Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:12071] 
Questions to Ministers 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Greenhouse Gas Reduction 
1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he have confidence that the emissions trading scheme announced by the Prime Minister today will reduce New Zealand’s net domestic greenhouse gas emissions below current levels by 2012; if so by what percent? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yes. Further we expect to about halve our liability under the Kyoto Protocol to about 25 million tonnes or less. We look forward to working constructively with all other parties in Parliament as we advance New Zealand towards carbon neutrality. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How can he confirm that our net emissions will be lower in 2012 than now when the figures presented this morning suggest they will be higher? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The revision of the net projection report showed that without today’s announcement New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions would have increased for that 5-year period from 2008 to 2012 from where they were previously projected at 41.2 million tonnes up to 45.5 million most of that because of increased dairy-related livestock and processing emissions. Of course as a consequence of what we announced today we expect substantial reductions in emissions and that projection to be revised next year. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Madam Speaker could you ask the Minister to address the question which was about whether emissions in 2012 will be higher or lower than they are today not higher or lower than they would have been without any action? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member’s first word in the first answer was “Yes” to the question of whether emissions would be lower. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister had actually addressed the question. 
Tim Barnett 
: What reports has the Minister seen on support for emissions trading? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Recent opinion polls show that a majority of New Zealanders are in favour of measures like emissions trading. This Government has been steadfast in its leadership on climate change and the need to tackle the challenge as a nation. Today’s announcement takes us forward to climate change solutions. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister outline the timetable for legislation on emissions trading and can he also tell us how the Government expects to involve other political parties in further detailed development of the policy including the Greens? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We expect legislation to be introduced into the House by the end of the year. In terms of the process forward as I said in my answer to the first question from Jeanette Fitzsimons we do look forward to working constructively with all other parties in Parliament. Briefings have been offered to all parties. Detailed briefings have been taken by some parties including the member’s own party. Requests for further involvement have been received and agreed to. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does not today’s scheme fail to meet the test put forward by National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leading scientist James Hansen when he said that if we continue to increase emissions “ 
even for another ten years 
 it guarantees that we will have dramatic climate changes that produce what I would call a different planet—one without sea ice in the Arctic; with worldwide repeated coastal tragedies associated with storms and a continuously rising sea level; and with regional disruptions due to freshwater shortages and shifting climatic zones.”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No it does not because for the first time in our history we will have our emissions going down. 
Rodney Hide 
: Was a regulatory impact statement undertaken on the emissions trading regime; if so what is the total cost to the country of the plan compared with doing nothing and will the plan be strict enough to achieve John Key’s stated goal of “a 50 percent reduction in carbon-equivalent net emissions by 2050”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Carbon dioxide emissions will go down by more than 50 percent by that time. Indeed we have said we will be carbon neutral in the whole of the energy sector by 2040. In respect of the member’s question about a regulatory impact statement I tell him that the regulatory impact statement is there; it—or a summary of it—is in amongst the documents that have been released. The reality is that the costs of climate change are much higher than the costs of reacting to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of the effect on the New Zealand economy during the next 5 years or so it is expected that it might knock 0.1 percent off New Zealand’s GDP growth—that is 0.1 percent over that 5 years not 1 percent or even 0.1 percent per annum. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister concerned that the Labour Government’s targets for so-called carbon neutrality in the energy sector by 2040 rely heavily on purchasing emissions reductions in other countries and is it not the case that if all countries approach carbon neutrality by paying others to reduce emissions nobody will be able to get there? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Carbon neutrality in the electricity sector requires a modest 3 million tonnes per annum of offsets in 2025 declining thereafter. The carbon neutrality for total energy including stationary energy process emissions and transport energy requires 18 million tonnes of offsets in 2040 declining to 12 million tonnes in 2050. If the world does that the world will get emissions on a downward track. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the agricultural sector on track to meet its non-binding commitment under the 2003 memorandum of understanding to reduce its emissions by 20 percent below business as usual; if not why does the Government feel obliged to deliver on its non-binding commitment to continue to use taxpayers’ money to completely subsidise New Zealand’s most profitable industry for the whole Kyoto period? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No the agricultural sector is not on target to meet its part of the deal under that agreement. That is one of the reasons why despite having a proposed date of entry for agriculture of 1 January 2013 we want to have negotiations with the agricultural sector to bring forward emissions mitigation technologies like for example the more widespread use of nitrification inhibitors. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Regulated Period 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Did he receive any advice from officials on his proposal to extend the regulated election period in New Zealand to up to 11 months; if so what was that advice? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: [ 
Interruption 
] It is always good to get that support in when I stand up. Yes the Minister of Justice has received advice on the regulated election period and financial spending caps in other jurisdictions. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did officials of the Ministry of Justice or of any other Government department give him any advice on the merits of extending the election period? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know because he has asked this question or versions of it a number of times the advice from officials talked about the UK and Canada and the 3-month period here and suggested variations of that in the short paper they provided on this matter. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that the longest and loudest objections to the 1 January date have come from the one party that has the most to lose from a level playing field given its huge war chest and that this date in no way undermines the principle of “one person one vote”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I could tell that that was a very popular understanding of the issue. I would endorse what the member has said—that the party that seems to be opposing the proposal seems to be the one that believes its war chest will be disturbed. I notice that Nicky Hager said today that  
