Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7894. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he stand by his statement that “I have always said that figures out beyond a decade are very uncertain”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yes I do. There is uncertainty about the international rules about the price of carbon and in the long term about what technologies and growth rates there will be. I recall a previous Government promising a $1 billion surplus from Kyoto and only 2 years later having to accept that it was a $1 billion debt. 
Charles Chauvel 
: If figures beyond a decade are “very uncertain” is he confident that the Government will be able to meet its “50 percent by 2050” emissions reduction target 40 years into the future; if so how can he be confident in a target for emissions reductions in 2050 but dismiss Treasury predictions for the same year as “nonsense”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am a lot more confident that this Government will meet its “50 by 2050” target than I am in believing the claims of carbon neutrality from the previous Government when in every single year it was in Government emissions went up and went up faster than emissions in any other developed country. How the Opposition does not like the truth about its record! 
David Bennett 
: What is the Government’s long-term policy on the 1.3 percent per year phase-out rate noting that the Act provides for it to be reviewed every 5 years? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: These allocations are being provided because sectors are emissions intensive and they are trade exposed. The 1.3 percent phase-out rate is similar to schemes in both the European Union and Australia. We are not rigidly fixed to the 1.3 percent rate in the long term but we want to keep it roughly in line with our trade competitors so as not to disadvantage industries that may simply move offshore and cost Kiwis jobs. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why did the Minister tell the House and the Prime Minister tell Federated Farmers that Treasury estimates the cost of the emissions trading scheme by 2030 to each farmer at $3000 per year if they both believe Treasury to be so unreliable and figures beyond a decade to be “so uncertain”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Because it is certainly true that for the farming sector the 8 percent phase-out rate in the current law would put very large costs on to the farming industry. If members opposite want to talk about large losses of revenue to the Crown from our changes they should also be honest with farmers and say that they will impose very large costs on them. 
David Bennett 
: Has the Minister read any commentary from Charles Chauvel that says it is foolish to align the New Zealand scheme— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure how the Minister can possibly be responsible for any comment by Charles Chauvel. The member might like to reword his question but I do not see how the Minister is responsible for that. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understood that the member asked the Minister whether he had read the comments. That is a reasonable question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What troubles me about the question is where it is clearly leading. I would find it totally unacceptable if the Minister were to launch into a criticism of an Opposition spokesperson because that is not his responsibility unless the Opposition spokesperson asked a question that provokes such an answer. I think it is stretching the Standing Orders a fair distance to ask the Minister about comments that another member of the House has made. I am sure the member can reword his question and make it more reasonable. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think your ruling is not consistent because we have had questions such as whether the Minister has seen the comments by well-noted marvellous reporter Brian Fallow or the glorious Rod Oram etc. all afternoon. If we can ask questions about the comments of these highly intelligent and insightful commentators surely we can ask whether they have seen the comments of Charles Chauvel. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the point the member is making. I will reverse my objection to the question. But I want to be clear that I do not want it to be used as an excuse to abuse another member of this House. I accept the point the Hon Rodney Hide has made but if I allow this question I do not want to regret it in a few minutes’ time. 
David Bennett 
: Has the Minister read any commentary from Charles Chauvel that it is foolish to align the New Zealand scheme with Australia’s as it will never get through its Senate; if so has he received any updated reports on progress across the Tasman? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Chauvel again is wrong. An announcement has been made today that an agreement has been reached to enable the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation to be passed through the Senate this week. I note that the amendments have only just been tabled today by the Australian Labor Government. Its intention is to pass it through the Senate this week. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister understand the difference between the shadow Cabinet of the Liberal Party of Australia agreeing in principle to some amendments proposed by the Australian Labor Party and the difficulty that the Liberal Party will still face in getting those amendments through the party room and through the Senate? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes there are some differences of view within the Liberal Party of Australia in the same way that I have noted here. I have heard one member from Labour saying that the agreement with the Maori Party is a sell-out by Maori and another spokesperson from the Labour Party said exactly the opposite— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who was that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Would the member like me to table the statements from the various members? 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that the question was a relatively confined one relating to the Minister’s understanding of the Australian political environment. The answer seems to have strayed very wide of the mark. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was a point of order and one would never know that from the noise in the House. But I think that is a reflection of the fact that the House is not too impressed by the member’s point of order. The question was an awfully long way from the primary question so I do not think that too precise an answer can be expected. 
Charles Chauvel 
: If Treasury’s projections should be disregarded in part because allocation decisions are to be reviewed every 5 years why should New Zealanders have any confidence that any review of allocations done under this Minister will not simply do what his amendment does which is to heavily favour polluters and circumvent public opinion? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I do not think it does. If I look at my emails there are some people who are emailing me very heavily saying that this scheme does not go far enough to protect the environment. I receive a large number of other emails and commentary saying that it is too hard on the economy. I think this Government has the balance right. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the members opposite that for 9 years they made no progress on climate change. This Government will. 
I seek leave of the House to table the papers released in Australia this afternoon outlining the agreement and the changes to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on that side of the Tasman. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a document that you may feel comes close to a ruling that you made earlier. But I think it is in the public interest to seek leave to table a report from the  
Sydney Morning Herald 
 online from about an hour and a half ago indicating that the changes to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia are by no means a done deal as far as the Liberal Party of Australia is concerned. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.