Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:12165] 
3. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What reports has he received on support for emissions trading schemes as an effective measure to reduce climate change? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Emissions trading schemes are widely accepted as the most efficient way of reducing emissions with schemes now operating in 29 of the 38 developed Kyoto Protocol countries. As well many states in the US and Canada and parts of Asia have adopted such schemes. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Has the Minister received any reports of parties reversing their position on an emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. Radio New Zealand reported yesterday that Labour is reconsidering its climate change policy and whether it would have a carbon tax instead of an emissions trading scheme. I note that such policy U-turns have not been particularly helpful across the Tasman. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What would be the impact of switching from an emissions trading scheme to a carbon tax? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Such a switch would be hugely destabilising. New Zealand has struggled for over a decade to develop a credible and consistent policy on climate change that puts a price on carbon emissions and it has switched twice already between the options of a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme. My greatest worry is in relation to the forestry sector which Labour introduced into the emissions trading scheme in 2008 under a scheme that requires stability over the harvest cycle of trees. It is hugely damaging to now contemplate scrapping that scheme which would potentially risk deforestation and a lack of confidence in that sector. I also note that it would be bad news for consumers in that the carbon tax policies of the previous Labour Government would cost a lot more in terms of increased power and fuel costs. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister aware of the analysis contained in  
The Carbon Challenge 
 by Dr Geoff Bertram and Mr Simon Terry of the Sustainability Council published yesterday and in particular its conclusions that his emissions trading scheme is “technically obsolete” and “beyond rescue” as a sustainable framework for tackling climate change and that it “completely fails as a mechanism to make today’s polluters meet today’s emissions bill”? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can we take it that the flashing light on Mr Chauvel’s lapel is in fact a distress signal and do we need to get someone in here to help him? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members of the House will know that it is to do with support for the St John Ambulance. One of the member’s own colleagues was wearing one yesterday. I invite Charles Chauvel to ask his question again. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I am delighted to support St John Ambulance. Is the Minister aware of the analysis contained in  
The Carbon Challenge 
 by Dr Geoff Bertram and Mr Simon Terry of the Sustainability Council published yesterday and in particular its conclusions that his emissions trading scheme is “technically obsolete” and “beyond rescue” as a substantive framework for tackling climate change and that it “completely fails as a mechanism to make today’s polluters meet today’s emissions bill”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I do not. We have carefully balanced the need for New Zealand to make progress on curbing emissions growth with the need to ensure that the economy grows as the Minister of Finance outlined with the latest GDP figures. It is a balanced policy approach and I fear for both climate change policy and the economy with the switch that Labour has made in now favouring a carbon tax. It is an extraordinary flip-flop. 
John Boscawen 
: Does the Minister agree with the conclusions in Geoff Bertram and Simon Terry’s book  
The Carbon Challenge 
 that the New Zealand electricity industry will make some $566 million of windfall profits from New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme over the next 2½ years; if so does he think that supporters of New Zealand’s emission trading scheme remotely understand the massive wealth transfer and the massive windfall profits to the New Zealand electricity industry? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I do not. Effectively Mr Terry and Dr Bertram want the Government to take a far more aggressive policy and a far tougher approach to climate change. Our Government’s policy is one that provides a careful balance—that is that we make progress in curbing emissions that we do our fair share on climate change but also that we need to be cautious of imposing excessive costs on New Zealand businesses which would simply relocate offshore to do their emissions. That would cost New Zealanders jobs and do nothing for climate change. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister aware that the authors of  
The Carbon Challenge 
 conclude that most of the future $5.7 billion bill arising from New Zealand exceeding its Kyoto Protocol target will fall on future taxpayers making it “a massive intergenerational transfer of liability” and that because forestry credits must be paid back when trees are harvested in 2020 or afterwards using these credits to pay the Kyoto bill is like “putting it ‘on the plastic’ for the next generation to pay.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that the Government’s policy around forestry and the emissions trading scheme is unchanged from the legislation that was put through Parliament by David Parker. What I find extraordinary is that that was Labour’s policy only 18 months ago. Charles Chauvel has now thrown that to the wall and said Labour’s view now is that there should be a carbon tax. Where does Labour stand on this critical issue? Nobody knows that now.