2. Question No. 2—Climate ChangeHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister of Climate ChangeQuestion No. 2—Climate Change2. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister of Climate Change: Has he sought or received advice on the transport-related emission reduction impacts of the draft Government Policy Statement on land transport; if not why not?Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Matters relating to climate change and emissions reduction issues are being worked through and addressed during the development of the second emissions reduction plan (ERP). This will include deciding the cross-sector policy mix to ensure emissions budgets are met. As such while I have received advice I haven't received specific advice on transport-related emissions reduction impacts of that draft Government policy statement (GPS) as this will be part of preparing ERP 2.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will the cutting of funding for measures in his Government's draft GPS that were recommended by the climate commission as being required to meet the first emissions reduction target such as substantially increasing the share of central government funding dedicated to active and public transport infrastructure and reducing public transport fares to encourage greater use of public transport put meeting—SPEAKER: I'll tell you what we're going to do—sorry to interrupt the member but questions are heard in silence. If people want to have conversations go out to the lobbies. Please start the question again.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you. Will the cutting of funding for measures in his Government's draft GPS that were recommended by the climate commission as being required to meet the first emissions reduction target such as substantially increasing the share of central government funding dedicated to active and public transport infrastructure and reducing public transport fares to encourage greater use of public transport put meeting emissions budget 1 in jeopardy?Hon SIMON WATTS: Look I have advice that the estimated impact of removing some of the initiatives which this coalition Government have signalled will have an inconsequential impact in regards to the impacts around those budgets.Hon Dr Megan Woods: What advice has he received on the impacts of the measures in the GPS given the answer to that supplementary question?Hon SIMON WATTS: As I've advised to the Minister there is a range of advice that I have received but I have not received specific advice in regards to the emissions reduction impacts in that draft GPS. That will be part of the emissions reduction 2 process of which I will welcome the Minister's input into that process and we start consultation in May.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does the Minister of Climate Change think he should have asked for advice on what the impacts are of removing measures that were recommended by the climate commission for meeting emissions budget 1? [Interruption]SPEAKER: Hang on a minute we've got to get this right. When people are asking a question if you don't like the question just suck it up and listen. Please ask the question again.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you. Does the Minister of Climate Change think he should have asked for advice on what the specific impacts of cuts through the GPS on transport would be and their potential of not meeting emissions budget 1?Hon SIMON WATTS: I appreciate that the former Minister may not have been particularly listening to my answer to the question but as I have stated—and I will state again for the purposes of repetition—that aspect of that process will form part of the ERP 2 process. While I have received advice I haven't received specific advice that the Minister had asked in her primary question.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question of the member about whether or not he thought he should have asked for that specific advice. He has told us in several of his answers that he hasn't received specific advice but I asked him if he thought he should.SPEAKER: Yeah look lots of these points of order relating to that sort of thing in recent days—I've done quite a bit of reading to find out what other Speakers have said in the past. The question was addressed and I think we will now move on.Hon Chris Bishop: Has the Minister received advice on the $30 billion Lake Onslow scheme and how much money was spent by the previous Government developing the scheme?SPEAKER: The primary question relates to transport-related emission reduction. Lake Onslow as you know is a proposed electricity scheme.Hon Nicola Willis: Has the Minister received any advice on the doomed light rail project and how much was wasted on that before it was cancelled?SPEAKER: If we're going to go down this track we're going to get into a pretty murky place. The primary—Hon Member: It's transport.SPEAKER: Well OK I'll get called on that; it is a transport-related question. It's very thin. It's quite—Hon SIMON WATTS: Sorry Mr Speaker I didn't hear that question. Could the Minister repeat that.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker. I simply refer you to the Standing Order that you quoted to me yesterday. The question that Nicola Willis asked falls foul of that Standing Order and therefore must be ruled out of order on the same basis that you pulled me up yesterday.SPEAKER: Well I pulled you up yesterday on the basis—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker can I help out here?SPEAKER: No. No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I can really help out here.SPEAKER: Well it had better be helpful.Rt Hon Winston Peters: It's a matter of chronology. This issue was decided when this Government came into office. Therefore it's in our bailiwick.Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: That is a fair point. I'll just make the point that I pulled you up yesterday—Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Hang on. I pulled you up yesterday on the skilfully put question that essentially asked for an opinion on your opinion and that is the subtle difference that we've got here. This is on a specific matter.Hon James Shaw: Thank you Mr Speaker. I think part of the issue here actually is that the Minister of Climate Change is not responsible for the Auckland light rail project or for the financial matters relating to that. The primary question was around emissions budgets not fiscal budgets and so therefore the supplementary question about the fiscal cost of the light rail project is not relevant to the primary question.SPEAKER: That is a reasonable point. I'll accept that. Are you speaking to this point of order?Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It's a further point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Well hang on. Let me deal with this one. Is that all right?Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: All right then. Fair enough.Simon Court: Point of order Mr Speaker. Just in response to the former climate Minister's—SPEAKER: No it's not your job to respond to him. If you've got something new to add tell me.Simon Court: Well it's quite clear that Auckland light rail was proposed to reduce emissions but not to reach net zero until 2060.SPEAKER: With all due respect the only one who's going to judge about the suitability of a question here today is me so I'm ruling it out and we'll move on from here.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Order that I was referring to was 390(1)(b) which you quoted yesterday in suggesting that my question was out of order. In fact Nicola Willis' question falls foul of the same rule. SPEAKER: Well OK but my point yesterday was that 390(1)(b) does not allow opinion and that's the difference.Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: And her question did?SPEAKER: No her question was specific but that question's now ruled out so it's no longer a problem for you.Dan Bidois: Can the Minister confirm that electric vehicles need roads to drive on?SPEAKER: No. No. No. Don't do that sort of thing. That's not going to help.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Supplementary question.SPEAKER: When we're all quiet—when we're all quiet.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Thank you Mr Speaker. How much more will Kiwis be paying per litre at the pump as a consequence of his Government's policy of relying almost solely on the emissions trading scheme (ETS) pricing scheme to achieve transport emissions reductions to align with the Climate Commission's projections that economic modelling has shown needs a carbon price of $235 per tonne by 2030?SPEAKER: The problem is here if I let that question through I'd be disagreeing with the position taken by the Hon James Shaw which I did agree with. So it's either a question about emissions or it is a fiscal question. That was a fiscal question.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister of Climate Change has ministerial responsibility for the ETS and that was a question about the emissions trading scheme and what the price would need to be.SPEAKER: All right. Fair enough. I'm sure he can answer it.Hon SIMON WATTS: Thank you Mr Speaker. As Minister of Climate Change I don't comment on the price of the ETS nor in regards to what it does but what I can say to the former Minister is that the way in which this Government will take actions around the reduction of emissions will be different from the prior Government and we'll be working through the emissions reduction plan 2 of which I welcome the former Minister's input into in order to make sure we've got a credible plan to deliver those targets.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he think it is fair that Kiwis will be hit with a petrol price hike of between 40c and 50c a litre based on that carbon price of $235 a tonne because of his Government's plan of cutting transport projects and programmes that will reduce emissions?Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can say is unfair to New Zealanders is the fact that this coalition Government has inherited a situation where there isn't a clear pathway in order to meet some of our reductions because of the inaction by the prior Government and that former Minister. We are going to address that issue through the progress we do around the emissions reduction 2 programme and I look forward to being able to tell you more about that in due course.