Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6324] 
4.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What are the major changes the Government is making to the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Firstly we want to lessen the impacts on households and businesses so we have introduced a phased introduction of the emissions trading scheme that will halve the impact on power and fuel prices. Secondly we are amending the transitional industry support to encourage efficiency without exporting investment and jobs. The revised scheme’s approach to industry is very close to that proposed in Australia. Thirdly we have adjusted to a more realistic timetable with stationary energy industrial processes and transport entering on 1 July next year and agriculture entering on 1 January 2015. 
Craig Foss 
: Did the Minister put a specific proposal to the Labour Party on a bipartisan approach; if so what was that proposal and how did it deal with agriculture? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. Last Tuesday at my eighth meeting with members of the Labour Party I offered a compromised deal on agriculture noting that Labour preferred 2013 and we preferred 2015 that we cut the difference at 2014. I also offered following agreement a joint leaders’ press conference this Tuesday following caucuses. I stress that because I needed legislation during this parliamentary session I needed a response last week to be able to take proposals to Cabinet on Monday. I further stated that I would clear my diary any day and any hour to try to advance an agreement; I received no response. 
Craig Foss 
: What communications did the Minister have with the Labour Party following the meeting last Tuesday where he proposed a specific compromise? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I said to Labour members that I would clear any hour and any time that week to try to reach an agreement. I was a little taken aback the next day when Mr Chauvel gave a speech in New Plymouth revealing the contents of the draft memorandum of understanding and outlining Labour’s bottom lines. I did not consider that to be negotiating in good faith although it was not atypical. Staff in my office had bets on how long after each meeting Labour would leak the issue to the media; the best result was 8 minutes after the meeting had ended. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation arising out of the matters that have just been advised to the House by the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I want to deal with two matters quite emphatically here and now in the House. First the Minister said that on Tuesday at a meeting in his office he advised the Labour negotiating team—consisting of me Moana Mackey and David Parker—that responses to the matters raised were required by Friday. I have spoken extensively to Ms Mackey and Mr Parker as well as having consulted my own recollection of the meeting and I can assure the House that no such statement was made by Dr Nick Smith. The second matter I want— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I alert the member that making an allegation about what another member may have said is not the subject of a personal explanation. I urge the member to be careful because the House has accorded him a special privilege. In continuing please be mindful of that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: The second matter I wish to draw the House’s attention to is the Minister’s claim that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please word the explanation in a manner that makes it very clear that it is a personal explanation. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Yes I understand. I gave a speech in New Plymouth last week as the Minister said. In that speech I simply elaborated on the contents of the minority report of the Labour Party to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. Nothing in that speech betrayed any confidences. It is important for me to place that on the record. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave of the House to table the draft memorandum of understanding that Labour was in discussion on and to table the speech that was given by Charles Chauvel so that the House may note the words in common in both those documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. We had better deal with the first one which is the memorandum of understanding. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to the second document which is the speech being tabled? Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to relitigate Mr Chauvel’s personal explanation but I want to note this point. I think it is important for the purposes of orderly conduct in the House that members be very clear that it is a very special privilege to seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave is granted usually without controversy particularly so that members can clear their names against any allegations that have been made against them personally. That is why it is called a personal explanation. It is not a mechanism by which one can introduce debatable points or contest what a particular Minister may have said about a particular issue. If it was the mechanism of seeking leave to make a personal explanation would become a matter of pointless debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a very good point and I ask all members to be mindful of that point. The point has been well made. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table the contents of Labour’s minority report to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee in order that members— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the Labour minority report to the select committee. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. 
David Garrett 
: Will the Treaty of Waitangi clause—to be included in the climate change response bill and the emissions trading scheme itself—refer to the principles of the Treaty or to the Treaty as a partnership; if not what will the clause refer to? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That has been a particularly important point for the Maori Party which wants to ensure that Maori are not disadvantaged or carry a disproportionate share of the changes that are required by climate change policy and the emissions trading scheme. We will work with the Maori Party Crown Law and officials on the drafting of the amendment. The intent is to require ongoing consultation with Maori about climate change policy. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister have an estimate of the fiscal cost of renegotiating specific Treaty settlements where iwi have “unknowingly been disadvantaged” by deforestation provisions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This issue does not relate to the major settlements like the central North Island where the emissions trading scheme was well known; it relates to issues in respect of some of the early settlements where there is a concern from iwi that the Crown knew that an emissions trading scheme would disadvantage their assets but did not inform iwi during those negotiations. I have had significant discussion on this issue particularly with Ngai Tahu on an ongoing basis. I have made a commitment with the Maori Party to include its members in ongoing discussions to resolve those issues. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question specifically asked whether the Minister had an estimate of the cost of renegotiating. It had nothing to do with the process whom was affected what was going to be done next or what discussions he was going to have. I asked whether he had an estimate of the cost of renegotiating those settlements. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s point. It may be that the Minister does not have that information since it is a supplementary question. If the question had been on notice I would have absolutely insisted on an answer. If the Minister has that information or any estimate of it it would be helpful to the House. The Minister is indicating that he simply does not have that information. Given that it is a supplementary question we cannot force the matter. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Is the Minister seriously telling the House and the country that on an issue of the Treaty of Waitangi which was a treaty of two partners and the issue of climate change which affects all New Zealanders and all businesses in New Zealand Maori forestry owners or Maori owners of any other business will be treated unequally in terms of their advantage over any other owner of forest or business? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Neither has the Maori Party asked for any provision that would be special to Maori in respect of— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Secret deal! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The truth is that Maori have a particularly large share of New Zealand’s fishing and forest industries so the Maori Party has shown a particular interest in policy in that regard. The specific changes that the Government has made to the emissions trading scheme will treat Maori forestry owners Maori quota holders and Maori players in agriculture no different from any other New Zealander.