The Hollow Men 
 book that he produced is perhaps “the best-documented background to an explanation of the need for the Electoral Finance Bill.” In other words Mr Hager supports Mr Woolerton in saying that the National Party simply wants to carry on spending in the way it has been and that that is wrong. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that in fact there was no advice from officials of that nature to him and that in response to Official Information Act requests for the official advice on the 1 January regulated period he has suppressed all of the papers and released none of the advice from Government departments on the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can advise that Cabinet was given information on the Canadian and the UK systems on the 3-month period and on the longer period and it was asked by the Minister to— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could we just let the Minister finish? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —go for 1 January. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry to be so quick off my feet— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Because sometimes you do not know then what is actually going to happen. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: But in this case I was absolutely right. The Minister did not address that question. He was asked whether he could confirm that the Minister of Justice had suppressed the information supplied to him by Government departments. He then spoke about what Cabinet had received. He confirmed the information exists. Why cannot he simply confirm that he does not want the public to have the information he was given? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I want members please in future to enable the Minister to complete the answer before the points of order are taken because I could not hear then what the Minister’s answer was. But I will ask the Minister to address the question please. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I cannot confirm any suppression of information has taken place. I can confirm that information was put forward around the UK and Canadian systems and about a variety of dates here in New Zealand. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it not the case that if the briefings and reports from Ministers were full of glowing praise for this Draconian legislation the Minister would have released them all but in fact he has used the Official Information Act to withhold all official advice on the Draconian Electoral Finance Bill and none of it is available to the public? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I cannot remember anybody thinking it is Draconian other than the member and as the author of  
The Hollow Men 
 has pointed out the position of the National Party is that it seems to want to continue a situation where it can get a large amount of money from the Brethren and have it spent on things that may well rort an election. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that for this legislation which is an important part of New Zealand’s constitutional framework the Minister is refusing to release any of the official advice that he has received on whether it is reasonable to ban all political opinion from 1 January in an election year unless it meets particular criteria set by the Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am sure the Minister will release the information at the appropriate time. Of course if the member does not agree with the Minister there is a person called the Ombudsman and that is where he should go. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister understand that there might be some concern particularly from groups in the community that have a political opinion when people find that the Minister is unaware of the intense and heavy criticism of his bill in the select committee—because he thinks only National is criticising it—and when they find that the way Labour is going to shut down the National Party is to shut down every possible critic of the Government right through an election year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am glad the member asked that question because I notice that recently he has been parading Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand as a group that might well oppose this bill. I understand that group went to the select committee this morning and said the National Party had not listened to it at all and that this bill is badly needed to clear up the kinds of rorts that we see from the National Party. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Key Announcements 
3.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What are the key features of the Government’s announcement on emissions trading? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The emissions trading scheme and other initiatives announced today such as the 90 percent renewable electricity target will roughly cut in half our current projected Kyoto Protocol deficit. The major feature of the emissions trading system is that it will apply to all sectors and all gases over time in a way that is fair to industry and consumers while also being good for the environment. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What does the Minister consider are further key features of the emissions trading scheme announced today? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The scheme has dates of entry for different parts of the economy and theses dates are staggered. First in is forestry which is in with full devolution of all benefits and costs to forestry. Transport comes in on 1 January 2009; electricity stationary energy and process emissions come in on 1 January 2010; and agriculture comes in on 1 January 2013. The other important point I make is that there is no free allocation to sectors that will pass on the cost anyway but there is a generous allocation to those who are exporters at risk. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm that National’s statement in 2005 that: “An emissions trading system not a carbon tax is the best way forward on climate change policy.” and National’s blue-green vision document of a year ago that stated: “We should introduce a tradable emissions permit system to manage New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions.” and our statement in February this year that: “Forest owners and not Government should receive carbon credits for trees planted since 1990.” have all been adopted as Government policy despite the Government arguing against them for all of the last 8 years? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: What I can confirm is that at the last election National said we should pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. National said there should be no devolution of any credits to foresters and National voted against the first two readings of the permanent forest sinks initiative. It is true that when it was obvious that emissions trading would be the preferred Government priority in this area National followed suit. It is also true that the so-called offer of the National Party to devolve credits to forestry even until today was for 50 percent of forest credits. We have promised 100 percent devolution. Having said all of that I repeat what I said in response to the first question: we look forward to working with all parties constructively as we advance New Zealand towards emissions trading and carbon neutrality. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister outline how low to modest income earners will be compensated for the increased costs of electricity that will result from an emissions trading scheme as was announced today and will he also advise as to whether any such compensation will be linked in any way to the price of electricity or perhaps the price of carbon and thereby fluctuate somewhat? