Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:6926] 
9.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: On what basis did he select the papers on the changes to the emissions trading scheme to be included for release last Friday 9 October 2009? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I did not select the papers; I asked officials to gather together and release all papers relevant to amendments to the emissions trading scheme and it is my understanding that these have all been released subject to normal Official Information Act conventions. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why were full briefing papers not released rather than just the cover notes to those briefings—for example those dated 3 and 27 July on intensity-based allocation—and why have large excerpts from many papers been blanked out and marked “withheld” without specifying the ground claimed for withholding the information? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There was a very large amount of information which we tried to get out very quickly. Some sections have been withheld and I will tell members what those two key areas were. The Government is in negotiations with the Australian Government— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: So the Minister did see the release! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh get a life Mr Cunliffe! 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been acknowledged; there will be silence. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given that the Minister has seen fit to draw me into a discussion it might be appropriate to indicate that the reason for asking the question is that the Minister himself— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. He cannot use a point of order to litigate that kind of matter. If he interjects he cannot be too upset if the Minister answering responds to the interjection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Some parts that were subject to negotiation with Australia about bringing the New Zealand and Australian emissions trading schemes together were sensitive for obvious reasons. Those negotiations are ongoing and they have not all been released— 
Hon Annette King 
: They’re going nowhere. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The deputy leader of the Labour Party really is having difficulty. The second area where some documents were not disclosed was because this was Crown Law advice and that has long been the convention. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the reason no Treasury papers were released that the Minister does not want taxpayers to see the Treasury modelling estimating that “If a 1.3 phase-out rate is maintained into the long term the proposed policy settings for intensity-based allocation indicate a cumulative increase in Government debt of around 6 to 8 percent of GDP by 2050.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The problem that the member has is that he is making claims— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will resume his seat right now. The member has asked a perfectly fair question about whether Treasury papers were released and he seems to have some information about what might have been in the papers. The answer should not start with “The problem that the member has …”; the answer should start with the issue the member asked the Minister about. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The papers did include a very detailed table of Treasury’s analysis of the cost of changes to the emissions trading scheme. The problem for the member is that they do not back up the false claims he has made. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Did the papers released show any contradictions between advice from officials and public statements on the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes the papers showed that the costs of the scheme over its first decade are actually less for the taxpayer than they were under Labour’s scheme despite repeated claims that have been made by the member opposite. The advice also contradicts claims that the Government’s changes mean that taxpayers will be subsidising industry for billions of dollars with the changed allocations to industry. In fact officials’ advice is that allocations to industry are likely to be fewer than those provided in international agreements and the Government is likely to have a surplus in years all the way through to 2050. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How does the Minister think that the public will be able to make proper and informed submissions on key aspects of the amendments to the emissions trading scheme given that submissions close at 5 o’clock today when they will have had exactly 1½ working days to consider officials’ advice and papers that have been released selectively and so much vital information remains withheld? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I point out that the economic analysis on which the changes to the scheme are based was released over 3 months ago. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and Infometrics report was released at a very early time. I make this further point to the member: is it not funny how times change? The papers analysing Labour’s emissions trading scheme were actually not made available until 2 months after submissions closed. At least under this Government the papers have been released in advance of that timetable.