Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:16968] 
4.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Will the emissions trading scheme provide a windfall profit to State-owned enterprises Meridian Energy and Mighty River Power; if so how much weight should be given to the sustainable business council report funded by them to lobby MPs to hurry up and pass the emissions trading legislation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 If the member is trying to say we should discount people’s analysis because they stand to gain or lose under the emissions trading scheme we would have to ignore everyone’s views. That would of course be nonsense. What is clear is that there are benefits to our economy arising from the emissions trading scheme; just about everyone recognises that except National. In terms of electricity revenues the recycling of revenues to the Crown from electricity in order to help New Zealanders is one of the issues being discussed with support parties. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it not a worry for this Parliament that he has endorsed this report and used it to argue that we should get on and quickly pass the bill when on the back page of the report it states: “The time available for preparing this report has precluded any robust analysis or even comprehensive review of available information.” and goes on to recommend a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the bill; and should we not do that work before this Parliament passes such far-reaching legislation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In respect of the cost and benefit of this scheme that has been well traversed for over 6 months at the select committee and more widely within the community. In terms of what I have said in respect of the report the member criticises the only comment I have made is this one and I will read it out because it is not as the member characterises it: “Climate change Minister David Parker said there are many opportunities arising from the move to a more sustainable opportunity. Business has mostly focused on costs so far. Investment in sustainability is much more likely to happen if businesses see a clear direction from Government. There is much to gain here especially if we stay ahead of the game but New Zealand stands to lose if we delay or abandon the emissions trading scheme in the irresponsible way National is calling for. The emissions trading scheme does not cause a cost; it reduces the cost to New Zealand in taking responsibility for our international climate change commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.” That is all I have said. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How much weight does the Minister think should be given to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report on the economic effects of carbon pricing when that report was funded mainly by Solid Energy—New Zealand’s largest coalminer? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member is exactly right. Some of the loudest critics of this scheme have been State-owned enterprises in the form of Solid Energy. The Greenhouse Policy Coalition gives itself a name that would have people think it was advocating progressive policies in respect of emissions control but of course it is not. It is another example of where different people and different organisations with different interests advocate for their points of view. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why should Parliament give any credibility to a report that says: “The time available for preparing this report has precluded any robust analysis or even comprehensive review of the available information.”; is not such a report frankly worthless? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Most people have now got to the same conclusion as countries have around the world that an emissions trading scheme does not cause cost it saves cost. Obviously Dr Smith does not yet understand that because of his party’s opposition to the scheme. It remains abundantly clear that there are clear benefits to our economy arising from the emissions trading scheme. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What’s Winston doing? He’ll put the costs in! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It actually reduces costs to taxpayers it does not increase them I say to Mr Brownlee and I am sad he does not yet understand that. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Minister specify what specific costs to households will be reduced by the introduction of an emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In terms of the emissions trading scheme itself as opposed to measures outside it the way all consumers’ costs are reduced is that New Zealand’s emissions go down with an emissions trading scheme and therefore the bill that is currently totally on taxpayers’ pockets through the Kyoto Protocol is minimised. It is absolutely minimised. Emissions go down. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What an obtuse argument. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member may shake his head but that is a known reality. No one can deny that; it is a truth borne out not just by our proposed emissions trading scheme but by the European one and the fact that other countries are going in the same way. Where would the increase in emissions come from? The earliest increase if we did not have an emissions trading scheme would be from deforestation. Emissions would increase again very sharply and very soon. Similar albeit less dramatic effects would be felt throughout the economy. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is it credible for ex - Labour Minister Peter Neilson to claim that New Zealand’s international reputation on climate change will suffer severely if the legislation is not passed before the election claiming that it will cause job losses of 7600 in primary industry and 2715 in tourism when Australia is at least a year behind us in developing its emissions trading scheme when the Europe scheme covers only a few sectors and when the rest of the world is further behind still; is this report not just crude scaremongering from Labour’s mates to try to press-gang MPs into voting for a flawed bill? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I repeat that there are clear benefits for our economy arising from the emissions trading scheme. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does the Government not follow the advice of Alex Sundakov who in severely critiquing this report today stated: “Rushed policy that is flawed like this bill creates more investment uncertainty than putting the time into a better thought-through emissions trading scheme.”— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: He’s being saying that for 6 years Nick. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I say to Mr Hodgson that it is interesting that when he was claiming a billion-dollar gain from the Kyoto Protocol Mr Sundakov was right and said there would be a $500 million loss. Noting that Mr Sundakov was absolutely right when Pete Hodgson was proclaiming a huge surplus why will the Government not today follow the advice of someone who has proved to be correct around these complex issues in the past? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That question sounds like Dr Smith is actually disclosing for the first time rather than saying that he wants the emissions trading scheme to proceed after a little while after a few little tweaks that he actually agrees with Mr Sundakov and thinks it should not proceed at all. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Policy release! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is right. The reality is that this has had the most robust process followed of any measure in this Parliament this term. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the crude convenience of the timing and slant of this report can the Minister assure the House that no Minister nor any ministerial staff had any communication with the two State-owned enterprises or with former Labour Minister Peter Neilson regarding the commissioning and publishing of this report? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Mallard says I can give the assurance for him. I certainly did not tell them or cause them to prepare that report.