Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10959] 
3. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What reports has he seen on the introduction of the ETS in the last week? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 In the last week I have read reports from the Opposition that there has been a dramatic increase in the cost to taxpayers from industry allocations. That claim from Charles Chauvel is not true. Although more small and medium sized businesses have become eligible for allocations under our fairer model some larger firms have not. The total allocation to industry remains unchanged at 12 million tonnes. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How can the claim from Charles Chauvel that Nick Smith’s changes to the emissions trading scheme will add an extra 5 percent to the price of power be true when the Government’s amendments passed last year reduced the impacts of the emissions trading scheme on power prices? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do I need to explain it? None of that question was the Minister’s responsibility; the whole question was based on how he can explain Charles Chauvel. None of us can do that and the Minister certainly cannot. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess—[ 
Interruption 
] I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee in a moment once I have restored order to the House. It was my fault that that got out of hand. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think it is a perfectly legitimate question because it asks the Minister to comment on Mr Chauvel’s comments about the Minister. In that case it is perfectly legitimate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The interesting thing is that on the face of it the question would normally be out of order. One would normally argue that the Minister is not responsible for any comments Mr Chauvel might make. But as I heard the question it asked how those comments relate to the actual policy the Government is pursuing. I would have thought so long as the Minister’s answer confines itself more to how those comments relate to the policy the Government is actually implementing that it would seem in order. The answer should not focus totally on Mr Chauvel’s comments as the Minister does not have responsibility for those per se. But how they relate to the Government’s policy I believe is within the Minister’s responsibility. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The amendments that the Government made to the emissions trading scheme have more than halved the cost to power consumers. We have done that by halving the obligation and including in our amendments a price cap of $25 per tonne. [ 
Interruption 
] It is extraordinary that members are shouting out to complain about increases in power prices when they voted against the amendments that more than halved them. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of differing views on the $1.6 billion worth of carbon credits from post-1990 forest owners? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. I have seen a report that states that post-1990 forest credits are a property right that they belong to the forest owners and that they must not be confiscated by the Government. I have also seen a statement that described the same credits as a subsidy and said it would be criminal of the Government to allocate them to the foresters. The first statement is from Rodney Hide; the second is from John Boscawen. Those dramatically opposed positions tell us why we cannot take ACT’s policy on the emissions trading scheme seriously. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister endorse the views expressed in Christchurch on Friday at the Australian Institute of Company Directors annual conference: “I have always been fairly sceptical actually that Kyoto is the right way to go.” and “From New Zealand’s point of view we’re really trying to have a gentle glide path that takes us into a logical way of addressing that.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It certainly is the view of this Government that we need to take a steady and consistent approach to climate change. We campaigned on a policy of pulling back on the very ambitious emissions trading scheme that the previous Government put in place which would have had a very high impact on power prices and on consumers. I think New Zealanders support the very moderate approach that this Government is taking to this important issue. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When the Prime Minister said that he had “always been fairly sceptical actually that Kyoto is the right way to go.” did he seek any advice from the Minister prior to making that statement? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Prime Minister is very much on top of the balanced approach that this Government is taking towards climate change. The part that I am particularly proud of is that we do not have a Prime Minister going around the world and saying that we are going to be the first carbon-neutral country in the world at the same time that our emissions are going up at a faster rate than those of any other country. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of the Prime Minister’s comments on Friday at the Australian Institute of Company Directors annual conference. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: As long as it’s the whole document. It’s a great speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it there is no objection as long as it is the whole document. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of the National Party’s central North Island conference in which over 300 members unanimously passed a remit demanding that the National-led Government defer the introduction of the emissions trading scheme; and is this not an example of the pragmatic honest hard-working grassroots members of the National Party simply wanting National to stick to its promise of not leading the world on climate change? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: National campaigned on a policy of in 2009 amending the emissions trading scheme and of in 2010 proceeding with an emissions trading scheme. That is exactly what we are doing. I was privileged to give a speech to the conference of the central North Island members and I was very well received by delegates; the member’s report is not correct. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Who is right: the Minister who says that New Zealand should stick to its emissions trading scheme no matter the facts and no matter what the rest of the world does; or National Party members up and down this country who say that National should stick to its promise tuck in beside Australia and not run ahead of the rest of the world? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly I say that the member should reflect on his promise to foresters in which he said that they belong— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked a question that did not involve the Hon Rodney Hide at all yet his answer is saying what the questioner should do. I do not think that that is a fair attempt to answer the question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The policy that National is progressing on the emissions trading scheme is exactly what we said when we campaigned in 2008 which was to proceed with a moderated emissions trading scheme. The member makes the claim— 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question although not a yes or no answer was a very simple: “Who is correct: A or B?”. This is a disquisition on something completely different; it is about National’s policy. It is still not an attempt to address the question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member who asked the question made the claim that National was not following policy and I was setting out exactly what the policy was and the way in which the Government was implementing it. 
David Garrett 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need endless points of order on the question. The fact is that the Minister has spoken to the point of order and believes that the questioner asked something that I did not actually hear in the question. I will invite the Hon Rodney Hide to repeat his question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Who is right: the Minister who says that the Government should stick to its emissions trading scheme no matter the facts and no matter what the rest of the world does; or hard-working ordinary National Party members up and down this country who say that New Zealand should actually stick to its promise and tuck in beside Australia rather than heading off and leading the rest of the world? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There are two points. The first is that New Zealand is not way out ahead of the world. There are 38 countries with Kyoto commitments and 29 of those countries have emissions trading schemes. The second important point is that Australia’s Budget announced $5.1 billion of subsidies for renewable energy and that is a cost on Australian taxpayers and businesses. It is this Government’s view that our approach of an emissions trading scheme is more efficient and will better serve New Zealand’s interests of reducing emissions at least cost. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table an excerpt from the OECD report of 2008 entitled  
Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries 
— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: —which totally contradicts the Prime Minister’s statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should not do that. The member normally does not abuse the privileges of the House and therefore I will overlook that. He knows the House has given leave to table a document and there should be no further comment on it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.