Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21742] 
3.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: Does he stand by his statement during the third reading of the Climate Change Response Bill in November 2002 that “New Zealand will be in the fortunate position of being a net seller of carbon credits in the international carbon market” and his statement in response to opposition to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol “Would they set fire to a $200 million cheque?” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 On behalf of my colleague no and no. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister assert on 9 June that this report on New Zealand’s carbon balance was not yet complete when it is clearly dated May 2005 and when the foreword is written by the Hon Pete Hodgson; and is this the sort of deception and dishonesty that we can now expect from this decaying rotten Government? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That question is from a man who was called a liar by a judge! From that member the question is a bit rich. But he sits on a National Party front bench that will run up the white flag under any sort of pressure. They would do it on nukes and they would do it on greenhouse gas as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister who has responded to the last part of the question to now respond to the first part of the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. All that we could hear way down the back of the House was that the Minister’s answer was causing quite a lot of pleasure or reaction but we could not actually hear the answer. I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough to repeat it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order but I would ask the Minister now to address the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member had some experience in Government. I am not sure that he ever used to read papers but people do get draft papers write forewords and release them. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because it is important I think that we get the record correct now I seek leave of the House to table a document that is not a draft it is nothing but the final report as presented by the Minister to the Local Government and Environment Committee which is clearly dated May 2005. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dail Jones 
: Why has the convenor failed to resign over this $1 billion Kyoto fiasco when he should have known the false nature of New Zealand’s calculations—for example failing to recognise that forests must be planted on grassland to meet Kyoto definitions when it is clear to everyone in New Zealand that 16 percent of our forests are planted on scrub so cannot be counted as forests for Kyoto Protocol definition purposes thereby causing one of the reasons for this billion-dollar fiasco? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is a pity we did not have the honourable member helping brief the Government 2 or 3 years ago and making sure we had the appropriate information at that time. The official documents certainly show that some assumptions were made earlier on that are not now accurate. That is not a reason to run up the white flag and give up on this issue the way Opposition members do on nukes and other issues.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think we have listened rather patiently today to Government Ministers start their answers with little political barbs which I have to say will lead to considerable disorder if the situation continues. Your job is to give everybody in this House a fair go. Mr Mallard has no respect for your position as Speaker and it should not be up to the Opposition to have to point out that you are being abused by Mr Mallard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. I would also ask that those asking questions refrain from a similar practice and we might then get answers that do not contain those comments. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Minister aware that on 27 June 1995 the original questioner the Hon Dr Nick Smith asked the then National Minister for the Environment whether New Zealand’s forests would be enough to meet New Zealand’s Kyoto commitments to which the Hon Simon Upton replied: “New Zealand will meet its commitments under the convention through a combination of emission reductions and absorption by forest sinks. Forest sinks are expected to be the main contribution towards this target and in fact will enable us to go considerably beyond it.”; if so is it not reasonable for the House to conclude that both National and Labour have been wrong about Kyoto and wrong when they have told the country that we will be in a net credit situation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have a feeling that we are coming full circle. I find myself very much in agreement with the Hon Richard Prebble on this particular issue. I have no doubt whatsoever that National Party members have been supporters of Kyoto right back to the time of the Hon Simon Upton. The difference is that now they have weak-kneed wobbly doddery leadership and they are falling over. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister aware of a hastily assembled special negotiation meeting this month where European countries admitted the following: “Portugal over its promise by 77 percent Spain by 61 percent Greece by 51 percent Ireland by 41 percent Luxembourg by 31 percent Finland by 27 percent Denmark 26 percent Italy by anywhere from 13 to 23 percent … France by 19 percent Austria by 18 percent Belgium by 16 percent and the Netherlands by 10 percent.”; if so is it not beginning to dawn upon him that on current projections there will not be enough carbon credits available for purchase by non-complying countries to make a carbon trading system work? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sure the Minister will be aware of those figures. I think the member is talking about price not amount. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did Pete Hodgson release a press statement on 28 September last year after the Castalia report stating that the Audit Office agreed with his position in respect of the liabilities when the Audit Office advised the select committee last week that it had given no such advice or report? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I was not at the select committee at the time. My understanding is that that is something that has not yet been reported to the House and if that is the case I am not willing to compound any breach of privilege. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister agree that in light of the unreliability of Kyoto it is best to adopt “no regrets” policies such as the one United Future is proposing which would mean that New Zealand and its environment will benefit regardless of whether Kyoto falls over such as a reduction in the age of the vehicle fleet; hybrid vehicles being imported to New Zealand much faster; a massive planting of native trees around our rivers and lakes so that we can absorb carbon; and other such policies because they are not dependent on the success of Kyoto? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: All those things will help us meet our Kyoto Protocol requirements. Gerry Brownlee is showing his ignorance again. All those things will help us meet our Kyoto undertakings. It is good to see a party that is looking at positive ways of doing that rather than saying “We give up when any pressure comes on.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us which particular clause in the Kyoto agreement allows a country to count plantings alongside riversides hedgerows and other such. The Minister is talking utter garbage and he knows it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. However is the member wanting a supplementary question? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that emissions over the last 5 years have been going up at 2½ times the rate that they were during the 1990s— 
Rt Hon Helen Clark 
: No growth! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That has happened to me Madam Speaker and I have been booted straight out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. Interjections during questions are not permitted. I am sorry about that. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please sit down; I have not finished. Those rules I am afraid do apply to everyone. So I am sorry I will have to ask the Prime Minister to leave. 
Rt Hon Helen Clark withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that New Zealand’s emissions over the last 5 years have in fact gone up 2½ times the rate of the 1990s—in fact substantially faster than any comparison with growth would be—and that there are no prospects of any of Government’s policy getting New Zealand out of a substantial deficit position is the Minister telling the people of New Zealand that they will need to send a $1 billion cheque to either the Russian or the Ukraine Government to meet the commitment that it has made under the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I am not saying that. What I am telling the member is that this Government is not prepared to take the same approach to emission reduction as the previous Government. The previous Government had lower emissions because it deliberately on the part of Dr Brash as Governor of the Reserve Bank collapsed the economy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would just ask you to consider how the Minister’s answer complies particularly with Standing Order 370(2)(c) if nothing else. We understand that the answer was pathetic and hopeless. We had a man on his feet who had no idea of what he was supposed to be talking about. But to have answered that way is I think somewhat unacceptable. So I ask again whether you would consider that the answer to that question did comply with Standing Order 370(2)(c). 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am happy to elaborate. What is clear to all people on this side of the House is that emission growth grows with a growing economy. During the late 1990s the economy grew hardly at all and this time it has. We are not going to collapse the economy in order to reduce emissions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table a press statement by the Hon Pete Hodgson on 28 September saying that the Auditor-General’s office agreed with his position with regard to liabilities despite the fact that the select committee said it had given no advice. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rodney Hide 
: Who does the Minister think should take responsibility for the billion-dollar Kyoto stuff-up and will the Government be doing an estimate of what it will cost New Zealand particularly beyond 2012 when Kyoto really begins to bite on New Zealand and will be costing this country billions of dollars? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I understand that there are quite a lot of negotiations to take place as to the out-years as far as Kyoto is concerned. This Government will be calculating. However we will be relying on the advice that was accepted by Nick Smith and his mates. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was quite plain about who should take responsibility. We heard from the Minister that it was not his fault. It is a matter of a billion dollars. My question asked who the Minister thought should take responsibility and nowhere in his answer did he address that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. He is not required under the Standing Orders to give his opinion but he did address the question.