Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18620] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee has told the Committee of the whole House that the select committee carefully considered all of the amendments. Let me tell this Committee what actually happened. The Government strolled in on the last day—the day on which we were to deliberate—with a thousand amendments. There were a thousand amendments I say to Mr Chauvel and if he believes that any single member of the select committee had time to consider their implications then he really is pulling a very long straw. 
I put this very simple question to the member opposite and I could put hundreds of such questions— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Some of us read our papers. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh the member says he has read his papers. Well let me check that by asking him a simple question. Why does new section 57 inserted by clause 43 not include reference to cogeneration? The silence is deafening. Now members opposite may say that is just a technical issue and they have got the concept right. Well let me tell members the implication of not including cogeneration—that one word. That omission will cost Fonterra $13.5 million each year. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Gibberish is not helpful. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I ask Madam Tizard whether she would like to answer for me the question of why in new section 69 inserted by clause 43 there is no inclusion for the wholesaling of gas and coal. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: When you start talking sense we’ll all talk to you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member Judith Tizard says she cannot explain that. 
The problem I say to Judith Tizard is that the process followed by the Labour members on this bill has been reckless and irresponsible. We had all these assurances before. Do members remember the Electoral Finance Bill? Do they remember that bill from about a year ago? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What great legislation that was. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Woolerton and New Zealand First say it is great legislation. It is legislation about disclosure and I am somewhat surprised that Mr Woolerton would want to advance the cause— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Dr Smith speak on the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill please not on another bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was responding to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Ignore the interjections. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The parallel between the two bills is that we had all the same assurances from the Government on the Electoral Finance Bill that we have had on this bill yet now the agency that is responsible for administering the Electoral Finance Act says the Act is a mess. It is more serious than that because the implications of this bill are even larger than those of the Electoral Finance Act. Certainly the Electoral Finance Act is a hassle for political parties and candidates and it makes participating in an election a nightmare but this bill will have an impact on every single household and business in New Zealand. 
It is just reckless and irresponsible for this Government to be ramming this legislation through without the necessary scrutiny. You see this Clark-Peters Government is not actually concerned— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Crosby/Textor lines! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well actually I can tell the member that Winston Peters is part of his Government and the corruption that is being exposed in another room in this building— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Come back to the bill please. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I simply say to the member opposite who is part of this Clark-Peters Government—[ 
Interruption 
]. Those members laugh because they are embarrassed; they know about this Clark-Peters Government and its irresponsible legislation of this sort. 
I have a last very important question. In stitching up the amendments and the support from New Zealand First and the Greens the Government has announced $1.5 billion of spending on various measures. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Pete Hodgson where the money is coming from. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What part of it don’t you agree with? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would simply like to know where the money is coming from. Can the Minister tell us that? 
I will tell members what we are told. David Parker the Minister responsible for this legislation said the money was coming from the extra profits of the Government’s State-owned enterprises. The problem with that line of argument is that Dr Cullen has said—and it is on the public record—all of the profits from those State-owned enterprises will be required to meet the Government’s 90 percent renewable energy target and any suggestion that the money could be used for alternative purposes meant that the Government did not have a hope of meeting that target. 
I ask the Minister in the chair where the money is coming from that has enabled the Government to buy the support of New Zealand First and the Greens for this bill. Does any member on the Government benches know that? Judith Tizard had a lot to say for herself a few moments ago; would she be able to advise me as to where that money is coming from? Can the Minister in the chair tell me where the money is coming from? Mr Charles Chauvel who was very keen to interject a moment ago may be able to fill us in on that. I ask members where the $1.5 million is coming from. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member referred to support being bought by the Government. That is not an appropriate reference and he knows it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I take the member’s point. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: All we know is that New Zealand First and the Green Party are supporting this bill only as a consequence of the Government agreeing to provide $1.5 billion worth of extra items. My question— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I am actually dealing with a point of order. I had thought the member was replying to that point of order. Objection was taken to the use of the word “bought” because it has all sorts of undertones that are not particularly nice. I ask the member not to use that word. He can explore the concept but I ask him to please not use that terminology. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We know as a matter of public record that the Greens and New Zealand First agreed to support this bill only as a consequence of the Government committing to $1.5 billion of expenditure: $1 billion for a solar water heating energy efficiency fund in the case of the Greens and a fund for compensation. My question to Government members because we have not heard the answer to this is: where is that money coming from? It is interesting that Government members have had much to say but on a very basic question such as where the money— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Ask Jacqui Dean if she can get it from overseas. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Would Mr Chauvel be able to inform the Committee? Where is the money coming from? 
Sue Moroney 
: Ask Jacqui Dean! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Actually Jacqui Dean is not a member of the Government although she soon will be. But I thought the Government would know the answer to that. Maybe Mr Ashraf Choudhary could put the Committee in the picture as to where the money is coming from. Does Mr Woolerton know where the money is coming from? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I’ve got a pretty good idea. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well would the member like to tell us? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: No I’m not interested in talking to you about it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The New Zealand First line is to say no it is not going to tell us because it is none of our business. This is Parliament and it is Parliament’s business. It is not the member’s $1.5 billion. I say to Mr Woolerton that this is not like the Owen Glenn money. This is public money and the public has a right to know exactly where the $1.5 billion is coming from. 
Members on this side of the Chamber are seriously concerned—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry Mr Woolerton? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I think you probably weren’t there that day. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is suggesting that I was not at the select committee on that day. The reality is that none of these measures were agreed to at the select committee. These amendments all came well after that. These are some of the 750 amendments introduced by the Government well down the track and that really does show how devoid of responsibility New Zealand First is in terms of the need to get such complex legislation right. 
I also draw the attention of the Committee to a poll today from the Fairfax newspaper group. It asked people how many of them supported this legislation and the emissions trading scheme. Of those people 12.6 percent said yes 64.8 percent said no and 22.6 percent said they had no idea what an emissions trading scheme was. I think that speak volumes and we should reflect— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: So why are you going to bring one in? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The issue that Mr Woolerton does not understand is that National would take a far more considered and balanced approach to an emissions trading scheme. We would not have this sort of reckless legislation whereby this Parliament does not have time to consider it—and let me take the very important issue raised by my colleague Tim Groser which was the greening of assigned amount units brought in as a consequence of one of the 785 amendments. How many speeches have we heard from the Government to explain that? Zip! Zero! There has not been one. I say to this Committee that a provision as significant as that deserves to be debated a whole lot better than it has been. 
Our concern is that this legislation is rushed it is mistaken it is a reckless law with huge implications for New Zealand businesses and households and this is no way to advance it.