Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6698] 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When he said last week in the House that the Government was interested in “making sure that our scheme is affordable.” what is the estimated cost to the New Zealand taxpayer over the life of the scheme of the changes he announced to the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 As the Prime Minister said last week over the next 3 years the revised scheme will cost around $415 million to halve the petrol and electricity price increases that were inherent in the scheme that was already on the books. It is more difficult to estimate the costs past 2013 because the international rules are not known. However Treasury’s mid-range estimate is that the revised scheme will actually save $493 million during the period 2013 to 2018 so over the next 9 years it will cost taxpayers less than the existing scheme. That brings into question some of the claims that have been made about huge industry subsidies. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How can the Acting Prime Minister make that comment when the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development which represents about 43 percent of the gross domestic product of this country says: “Capping the price on emissions and delaying the phase out of assistance for major emitters could cost the taxpayers billions of dollars”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The advice that we have been given by Treasury which has had many years to work out how to calculate these things simply contradicts the claims by that council and contradicts the claims made by the member. In the interests of broad agreement about the scheme it should not be too difficult to get to the bottom of what drives the numbers. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why in making the changes to the emissions trading scheme has the Prime Minister transferred billions of dollars of costs for carbon and methane pollution from those causing the pollution to ordinary hard-working New Zealand taxpayers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government simply disagrees with that description. It does not matter how many times that member uses it; it does not make it right. We have balanced up our environmental responsibilities with our economic responsibilities. The member ought to bear in mind that Labour’s scheme was going to impose very significant price increases on electricity and petrol and very significant job losses for the hard-working New Zealanders whom he pretends to represent. 
Chris Tremain 
: Is the Government still open to discussions with Labour on changes to the emissions trading scheme noting that Labour’s opposition is based on a flawed assumption that these changes will cost taxpayers a whole lot more over the next decade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister for Climate Change Issues Dr Nick Smith has said he is open to talks at any time. It seems to me that in light of the advice from Treasury it should not be too difficult to get agreement on the numbers about what the scheme is costing but I understand that those are not the principal issues that Labour is concerned about. We are open to further discussion on the issues that Labour is concerned about. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask whether the question you have just allowed from the National whip about the policies of another party and the assumption he made about what the effect would be of the policies of another political party are now in order. If they are the Labour Party cannot wait to start asking those sorts of questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I assure the honourable member that he ought to be pleased that I do not apply the particular Standing Order because more than half the questions his colleagues ask would be ruled out. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and that is why— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’s good. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just alert members to the fact that if they put those kinds of assertions into questions they will not get the answers they expect— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: About things they have no ministerial responsibility for? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members will not interject while I am ruling on the point the member has made. If those kinds of assertions are put into questions members can expect the Minister to respond to the assertion not to the question. At the end of the day I have to make a judgment about whether to rule them out. I do not want to intervene all the time. If I were to rule out that particular question from the Government member—certainly it was not strictly in order and I accept that—I would have to rule out many questions from the Opposition. I have to try to play an even hand. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: In response to the statements made by independent economic commentators about the billions of dollars of cost that this scheme will impose on the taxpayer will the Prime Minister release to the public and to Parliament a breakdown of the cost of subsidies that he is making to a range of multinational companies that will continue to emit for much longer such as Rio Tinto Holcim Cement BlueScope Steel and Methanex; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The information concerned will be covered by the same rules as every other bit of policy advice that the Government gets which means that it will almost certainly be released. But I stress to the member that there will be plenty of access to the information if we can have a reasonable environment in which to discuss it and that would mean that the member would need to correct some of his more outrageous claims. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why does the Prime Minister think it is affordable for New Zealand taxpayers that just one firm—Methanex—will benefit by $74 million a year more in free credits when it expands production as it is planning and that that level of subsidy will hardly reduce over three generations? If he disagrees with those numbers will he release his analysis? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would have to go back and see whether the member’s analysis is correct. In the broad approach to this scheme the Government has balanced up its environmental and economic responsibilities. We have been quite upfront in expressing our objective of wanting to reduce the cost. In fact we have halved the cost to consumers of electricity and petrol—which is most New Zealanders—and we have made sure that successful industries are not exported overseas taking with them thousands of well-paid jobs. I accept that other parties might have a different view; that is our view. