Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17118] 
11.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he agree that the statement made by the Australian Climate Change Minister Penny Wong “The introduction of emissions trading will constitute the most significant economic and structural reform undertaken in Australia since the trade liberalisation of the 1980s” also applies to the New Zealand economy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The transition away from both oil dependency and high emissions is a reality that the world cannot avoid—and indeed should not avoid. It will take some time but it has started. It is for Governments to ensure that the transition is well managed and affordable and that is why we are advancing the emissions trading scheme which has been widely consulted upon which will be phased in gradually and which allows 90 percent free allocation to trade-exposed sectors. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister change his bill to address the $1 billion - plus in windfall profits to the State through Meridian Energy and Mighty River Power and the $22 billion that the Government will make from the sale of emission permits in light of yesterday’s announcement by Australian Treasurer Wayne Swann that Australia’s emissions trading scheme will be revenue-neutral with any profits to be distributed back to businesses and consumers; if not will this important difference not further increase the rush of businesses and talent to Australia? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The figures that the member uses count the balance in respect of revenues between Crown and emitters out to about 2030 and are highly speculative. The reality is that the Crown is unlikely to break even on the emissions trading scheme until about 2020. Whether it is positive or negative for the Crown after that point depends on 5-yearly reviews. By then we will have had at least three reviews and future Governments will determine where the balance lies. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does it say about the level of care being taken with emissions trading when at the weekend the  
New Zealand Herald 
 reported: “It is an outrage that the select committee took a mere 16 hours to consider more than 60 reports … and was given just three days to consider more than 1000 amendments” when on the same day the  
Australian 
 reported that Cabinet has been sitting every day this week sometimes until midnight to consider the design of the Australian emissions trading scheme; and does this contrast not speak volumes about the cavalier way this Government is approaching this critical reform? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Not at all. Ministers including Dr Cullen and me have had over 150 briefing reports on the detailed issues here. There have been more than 100 public meetings in New Zealand. There have been well in excess of 100 one-on-one stakeholder meetings between officials and stakeholders. There have been processes that have involved the Secretary to the Treasury the head of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the head of the Ministry for the Environment the head of Energy the head of the Ministry of Economic Development and business leaders. There has been the Climate Change Leadership Forum. All of this has been in addition to the select committee process which heard many many submissions and gave an average of 20 minutes per oral submitter. It spent many many hours considering the detail yet we have calls for delay by National. I repeat what was said yesterday: “National’s call for further delay is illogical. The issues have been thrashed to death during consultation and submission processes. … The implication from National in its version of the emissions trading scheme is that we will give businesses and farmers an easier ride. If this is so then inevitably a higher cost will fall on taxpayers. National is simply trying to have a dollar each way.” That is what 
 New Zealand Energy and Environment Business Week 
 said last week. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister maintain that all the necessary analysis has been done on the impacts of this bill when his own Climate Change Leadership Forum has only just commissioned case studies on the impact of the scheme on Fonterra New Zealand Steel Fletcher Building and Pan Pac Forest Products; will he assure the House that these reports will be completed and made public before he asks this Parliament to further advance the bill and can he also explain why these reports were not done before rather than after the select committee process? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The depth and quality of analysis that lies behind this legislation is second to none in respect of anything that I have ever been involved in in this Parliament. It is a widely held view within this Government I think that the process has actually been very proper and very able. The Climate Change Leadership Forum to which the member referred in fact called for the emissions trading scheme to proceed as has the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and as have some other business groups. It is true that some oppose it but of course they want less cost on them and more for taxpayers. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister claim that the select committee process was both thorough and extensive when the committee had only 3 days to consider over 1000 amendments when it took just 16 hours to consider over 60 reports—one of which was over 400 pages long—and when the Government rotated over 24 MPs through the committee like a game of musical chairs? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Unlike some other parties in the House the Government membership of that committee was very consistent throughout—the senior members were there throughout. One of the effects when the Opposition tries to suppress progress on these things by collapsing quorums is that the Government has to make up the quorum and of course we do that. In respect of this bill the select committee heard from 161 submitters. It took over 58 hours to hear the submissions with an average of 20 minutes per submitter. The select committee considered officials’ reports throughout the process. At the end of the process after all of the submissions had been heard a further 16 hours was taken to consider detailed provisions of the bill. As a consequence the bill that has been reported back is in very good shape. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Given the degree of integration of the New Zealand and Australian economies the Australian Government’s commitment to having emissions trading scheme legislation before its Parliament by the end of this year and Helen Clark’s own decision to defer the implementation of this legislation until 2010 why will the Minister not admit that it is politics and Labour’s branding that is driving the rush to pass this legislation rather than focusing on New Zealand’s interest in having a politically sustainable and sound emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Australians certainly are not waiting for us. They might have been a bit slow out of the starter’s gate but they are fast catching up. Last year the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that further delay was too late that this really was a defining moment and that the time for action is now. Where is the National Party in respect of this issue? All of the experts around the world are saying that the time for action is now but National’s answer is to do nothing. National’s answer is do nothing delay subjugate New Zealand’s interests to those of Australia not pursue New Zealand’s interests and wait wait wait—do nothing.