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am not in a position to give final details on that issue. There is plenty of time to work that through because of course the price effects are not coming for a couple of years yet. It will be clear by the time the legislation is finally passed by the House what is anticipated in that regard. Suffice it to say the Government is already putting significant focus on improving people’s efficiency in their use of energy so that they use less of it and therefore have to pay for less of it. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is it likely that the household price of electricity will increase as a result of a new emissions trading scheme and if so does the Minister have plans to mitigate the effect of that on low-income households and fixed-income households; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is expected that the cost of petrol at current prices of carbon would increase by about 4c a litre in 2009. The cost of electricity is expected to go up by around 5 percent in 2010. But we need to get this in perspective. Even when we lump all of those costs for a household together the effect of those increases is substantially less than what has been the effective price increases in petrol in the last 3 or 4 months alone. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What was really central to my question was whether the Minister had plans to mitigate the effects of those price increases on households. I do not believe the Minister addressed that part of the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In answer to the question: yes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm today’s latest figures on emissions which show that for every year Labour has been in office emissions have grown at a record rate to the point that they will be 10 million tonnes—20 percent higher than when Labour came into Government—and that the hard yards of implementing an emissions trading system and of constraining emissions will be left to the next Government? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I think this framework will be very important and will endure for a long time. In terms of growth of emissions it is true that New Zealand’s emissions have grown ever since industrialisation began in New Zealand—that is a factor of both economic growth and population growth. Of course sometimes emissions have not grown as much under National because National runs recessions rather than growth. Nonetheless it is true that the projection that was released today will be modified substantially next year because the balance will go down considerably as a consequence of our announcements. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold this question over until the Minister of Justice returns to the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Justice Ministry—Confidence 
4.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he have confidence in his ministry; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Once again thanks for the welcome. Yes; because they are hard-working and conscientious public servants. 
Simon Power 
: Why has the Ministry of Justice been unable to provide any information about the protection and custody orders involved in the Nai Yin Xue and Qian Xue case except to tell the media “We can’t. It’s part of the rules.” when the police have provided that information? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I understand that the answer the member just read out is the position of the officials. 
Simon Power 
: What responsibility does the Ministry of Justice have for entering a custody order into the Customs Service system to prevent a non-custodial parent from taking a child out of the country when the Customs Service has confirmed that in the case of Nai Yin Xue and Qian Xue it was “not in possession of any information or directions that would enable such intervention”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Those are the exact questions that have to be explored at the moment; we need to find out exactly what happened. 
Simon Power 
: Has the Minister of Justice received advice that Nai Yin Xue’s passport had been seized by the court and held by the police and was that because under section 77 of the Care of Children Act the court thought there was a risk he might abscond; and what good is the system if he is able to wander into a police station with his daughter and get his passport back? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member is highlighting exactly what has to be isolated at the present time in relation to how these matters happened and that is what the Minister is doing. 
Simon Power 
: What steps will the Minister of Justice be taking to ensure that the failure to enter custody orders into the Customs Service alert system in this case is not a wider systemic problem in light of a growing number of cases such as those involving Jayden Hedley and Caitlin Jelicich? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If indeed this matter highlights a trend—and we have yet to isolate exactly those facts—then of course the Minister of Justice will be ensuring that in the future those loopholes are closed down. The member has raised an issue that is a fair one. We need to make sure that we isolate the problems and make sure they are closed.  
Driver Licensing—Age Level 
5.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does she stand by her comment on 13 September 2007: “I would say to the member that he ought to test this House as to whether it wishes to raise the driving age of young New Zealanders. I think it is probably timely that this House was tested to see whether it would like to see the age raised. It is a question that this House could decide on.”? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Transport 
: Yes. However the experience of successive Ministers of Transport is that in the past when they have tried to make improvements they have often faced resistance when the time came for Parliament to support a change. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Has the Minister seen the poll reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 a short time ago that showed that 87 percent of New Zealanders favoured a change in the driving age and do I take it from his original answer that he also does? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Yes I am aware of the poll and the considerable public opinion on the issue but opinion is divided. Just as an example of this a previous Minister of Transport the Hon Maurice Williamson strongly favoured raising the driving age as I did but Paula Bennett was quoted in the newspaper the other day—another National member—saying no. So that is a very good example of where public opinion is divided. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the school-leaving age has increased to 16 since the driving age was set at 15 and is it not reasonable to tag the driving age to 16; if he thinks it is reasonable does he believe he has the confidence of his Labour Party colleagues? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: As the member well knows there are arguments for and against raising the driving age particularly between those living in urban areas and those living in rural areas. There will be various announcements soon concerning young drivers and I look forward to the support of Parliament when those announcements are made. That does not however preclude any member from putting the matter forward as a member’s bill and I am sure the debate would be most interesting. Can I also say that 15-year-old drivers in the years 2004 2005 and 2006 had two crashes per year where the 15-year-old driver was at fault and which caused fatalities. That puts the issue somewhat in perspective. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave to table the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 article which clearly states— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I seek leave to table OECD figures on international driving ages for 2006. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question time interrupted.