Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:658;Page:7166] 
2.  
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Is it a coincidence that under the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme forestry and fishing which have significant Maori ownership are being offered a fixed amount of free allocations for a limited time while other industries are being offered an uncapped amount that will last for decades? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 These features of the modified emissions trading scheme are also true of the existing scheme that was supported by the previous Government and the Green Party and they actually relate to the realities of individual sectors. Fishing which is important to Maori is treated more generously under the changed emissions trading scheme with a half obligation until 2013 and a 90 percent allocation rather than 50 percent. The allocation for pre-1990 forestry is to compensate for the loss of land-use flexibility. It is nonsense for the member to suggest that that be increased proportionately like the allocation for the agricultural industry is to be as by definition there cannot be more pre-1990 forests. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is it not true that such a disparity in allocations between predominantly Maori-interested businesses and others will hold back Maori economic development while providing a blank cheque to others particularly foreign-owned firms? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The truth is quite the opposite of that and I can give the member an example. One of the issues the Maori Party raised with me was where the quota should be allocated in terms of the fishing allocations. The Maori Party made a strong representation that it should go to quota holders rather than fishing vessel operators for the very reason that a number of the fishing vessel operators are foreign-owned. I also point out that Maori are one of the biggest operators in forestry. One of the biggest opportunities around the emissions trading scheme is with the post-1989 forests so there are very significant opportunities for Maori to earn carbon credits from the growth of forestry. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is it correct that he has agreed to support an amendment from the Maori Party to insert a Treaty of Waitangi clause into the emissions trading scheme legislation after submissions on the bill have been heard by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and if it is will that clause resemble the one proposed by the Maori Party during the emissions trading scheme debate last year? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In the agreement between the Government and the Maori Party it is the intention to support a Treaty of Waitangi clause for the legislation to ensure that Maori interests are recognised on an ongoing basis as New Zealand develops its long-term policy around climate change. I am working constructively with the Maori Party on those amendments and getting advice from officials to ensure that the clause works effectively. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table the Supplementary Order Paper that was tabled by the Maori Party in the debate on the emissions trading scheme legislation last year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is obviously on the record of the House already. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hekia Parata 
: I runga i te tangi o te ngakau mo te tipuna koka kua haere tena tatou te Whare. 
[ 
Greetings to us the House despite the grief within for the grand ancestress who has passed away 
.]  
Has the Minister read criticism of the Government’s policy of aligning the New Zealand emissions trading scheme more closely with Australia’s on the basis that Australia’s is unlikely to progress? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes there has been fervent criticism of Government policy along those lines from the Opposition. I note that in recent days the Liberal and National Opposition parties of the Australian Parliament have proposed support for the Australian emissions trading scheme in the Senate subject to a number of amendments. I also note that despite all the angst over progressing our amendments through the House by December in time for the Copenhagen conference the Australian Government is intending to do the same but is yet to introduce those amendments to its Parliament. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a statement by the Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water Senator the Hon Penny Wong containing a summary of the changes put forward by the Liberal Opposition and the critique by the Labor Government of those changes. 
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. 
John Boscawen 
: Does the Minister agree with the Federation of Maori Authorities chief executive officer Mr Rino Tirikatene who told the Finance and Expenditure Committee last Thursday that the Government’s emissions trading scheme will result in the biggest destruction of Maori wealth since the land confiscations; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I do not. The truth is that the emissions trading scheme that was put in place by the previous Government imposes liabilities on all forest owners Maori or otherwise in respect of deforestation. That is consistent with the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. The Government’s view is that there is a need to change those requirements. In the agreement that the Government has made with the Maori Party we intend to push very strongly for changes in the Kyoto rules to get greater land-use flexibility which is the principal concern of the Federation of Maori Authorities. 
Metiria Turei 
: Did the Minister explain to the Maori Party when he was negotiating support for this bill that the Canadian-owned Methanex would get $85 million in subsidies each year for well over a decade whereas iwi fishers and foresters would get subsidies for only 3 years? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will point something out to the member about the language of subsidies. What is actually occurring with an allocation is not— 
Metiria Turei 
: Is that a problem? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the difficulty is that under the Kyoto Protocol New Zealand gets an allocation of units. It would be true to say there was a subsidy if taxpayers were having to fund the purchase of units that the Government would then pass on. If that was the case the member’s assertion would also be exactly true of the emissions trading scheme that she and her party voted for because it too provided a free allocation for companies like Methanex. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has completely failed to answer the question. The question did not ask for a description of subsidies; it was a question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. I heard the member dispute whether the Minister answered the question. The Minister actually disagreed totally with the assertion in the member’s question. By doing that he answered the question because he pointed that one of the statements the member included in her question was in his view not correct. That answers the question. 
John Boscawen 
: Does the Minister agree with Mr Eru George who is a director of Te Arawa Group Holdings which owns central North Island forests and who told the Finance and Expenditure Committee last Thursday that the new Government’s emissions trading scheme would result in additional losses for Te Arawa of over $30 million greater than those under Labour’s scheme bringing the total losses for Te Arawa to a figure in excess of $600 million; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I have not had a chance to study its submission to the select committee but I would be surprised by that. The reason is that in terms of the forestry provisions which are where the greatest change in land value arises from the emissions trading scheme the amendments that the Government is making are very very small. I also point out to the member that the alternative position to take is that there be no control on the deforestation of pre-1990 forests. If that is his party’s position he needs to acknowledge that that would incur a very large cost to the taxpayer. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister proposing to hold hui around the country to discuss directly with Maori the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme and whether they are fair for those communities and industries as the previous Government did with the last emissions trading scheme or has all proper consultation been cut because of his rushed process? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The tight timetable is a consequence of the existing emissions trading scheme coming into effect on 1 January which would impose very high costs on New Zealanders with a 10 percent increase in power bills and would put at risk as well the jobs of a large number of New Zealanders in the industries that would be affected. I also believe that it would be highly desirable for New Zealand to have our emissions trading legislation settled by the time of the Copenhagen conference as is the case with Australia. I am surprised that the Green Party is so opposed to what I think is an important position in terms of New Zealand’s reputation. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister have sufficient support in the House to pass this deeply flawed bill through all its stages despite the fact of its blatant discrimination against Maori? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I find the assertion made by the member very difficult because the bill is more generous to Maori than the bill that she voted for. So for her to claim— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well there is more generous compensation for the fishing industry and it is better in terms of the impacts on agriculture which is why the iwi leadership group has lobbied the Government and the Maori Party very hard for their support for it. I say to the member Metiria Turei that the assertion she makes is grossly incorrect.