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Minister agree with the Minister of Agriculture David Carter who said last week that polluters will not face the full cost of their emissions for 90 years; if so does that mean that New Zealand taxpayers will continue to pick up the bill for polluters until 2099? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have made decisions that balance up the needs of the economy the needs of the environment and costs for everyday New Zealanders. It is a bit difficult to speculate 90 years ahead because past 2012 the international rules are not known. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is the Government prepared to spend what other independent commentators have estimated as billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to subsidise polluters when it is going to slash adult education by 80 percent for the sake of just $16 million? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is one thing for the Opposition to make extravagant claims which I guess is the job of the Opposition but if Labour members really are putting a priority on getting a broad agreement on the emissions trading system then they need to put up their propositions which I presume would take billions of dollars off these industries and export the jobs that go with them. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Supplementary question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition I say to members that if they want to hear an answer to a question then it is not helpful to interject quite so intensively. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If Ministers give political answers that are provocative to the Opposition then clearly there will be interjections. You have ruled in that particular regard. The Acting Prime Minister who spoke about making extravagant claims should have chosen slightly shrewder words that he did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has just highlighted the problem of when members asking questions insert claims into their questions. The Acting Prime Minister in responding commented on the Opposition making an extravagant claim and thereby invited lots of interjections. The House would do so much better if members would simply ask clear hard-hitting questions instead of making claims and allegations about things. Please understand that that statement applies to both sides. I guess by and large most of the questions are asked by the Opposition. I urge members to simply ask clear hard-hitting questions. We can see the problems that come when statements are made instead of questions being asked. We get this kind of unhelpful interaction. I am sure people would have struggled to hear the answer. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Following your advice Mr Speaker I ask what the deal to get Maori Party support for the emissions trading scheme will cost the taxpayer and who will benefit from that expenditure. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member knows there are ongoing discussions with the Maori Party. But I make the point that if the member really is interested in considered discussion about the emissions trading scheme he has every opportunity to take part in that discussion. That might be better for the country than making extravagant— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion the Leader of the Opposition asked a perfectly straight question. The Acting Prime Minister in responding either has information about the cost of an agreement reached or he does not. The House would appreciate receiving information about that cost and certainly does not appreciate a lecture being given to the questioner who asked a straight question. I invite the Minister to provide the answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will just repeat the first part of my answer which was that there are ongoing discussions with the Maori Party. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Clearly that answer did not answer the question which was about what the deal will cost. The Prime Minister in negotiating the deal must have some idea of what it will cost otherwise he would have been totally irresponsible in making the deal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the point the member has made. Either the Acting Prime Minister has information about the cost of an agreement entered into or no agreement has been entered into. Either way the House deserves an answer to a straight question. I have been trying to encourage straight questions. A straight question has been asked and the House deserves an answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can only repeat the answer I have already given: there are ongoing discussions with the Maori Party. There is no final information about cost. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first document is from the  
Taranaki Daily News 
 in which the Minister of Agriculture says that it will take 90 years of subsidies before the emission— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table a media release from the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development on 14 September which sets out how this scheme will cost the taxpayer billions of dollars. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table an article by Brian Fallow a respected economics journalist for the  
New Zealand Herald 
 where he makes exactly the same point: that the purpose of this scheme is to transfer the cost— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a recent edition of the  
New Zealand Herald 
? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It is from 17 September. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a recent edition. I will put the leave but I ask members in response to recommendations from the Standing Orders Committee not to take the time of the House to table recent newspaper articles from major dailies that members see regularly. I am obliged to put the leave. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the analysis by Treasury that shows that in the first decade following the changes to the emissions trading scheme it will actually cost $100 million less than the scheme proposed by Labour. 
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.