Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10609] 
5. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Can he confirm that Cabinet was advised on 14 September last year that “the overall credibility […] and effectiveness of the NZ ETS” may be at risk by “harmonising with an overseas scheme that has not yet been finalised”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yes. There is always a risk in working with other countries that their political situation and policy may change. The fact that Australia has slowed its response actually reinforces the merits of this Government’s amendments which have slowed and moderated our emissions trading scheme. New Zealand would now be very exposed had we stuck— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I simply asked the Minister to confirm whether Cabinet had been advised as to certain matters. The question was very confined. It simply asked the Minister to give that confirmation—not to give a long speech justifying the policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a valid point in that answers should not contain more than is necessary to answer the question asked. But I think the Minister was giving helpful information and it was not unreasonable. He did answer the question; he confirmed “Yes”. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Was Treasury advice communicated to Cabinet by him on 14 September 2009 that “the level and quality of analysis” provided by him to Cabinet on harmonisation with the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme was “not commensurate with the significance” of the proposal? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes it was. I point out to the member that whenever countries seek to work together on an issue like climate change there is political uncertainty as to the developments that may occur. It was Government policy in Australia and still is— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order that I raised earlier. I simply asked the Minister to confirm whether Treasury had given the advice that I quoted. I asked the Minister to give that confirmation which he did. There is no need to elaborate. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is utterly absurd for the Opposition to raise points of order on one part of the day to say that inappropriate answers are being given then to raise points of order to say that it is being given too much information. I think it is quite reasonable that Dr Smith elucidates on the way in which the material was presented to Cabinet—quite reasonable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the members’ points. Strictly I have to acknowledge that Charles Chauvel is correct about the requirements of the Standing Orders in relation to information not necessary to answer the question being included in the answer. But I think one has to be reasonable. Dr Smith answered the question. He confirmed what the member asked and he added some further information which was not too unreasonable. But the member raises a perfectly fair point. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can the Minister confirm that Treasury advised Cabinet on 14 September 2009 that there is no clear analytical basis for the proposal to align some key design elements of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme with those in the currently proposed Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That was only one portion of the advice from Treasury. I think it is important to point out that all the advice we have now is that with Australia not proceeding with its emissions trading scheme New Zealand would be very much more exposed now if we had stuck with Labour policy. What has occurred internationally reinforces that this Government got it right. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Order 377—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is raising a point of order and he must be heard in silence. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Standing Order 377(2) states: “The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked and not contain—(a) statements of facts … unless they are strictly necessary to answer the question”. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member asked what the advice was and quoted just a very small part of the advice. It is perfectly proper for the Minister to say that yes that advice was received but that there was other advice as well and that the Government in its decisions had to take into account the full range of advice rather than misrepresenting the situation by presenting only a portion of that advice. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I have two very brief points in reply Mr Speaker. First I take exception to the Minister’s suggestion that I have been misrepresenting the position. I tabled successfully by leave earlier in question time the full advice from which I am citing so there can be no question that it has been taken out of context for the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now starting to litigate matters. In fact to deal with the last point he was raising everyone knows that even if a document has been tabled it is possible to take excerpts from it out of context and make them seem somewhat different from what they would seem were they presented in context. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has raised a reasonable point. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 164/4 which states: “If some information can be given in addition to the bare facts asked for in a question information which would supplement the reason for the answer giving such information would comply with the spirit of question time.” So although I acknowledge that strictly speaking the member quoted the relevant Standing Order—Standing Order 377—and he is absolutely correct likewise Dr Nick Smith is being quite reasonable as long as the additional information is not overtly political. If the member was adding further information and using it to attack the Opposition I would be far more concerned. As long as it does not go on for too long I think that a little putting in context especially if the Minister feels that the quote used in the question may be taken out of context is not unreasonable. I think Ministers have to be able to put their answer in context. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can the Minister confirm that Treasury advised Cabinet on 14 September 2009 that there had been no discussion of the overall suitability or benefits of applying the allocation methods in the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme to New Zealand’s unique emissions profile and industrial structures? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There was advice of that sort but I say to the member that the changes we have made to the emissions trading scheme which have halved the cost for the consumers and halved the cost for business as well as the intensity approach that we have taken have according to the advice that I have had from a substantive number of New Zealand businesses provided them with the confidence to be able to invest. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to be difficult about this and I am not questioning your earlier ruling but Speakers’ ruling 165/4 is very— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: 164/4. 
Charles Chauvel 
: It is 165/4. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I quoted 164/4. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Well I am referring to 165/4: “Ministers when replying should address the question (1) and refrain from making comments that are not relevant to the question …”. The question was very confined and was whether Cabinet had been advised by Treasury that the overall suitability or benefits of applying the allocation methods in the proposed emissions trading scheme in Australia were inapt to New Zealand. What the Minister is going on about has nothing to do with that particular question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I again accept that on a strict interpretation of the Speakers’ ruling there is merit to the member’s point of order. I am not saying the member is wrong with his point of order at all but I think he is being a little unreasonable. The Minister is acknowledging there was advice. I think the Minister has agreed with the member’s question but he is also putting it in context by explaining a little why the Government chose not to follow that advice exactly. He should not go on for too long with that but it is not unreasonable to put it in context. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In that regard you might want to point the member to Speakers’ ruling 164/6. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will have a look at it. 
Hekia Parata 
: Has the Minister seen the statement made yesterday by the Forest Owners Association president Peter Berg urging the Government to hold its course on the emissions trading scheme; if so what is his response to it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. I note that the association has commended the Government for its resolve. It points out that any change in policy would undermine confidence in the forest sector and reduce interest in new planting. It is critical for New Zealand’s long-term climate change policy that we reverse the trend of deforestation under the previous Government and get additional areas planted. Our balanced policy is achieving just that.