Key John: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Key John: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20406] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to give the good news to the people of New Zealand—that is the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill is a load of rubbish and the National Party will not be supporting it for very very good reasons indeed. 
I want to start off with a broad-ranging discussion if I may around the Kyoto Protocol and the absolutely nonsensical road that this Government is taking New Zealand down. I know we have a Prime Minister who is very confident and all the rest of it but maybe she would like to step out of her office on the 9th floor and realise which planet she is on. She is on the same planet she may be surprised to learn as India China— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And Mugabe. 
JOHN KEY 
: And Mugabe yes—and a lot of other countries out there that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. And why would they not because they have absolutely no requirements on them whatsoever. Yet here we are down in New Zealand a very little country with about 0.2 percent of the world’s emissions putting a self-imposed straitjacket on our businesses and waving a huge flag that says: “Foreign investment don’t come anywhere near us. Australia is over there—the West Island. Go over there to pour your dollars in.” To the Chinese we are saying: “Come in and buy as much coal as you like from our West Coast. We’ll sell it to you and you can burn it without a carbon charge—but by the way to those back here in Aotearoa New Zealand we will be slapping on a carbon charge and you won’t be able to operate.” 
This is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem. Even if it is a problem it will be delayed for about 6 years. Then it will hit the world in 2096 instead of 2102 or something like that. It will not work. 
Let us have a look at the Government’s response to the Kyoto Protocol. Our friends in Australia said they do not want a bar of it. They do not want to know anything about it; neither do our friends in America. I saw George W Bush the President of the United States of America talking about the Kyoto Protocol on CNN one night. George Bush is not necessarily known as the most eloquent speaker in US history. He is a fairly straight shooter but he is not necessarily seen as being one of the great orators of all time. I plugged in the TV set turned it on and what did I see? There on CNN late at night at about 11.30 was George Bush saying that America would not be ratifying the Kyoto Protocol because it is not good for jobs and it is not good for the American economy. I understood that. I got it. Then I saw John Howard the Prime Minister of Australia addressing the Australian people and saying the same thing—that it is not good for jobs and it is not good for the economy. So when I turned to New Zealand TV and found out that we not only would be ratifying the Kyoto Protocol but in fact would be the first country in the world—that is right—to be blazing a trail to put on a carbon tax I was somewhat astounded. 
Now I should not have been quite so worried because when we questioned the Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change last week he said not to worry. He said that the carbon charge was not a tax increase; it was a tax shift. I was beside myself as members can imagine because I just could not understand it. So the next day I asked the Minister of Finance to point out to me what the discernable difference to the average New Zealand worker would be when they received about $400 less from an average run-of-the-mill tax increase. I might add that this Government has had about 35 of those in the last 6 years but that is another debate that we will come back to. I asked him what the difference would be between the $400 less they will get because of a tax increase and what they will get from a negative tax shift. Dr Cullen is no slouch in the House is he? He is no slouch in the House but he gave a sort of garbled response. We raised a point of order and he had another bit of a go at it but that was a complete and utter failure. Then he came out with the real doozy. I said to him: “You know the carbon charge that you’re telling us will cost the people of New Zealand $200 a year based on carbon prices of $15 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions or whatever? Well actually you have given yourself provision for it to be $25 per tonne. That will actually double the cost to about $400 per household especially when you add in all the second-order effects because supermarkets are going to have higher prices for its electricity and more for a sink.” “No!” said Dr Cullen. “You’re wrong!” he said to me. I asked the Minister of Finance Dr Cullen what role he played in devising the carbon charge. He replied that he was responsible along with the convenor. Well that is very good. I thought to myself that a new member like me could possibly be wrong—I mean I do not want to question the Minister of Finance after 30 years— 
Jill Pettis 
: Yes. 
JOHN KEY 
: Exactly! I tell the senior Government whip that that is what I thought the case was. So I scurried up to my office got the transcript of the questions and answers came back to the House and took a point of order. Questions and answers are a sort of fancy term for “small print”. I read out what he said: “Oh well. Actually we may allow the carbon charge to go to $25 because we are not quite sure what rate it will hit at internationally.” I said that it happened to be trading at about €17 that day which with the New Zealand exchange rate was about $30 to $35 and that would mean the price would double. Dr Cullen looked at me smiled and acknowledged the fact that I had understood that. He sort of nodded quietly and away we went. That is a tax shift. So if any New Zealanders are feeling in any way better off today it is because of that tax shift. 
That sort of tax shift recycling—all that sort of stuff—would not be quite so bad I suppose except for what we are doing to the public of New Zealand. What are we doing to the consumers and businesses of New Zealand? We are putting a tax on them. I could understand that if the Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change was coming to the Chamber and saying that every single dollar would be spent on reducing emissions in New Zealand—every single dollar. But no that is not the case. At the International Fiscal Association conference where the Minister of Finance was speaking on the previous Friday he said that his fringe benefit tax cuts—yes he wanted some business tax cuts because business confidence was collapsing around his ears and he therefore needed to prop up that vote a little bit—would be partly funded by the carbon charge. Very good—that is a good one is it not? 
So the consumers of New Zealand are now paying an additional tax shift—it might be negative in their case—to prop up the failing business confidence that has been caused by the Government making such an atrocious job of managing the economy. All of that is actually happening while the Government has a $7 billion surplus. Now excuse me but George W Bush at 11 30 at night on CNN is starting to make a hang of a lot more sense than the Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change when he tries to tell me the difference between a tax shift and a tax increase. So my prediction is that that will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The public are sick and tired of paying additional taxes for all sorts of crazy ideas. They have heard the message from that promising Opposition spokesperson on finance when he told the public— 
Simon Power 
: Who is that? 
JOHN KEY 
:—John Key apparently—that $50 billion worth of additional taxes have been imposed in the last 5 years. And on top of all that—and with a $7 billion surplus—they have to pay a carbon charge. It will be paid for by consumers so that other businesses which have absolutely nothing to do with emissions can have a tax cut. 
I want to make one last point before I sit down. I remember that about a year or so ago Pete Hodgson said on radio that this first commitment period would be free money for New Zealand—worth $500 million. What sort of idiot he asked Larry Williams would rip up a cheque for $500 million as the National Party would do? What sort of idiot would do that? Well—hello Minister! I do not know whether he has noticed but forests are being chopped down around his ears. In fact the first commitment period will at best probably be very close to flat and could even be negative. So the $500 million is a typical Labour Party cheque if I may say so—it is bouncing all the way back to the bank. 
This is not a good idea for the people of New Zealand. This is not the best thing for the planet. If the Prime Minister of New Zealand wants to get out there and convince the Prime Ministers of India and Australia and the Presidents of China and America to sign up then I will be with them all the way to the bank. But the last time I looked we were part of the same planet. New Zealand going it alone has not worked in the past; it will not work on this issue either.