Parker David: Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7210. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Rising after Dr Nick Smith I have to put on record some of what I would think would be misrepresentations of history as to where New Zealand has got to in respect of its climate change response. It is true that New Zealand’s percentage of renewable electricity decreased following the discovery of gas in the Maui gasfield— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That was 76. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —in 1976. From then forward the percentage of New Zealand’s renewables decreased over time as New Zealand thought that gas was the answer. It was not until the last Labour Government actually removed the price cap on Maui gas that renewables became cost competitive. The price of gas had been set under the original Maui development agreement to increase every year at half the price of inflation. So for 20 years the price of gas went down at half the rate of inflation and effectively closed out just about all renewables development during that period. Removing the price cap on gas which caused the price of gas to move to the marginal cost of new gas discoveries was probably the most significant thing that was done to bring forward renewables. 
The second thing that the Labour Government did was that we then actually set a strategy in place to get New Zealand back to 90 percent renewables and we did that through the  
New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050 
. We had about 100—not 100 about 20—different initiatives that pushed in that direction including emissions pricing including calling in consents including telling the State-owned enterprises to consent and build renewables including changing the Government policy statement from the Electricity Commission and including building grid capacity to get renewables from distant sites to market etc. and that is actually what caused the change back towards renewables going up as a percentage. So for Dr Smith to claim credit for that is wrong. 
In respect of house insulation good ideas have many parents and I think just about every party in this House has claimed credit for that. Actually some credit should go to all parties in the House for that because it is something that this country has done for a long time. In respect of the insulation of State houses it did stick in my craw recently that we had the Prime Minister claiming credit for the fact that State houses were being insulated when I recall being part of the Budget rounds when that was an initiative of Jeannette Fitzsimons who was providing confidence and supply to the Labour Government. Her price for that or you know her contribution was that she said: “I want the money spent on the insulation of State houses because once the State does that the State will be in the position to introduce a regulatory rule to make everyone do it.” Jeanette was right. It was her initiative. It was backed by the Labour Government and National had nothing to do with it except that it inherited the programme. 
 In respect of trees we did have deforestation before we had a price on carbon. Deforestation increased before that price of carbon came. The only way that we were going to stop that was through the emissions trading scheme and that is what stopped deforestation and also gave an incentive towards further planting of trees. 
The problem with Dr Smith’s analysis is first he ignores that reality; second he ignores the fact that he voted against the emissions trading scheme legislation that the Greens the Labour Party and New Zealand First between them brought into effect; and third he ignores the fact that as Brian Fallow now says the emissions trading scheme has been put into an “induced coma” because of the National Party’s tinkering with the scheme: putting a price cap on it without putting in a floor a two-for-one obligation and refusing to restrict in a proper way the infiltration of low-cost units from overseas which have then seen a collapse in the price of carbon. So the revisionist view of Dr Smith as to who is doing what in climate change policy is somewhat galling. 
Then we heard the Minister for Primary Industries and sometimes we hear the Prime Minister claiming credit for the research that is being done in respect of pastoral livestock emissions and even that is not actually an initiative of the current Government. All it has done is take things backward including in transport where the last Government increased public transport funding twelvefold and this Government instead pours ever more money into highways and relatively less into public transport. 
Dr Smith also says that you can have a tax switch that puts taxes on low-income people through GST to fund a tax cut for high-income people but you cannot have a tax switch towards the environment. That is what an increase in the price of carbon would be. It would be a tax switch not an increase in total taxes. We will be supporting this bill going to select committee. One final point—the existing Act says already that the— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.