companies—a substantial number—that would have got a 90 percent allocation under the existing scheme will get 60 percent under this scheme. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: They’ve been lobbying you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They have been lobbying me very very heavily to try to get in. In fact the actual number of allocations according to the estimates determined by our officials is actually the total allocations to industry and are less under this scheme than what they are in the existing scheme. 
The fourth point I would make is with regard to the issue of tree weeds. I think we have made in this bill an improvement for the environment by not discouraging the removal of tree weeds. 
Hon David Parker 
: We agree. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the member said there is not a single provision in this bill that is good for the environment. That provision is good for the environment and that absolute statement is not true. 
I also make a point to the member on the issue of the national policy statement on biodiversity. It is an interesting history. Labour promised it in 1999 but did not deliver. It promised it in 2002 but did not deliver. It promised it again in 2005 but did not deliver. So for Ms Fitzsimons to be saying that Labour agreed in the dying days of its Government to a national policy statement on biodiversity is I am sorry to say a bit weak. We have been in Government for over 12 months. The very specific agreement we have with the Maori Party is that we will have a Cabinet paper to set up a formal process for establishing that national policy statement in March of next year. 
The last point I want to respond to Jeanette Fitzsimons on is the statement that Cabinet voting an additional $24 million for home insulation makes no difference. Well I really think that is unfair and untrue. Let me explain exactly what the Government has done in its agreement with the Maori Party. The problem that the Minister in charge of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority Gerry Brownlee has at the moment is that the uptake of the scheme is far faster than anybody projected. That is a good thing. We are getting more homes insulated earlier. But the difficulty is that at the moment we have fixed-year appropriations—the $323 million is a fixed amount per year. So the decision we made in Cabinet was to change that so to have a fixed amount over 4 years—and with the agreement with the Maori Party—a further $24 million will be put into that fund over those 4 years. That is a commitment to an extra 8000 homes and I say that every member of this House should thank the Maori Party for that initiative.