Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2142] 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Which elements of the Government’s climate change policies covering new taxes restrictions on deforestation and energy efficiency would he describe as a success? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Given the breadth of issues upon which an answer is sought my answer may be slightly longer than usual. The carbon tax will not proceed in its present form as the numbers do not appear to exist in the House to support that and the so-called “fart tax” did not proceed because the agricultural sector reversed its position and with the Government is now funding some very promising but still early research. The forestry cap is under review yet again. 
In the area of energy efficiency programmes about 17000 houses have been retrofitted. Energy audits for large energy users are these days saving about $15 million. Minimum energy performance standards have been set for 12 classes of equipment saving $30 million. Solar water installation has doubled and bio-fuels targets are under development. The building code has been strengthened and is being strengthened again and in areas related to climate change policy wind energy has turned from a fringe industry into a mainstream industry—the future growth for which is likely to be spectacular. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister accept that his policy initiatives of an animal emissions tax and a carbon tax are a failure and that his policies of removing climate change from the Resource Management Act and the negotiated greenhouse agreements dependent on the carbon tax are now in tatters; does he accept responsibility for this policy mess? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The “fart tax” was never needed because the industry came around the back door and said “OK we give in.” The carbon tax—[ 
Interruption 
] They did and they funded the research. And I thank them because this country has some really good scientists and we have some promising—but early—research. Those are the facts even if members do not want to believe them. The research is under way. In answer to the other part of the member’s question I say that the carbon tax in its current form will not proceed because it is apparent that we do not have the numbers in the House. My predecessor David Parker has suggested that some other form of incentive is needed especially in the electricity industry and that is part of the issues under review. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Does the Acting Minister see any evidence of a willingness by the Hon Dr Nick Smith to engage constructively on the development of future climate change policy given his line of questioning today? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I do not. Apparently the member approached my predecessor seeking a bipartisan approach although one would be hard-pressed to reconcile his apparent attitude then and his apparent attitude today. All of this is a little confusing because earlier when giving his “state of the nation” address the member said that his ambition in Opposition was to be constructive and if during the course of the next 3 years he fell into the trap of becoming a full-time whinger he would appreciate one of us rescuing him with a gentle reminder. That is now given. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Now that the carbon tax has been abandoned will the Government support my bill to be debated next Wednesday which reinstates in the Resource Management Act the power to consider climate-changing emissions when assessing air discharge consents—which was removed solely because of the imminence of a carbon charge? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I understand well the policy argument that the member makes and I undertake to give the member’s bill very careful consideration. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister accept that his policy of a 10 percent cap on deforestation is a failure and is counter-productive for our economy and for our environment by providing an incentive to deforest before the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol; if so why does he not put this stupid policy in the same rubbish basket as he put the carbon tax and the “fart tax”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As I said in my answer to the primary question the forestry cap is under review again. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that investing billions of dollars in building new motorways that will increase traffic growth and therefore carbon dioxide emissions is not a successful climate change strategy; will he therefore recommend to the newly appointed Minister of Transport that he not approve unbalanced transport strategies such as the western corridor plan which proposed to spend 90 percent of funding over the next 20 years on roads and only a pitiful 8 percent on public transport; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I point out to the member that this Government has increased expenditure on public transport by 600 percent. But I will say to the Minister of Transport that it would be a mighty fine idea if he could get on and get the bio-fuels targets done over the next few months because we need as a country to begin the transition from fossil fuels as the only source of motive power. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Very interesting comments were made by the Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues but he did not attempt to address my question which was whether he would recommend not approving unbalanced transport strategies such as the western corridor plan. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I thought I addressed the question by providing the idea that we had balance with a sixfold increase in public transport. However I can say that the Government is committed to completing current motorway construction. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister accept that his much-vaunted National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy which was launched in September 2001 is a complete failure noting that on the target for energy efficiency of 20 percent over 10 years he has achieved only 2 percent and on the target of creating 30 extra petajoules of renewable energy he has created only 4 and that those results are less than what was predicted as business as usual? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the strategy was a failure as the member wants to characterise it he may like to explain to the House how come 17000 houses have been refitted how come energy audits for large energy users are saving $15 million how come minimum energy performance standards have been set for 12 classes of equipment saving $30 million or how come solar water installation has doubled. I could go on and earlier I did. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister recall stating last year in trying to minimise the flak over the deterioration in New Zealand’s carbon balance from positive 33 to minus 36 that the minus 36 was “conservative and pessimistic” yet less than a year later he has had to accept that the figure is now minus 64 million tonnes; and after he has erred so seriously—over $1 billion—not once but twice why should this House believe anything he says? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I can and the reason that I did and do is that all of the reports and things that have come forward from the State sector over the years are based on assumptions. I just gently offer the member two assumptions. The first is that the research programme I spoke of would have produced no results at all by 2008-12. That would be unusual in a research programme—that is what one of the assumptions is. One of the other assumptions as I recall is that the price of petrol would be $30. As I recall the price of petrol these days—US$60 per barrel—it must be about twice that. That gives the member some idea of why I say that those are probably conservative estimates. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister having had policy failures on the carbon tax the animals’ emissions tax the energy efficiency strategy and the deforestation cap and having had to drop the tenders for the clean development mechanism and twice having made a billion-dollar bungle over New Zealand’s carbon balance tell us of any greater public policy failure in the history of New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Every time I go back to Dunedin I keep an eye out for those 410000 jobs.