Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:657;Page:6792] 
9.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What is the total fiscal cost of all proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 In the period up to 2013 the cost is $415 million for all the changes that are principally around reducing the cost increase for electricity and fuel. Cost estimates beyond 2013 are more difficult as we do not know the final outcome of international negotiations and there is more uncertainty about the price of carbon but the mid-range estimate by officials is that between 2012 and 2018 the improvements will actually save $493 million. So for the first 10 years of the scheme the improvements made to it by the Government will save the taxpayer in the order of $100 million. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked for the total fiscal cost of all proposed changes. The Minister gave an estimate first for the initial period of 3 years and then for a further period of 6 years. There must be further estimates in the out-years and the question did refer to those. That question was on notice and it was not fully addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness I think the Minister gave a very reasonable and comprehensive answer to the question. The member does have further supplementary questions in which to question beyond that period. I think it would be a bit unreasonable to criticise that answer from the Minister. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is it fair that taxpayers should pick up the bill for changes to the emissions trading scheme when households will receive assistance only until 2013 whereas large foreign-owned companies like Methanex Rio Tinto and BlueScope Steel will receive taxpayer support for up to another 90 years? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is incorrect. For the immediate period from 2013 to 2018 the scheme that National is proposing will actually involve less support for those companies. The member opposite may want to have an argument about what policy might be in 2030 or 2040 but although I am optimistic about the life of this Government I am not sure this same Government will be in office 70 years hence. 
Hekia Parata 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. What advice has the Minister received on the claims by Opposition Leader Phil Goff that “Rio Tinto gets its two billion dollar subsidy if the carbon price turns out to be $30 a ton.”?  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The advice I have received from my officials is that the industry allocation to Rio Tinto for the first decade of the scheme would be 27 million units under Labour’s scheme but 21 million units under the improved scheme. This is 6 million units less and at $30 per tonne amounts to a saving of $180 million. The claim of a $2 billion subsidy for Rio Tinto is another Goff gaffe that is about as good as his proposed benefits for millionaires. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When will the Minister disclose what special deal has been done for Ngai Tahu and other post-Treaty - settlement assets so that the public can understand whether the Maori Party came to this deal for nothing or whether National is now allowing Maori-owned assets to be treated differently from other assets?  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The contributions that the Maori Party has made to the revised emissions trading scheme make great sense for all New Zealanders. For instance all New Zealanders will benefit from a halving in the increase of the price of electricity. I think the changes that the Maori Party has made in respect of the fishing industry—which is important to New Zealand—are an improvement. I think the change it is making in terms of more support for insulation of low-income households is a good thing. I am surprised that the members opposite object to those extra support measures which will improve the scheme. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked whether there was any particular differentiation between post-Treaty settlement assets and non - post-Treaty settlement assets. That issue has not been addressed at all by the Minister’s answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member had restricted his question specifically to that issue then I could put some heat on the Minister to specifically address it. But if I recollect the member’s question correctly it actually contained more than that which gave the Minister more latitude in answering it. I feel I have to be fair to Ministers. I will put pressure on them to answer questions when I hear a very clear straight question but when the question goes on with a range of issues it is very difficult for me to ask the Minister to answer any specific part of it. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is not the real reason the Minister is happy to selectively table mis-described documents that allow him to attack the Green Party and Labour when it suits him but he will not give a straight answer on the cost of the emissions trading scheme in the out-years that the Government has taken a short-sighted approach and has saddled future generations of New Zealanders with a fiscal black hole? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have provided the House with the best very accurate estimates that are possible for the next 10 years. Given that the emissions trading scheme will have a review of the allocation system in both 2011 and 2016 and the fact that we have no idea what the rules will be internationally beyond 2012 let alone beyond 2020 quite frankly I believe that financial estimates beyond that period have little value. 
I seek leave of the House to table an analysis of the allocations to Rio Tinto for its Bluff smelter under both the existing and the improved emissions trading scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Analysis done by whom? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The analysis has been provided with figures from the Ministry for the Environment on the new and changed emissions trading schemes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who is the document by? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I understand that the analysis was done by the Ministry for the Environment. Was it? There is some uncertainty as to whose analysis the Minister is seeking to table. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The information has been provided by officials. Information has also been provided from the smelter itself— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —about the amount of emissions it is required to report I tell Mr Goff. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to bring back some semblance of order. While I am on my feet there will be silence. The confusion for the House is exactly what the document is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to be more specific. The document sets out the allocations that would be made to the Rio Tinto aluminium smelter relative to its reported emissions for each of the years through to 2018 under both the existing scheme and the revised scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House needs to know who prepared the document. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The information has been prepared by my office on the basis of the information that has been provided by both the Ministry for the Environment and the smelter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document has been clarified now. The member has sought leave to table it. Is there any objection? 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek a point of clarification. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have clarified what the document is. The member will resume his seat immediately. At my request the Minister in my view has very comprehensively described what the document is because there was some confusion about it. I am now putting the question on the leave being sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.