Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7412] 
3.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Which is true: his statement to the House of 21 October “in respect of Australia there is a complete ban on any deforestation of pre-1990 forests” or his statement to the House of 22 October “In Australia each state requires by law that the deforestation of pre-1990 forests be notified”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Both. The Australian Government has noted that it has not included deforestation in its emissions trading scheme because of the regulatory controls that have been imposed since 1990. For instance in New South Wales the new Native Vegetation Act and regulations that commenced in 2005 severely constrain land clearance with only 2060 hectares approved last year. All of it is subject to offsetting or rather strict environmental requirements. In Queensland its Act also severely restricts vegetation clearance and also requires offsets. The exact provisions vary from state to state but they have resulted in very little deforestation in Australia in recent years. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I heard the answer correctly the first answer was both. Logically that simply cannot be true— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot argue about the quality of an answer by way of a point of order. He has a supplementary question in which to further question the Minister about his answer or about what he might have said but he cannot do it by way of a point of order. 
David Garrett 
: How can the country have any confidence that New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme will match up with Australia’s as promised when the Minister responsible has not even got the basic facts about its scheme right? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly this Government campaigned and is now delivering on harmonising our emissions trading scheme more closely with Australia’s. We think that makes good sense given the CER relationship. We have never said the two schemes would be identical in every respect. There are differences between New Zealand and Australia in areas such as forestry and agriculture. We need to be pragmatic and recognise that. 
Louise Upston 
: Why is the inclusion of deforestation important in the context of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly deforestation makes up a pretty large proportion of New Zealand’s emissions. For instance in 2007 it made up 8 million tonnes or 13 percent of New Zealand’s emissions. For most developed countries including Australia it is a pretty small contributor. Secondly it would be very unfair for us to say that those foresters who have credits under Kyoto are able to claim them but those who deforest are responsible for any debits. That would be illogical and that is why the Government’s policy is the way that it is. 
Rahui Katene 
: What is New Zealand’s current position regarding the relationship between deforestation liability and afforestation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is Government policy that foresters should be able to earn credits for afforestation and equally liabilities should apply for deforestation. That is in accord with the Kyoto rules. The Government is looking to further improve those Kyoto rules on which I want to acknowledge the good work of both the iwi leadership group and the Maori Party. Priorities for change include provision for offsets carbon embedded in wood products and continuation of the credit liability rules for existing forests. 
David Garrett 
: What is the Government’s policy on climate change: to be a world leader or a fast follower? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: At the last election National very clearly campaigned on a policy of New Zealand doing its fair share as a developed country in respect of climate change. That is exactly what we will be doing in the international negotiations in Copenhagen and those are exactly the policy parameters on which we have designed our emissions trading scheme. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is it true that under the Minister’s proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme made in the name of harmonisation with Australia hard-working New Zealand taxpayers will be required to subsidise Rio Tinto to the value of $225000 per worker per year as the select committee heard last week and how is it fair to enact provision for that sort of subsidy while reducing support for New Zealanders by cutting effective accident compensation prevention programmes in order to reduce costs? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I find the member opposite’s approach around the emissions trading scheme and the smelter interesting because in the very scheme that the previous Government put on the law books the reality was a very substantial allocation. In fact during the period from— 
Charles Chauvel 
: 12 years! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What the member opposite said is interesting because when I was involved in negotiations with the Labour Party about the phase-out over the 12 years he said Labour recognised that 12 years was unrealistic and was very relaxed about it being extended further. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Unfortunately I cannot use this supplementary question to deal with that misrepresentation but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask members to discontinue this exchange because I cannot hear the supplementary question. I ask the member to ask his supplementary question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is it true that under his proposed legislation made in the name of harmonisation with Australia carbon credits will be freely allocated for ever as the select committee was told by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and is it fair to increase taxpayer subsidies for large polluters at the same time as he plans to privatise some of the activities of the accident compensation scheme to foreign-owned insurance companies at the expense of support and protection for New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very happy to answer the member’s supplementary questions as he succeeds the spokesperson on accident compensation but the substantive question was about climate change. I think the member should be required to confine his questions to that issue. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Speaking to the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need to hear further on the matter. I realise that the member in asking his supplementary question compared climate change policy with accident compensation policy but I do not see that as being totally out of order. I think the Minister is perfectly capable of answering it. The fundamental part of the supplementary question relates to the emissions trading scheme. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Just as we said the Government’s emissions trading scheme strikes a very good balance between making sure we get this economy growing again by providing jobs for New Zealanders and doing our fair share in respect of the huge challenge associated with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. I challenge members opposite as to why they criticise a scheme that is very similar to the schemes being proposed in Australia and in most other developed countries as a good balance between sensible economics and environmental responsibility. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a supplementary submission tabled and released by the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week showing that the subsidy per job to Rio Tinto under the Minister’s changes to the emissions trading scheme is worth $225000 per annum. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this document available and already released by the select committee? 
