Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18314. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to theMinister for Climate Change Issues: What is his response to comments by former New Zealand climate ambassador Dr AdrianMacey that the New Zealand emissions trading scheme has led in the “opposite direction to that of the intended policy and is most likely to delay New Zealand’s transition to a low-carbon economy”?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): My response to DrMacey would be: “Compared with what?”. Is it compared with Australia which is in the process of removing its climate change policies and the institutions that underlie it? Is it compared with Japan which has removed an earlier offer to reduce emissions by minus 25 percent and replaced it with a positive 3 percent? Would he be comparing us with the United States which must rely now entirely on the Clean Air Act since there is no political possibility of the US Congress ever passing an economy-wide measure? Or is he comparing New Zealand with Canada which unlike New Zealand has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol and has no intention whatsoever of fulfilling its Kyoto Protocol commitments?Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the answer is probably Europe has the former climate ambassador got it wrong when he says that the emissions trading scheme was designed to incentivise emission reductions clean technology and tree planting but that under current policy settings none of these is happening?Hon TIM GROSER: I would agree very strongly with the first part of the statement. That is exactly what I understood were the intentions and continue to be the intentions of the emissions trading scheme. But as I have made clear on numerous occasions at the current international price it does not drive that process forward in a fast way and that is entirely the point of the difference between DrMacey’s analysis and this Government’s analysis—we do not wish to depart and put costs on New Zealand households and businesses that are higher than our competitors.Dr Kennedy Graham: Did the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment get it wrong when she said that the Government’s changes to the emissions trading scheme notwithstanding international prices make a farce of New Zealand’s response to climate change?Hon TIM GROSER: Not at all. The response of the New Zealand Government has been to join that 7 percent of emissions that are actually covered by some type of price on carbon and to make a huge contribution internationally which is actually recognised in DrMacey’s article including leading the world in terms of emissions from agriculture which are exactly 100 times as large as New Zealand’s emissions of 0.14 percent.Dr Kennedy Graham: Can the Minister point to one expert who says that New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme has reduced our emissions incentivised tree planting and helped the transition to a low carbon economy—can he point to just one expert who says that the emissions trading scheme has been a success?Hon TIM GROSER: Yes. I can point the member to the OECD’s environment report prepared for the last environment Ministers meeting in Paris which I had the privilege of representing New Zealand at which described the New Zealand emissions trading scheme as one of the most advanced in the world.Dr Kennedy Graham: Mr Speaker— [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order?Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table two documents relevant to the question. One is the article inPolicy Quarterly by the former climate ambassador we referred to headed “Climate Change towards Policy Coherence”. The second is the press release covering the submission by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment headed “ETS changes a farce”.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well I will not be putting leave for the second one. With regard to the first one theMacey article is it freely available or difficult for members to get hold of?Dr Kennedy Graham: It is reasonably difficult and this will help the House.Mr SPEAKER: I will accept the member. Leave is sought to table the article by Dr AdrianMacey. Is there any objection to that? It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although the House did not object to that tabling it might have been useful to note that the Minister gave answers to DrMacey’s report clearly having seen it so it is not exactly difficult for members to get hold of it.Mr SPEAKER: The tabling of documents is a means by which we inform other members. I accept that Mr Groser as the Minister responsible may well have read the article. What I was doing was ensuring that other members who might be vitallyinterested in reading such an article have the opportunity. Therefore I put the leave and if the Hon Gerry Brownlee was so incensed he had the opportunity to decline it.