Charles Chauvel 
: It is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not see why I should waste the House’s time on that because the document is already publicly available to members. The recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee which are published in the Standing Orders are very clear that leave should not be sought for the tabling of such documents. I make it clear that I intend to make sure that the power to seek leave is not abused because I do not see how it assists members at all if the document is readily available to them. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Previously you have advised the House about your views on this matter particularly citing that particular report of the Standing Orders Committee and I say that although that matter is noted in the report it was not a recommendation of the committee that the Standing Orders be changed in respect of the ability of a member to seek leave. That is the primary purpose of what my colleague is doing; he is seeking leave under the Standing Orders to undertake an action. Until such time as the Standing Orders are changed in that respect the words that you are quoting are the views of that select committee but were not felt strongly enough for it to recommend that changes be made to the Standing Orders. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the members because OK I have obviously annoyed them by what I have just done. But I make it very clear that there are also Speakers’ rulings that indicate that where information is readily available to members it is not the purpose of the power to seek leave to table documents that members should seek to table documents that are already readily available to members. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I just want to make the point that I am not seeking to trifle with you or the House by asking for this leave. The material was tabled by a submitter at the select committee. Yes it is technically available but it is not by any means readily available—for example to the media or to other members who do not sit on the committee. In my submission the document contains very important information about the amendments to the accident compensation scheme and I am simply I suppose asking that you consider the matter carefully because the document is something that I think the House should see. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member. On this occasion I will seek leave but I make it clear that I will seek further advice on this issue in terms of situations where documents are tabled at select committees—they are released immediately and they are available from the select committees; they are already available to Parliament if you like—because I think there should be guidance on that matter. On this occasion I will seek— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Peter Dunne. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Before you seek leave I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 142/2 by Mr Speaker Tapsell: “Leave should only be sought to table papers that are not readily available from other sources.” The practice that has developed in recent years has been that members seek to table a range of documents but as Mr Tapsell’s ruling points out: “The tabling of a document is not an occasion to make a point; it is an opportunity to produce for the House a paper that other members may not see or may not have seen.” I submit to you that papers that have been released by a select committee or papers that are in other ways put on the Table of this House or released in the public arena conform with Speaker Tapsell’s ruling and that you were right in your initial assessment not to seek leave in this instance. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to take up any more time of the House at the moment. I appreciate the point made by the Hon Peter Dunne. He is quite correct of course in quoting Speaker Tapsell. I was aware of that particular Speaker’s ruling; I just did not want to take too much time over the issue. On this occasion I will seek leave and members can make their own judgment about the document. But I make it clear that in future I do not intend to seek leave; I intend to uphold the practice of the past whereby seeking leave to table a document was to provide information for the House not to make a political point. In recent times greater emphasis has gone on to seeking leave to table documents in order to score a political point and that is not the purpose of such leave. The power under a point of order to seek leave to table a document is a very significant power and it should not be abused. But on this occasion because I have not given prior warning of that I will seek leave for the submission to the select committee to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point goes with the ruling you have just given. I happen to agree with your perspective on what should be tabled and what should not but unfortunately this matter was considered by the Standing Orders Committee. Effectively it considered whether discretion should be given to the Speaker to decide whether to put leave to the House and decided to leave it as a recommendation to members that they should not seek leave—that it is not an appropriate thing to do. I think we would probably agree that the Standing Orders Committee at the time when it considered this did not go far enough. I suggest that before you go further than the report that has been adopted by the House from the Standing Orders Committee—because there were a lot of other matters there—it might be a good idea to call that committee together again. I know as I say this that I am not universally supported by members on my side of the House. But I think the matter would be worth considering because I have had some experience on the other side of the House and I know that from that perspective at least as well as from yours seeking leave to table such documents can be seen as trifling. It is not so in this particular case but I think it is something where the House should support you in a new ruling. I think it is appropriate that the Standing Orders Committee consider the matter first. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member and we will not take further time on this today. I will come back to the House on the matter.