Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7980. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Personal denigration has always been Clayton Cosgrove’s approach to such issues. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Deal with the facts. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to deal with the facts. Let us go through the facts. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What did you say before when you were in Opposition? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me quote directly from what National did say in its minority report and let us compare it with the bill. The first thing I said was that New Zealand should not be leading the world and that New Zealand should be doing its fair share. That is exactly what this bill does. We said in that minority report and in our policy that we should take an intensity approach to allocation. What do we do in this bill? We do exactly that I say to Mr Cosgrove. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You didn’t say that in Parliament. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We did indeed say that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You didn’t say that in Parliament. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I challenge Mr Cosgrove to read the record. He is a johnny-come-lately to this issue. He was not on the select committee. I challenge him to read our policy because that is exactly what we said we would do— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Read your  
Hansard. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —and that is what is in my  
Hansard. 
 I also said we should provide a greater level of support for the fishing industry and we have done that. I said we would provide 90 percent support for the fishing industry—and we have done that. I expressed the view— 
Moana Mackey 
: Not the whole fishing industry. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will come to a point made by Moana Mackey. She will be interested because she has misunderstood a provision but first I want to finish my comments to Mr Cosgrove. We also said that the 8 percent phase-out rate was too great and we said we would take a different rate. We said we would align with Australia—Australia is 1.3 percent and we are 1.3 percent—in every key respect and I challenge members opposite to find a single area in our emissions trading policy that we took to the last election that is not consistent with this bill. We are doing exactly what we said we would. 
I now want to deal with a specific point because I think that Moana Mackey actually does not understand the bill. Moana Mackey made a mistake and I do want Parliament to know exactly what we are addressing. The question with this bill is whether we are providing the support for the quota holders or the fishing operators. The argument from officials has been relatively balanced and Moana Mackey said that all the support in the amendments is going to the quota holders but that is not actually correct. Let me explain why. As a consequence of these amendments the fuel price increase will be halved in that period. Because of the two for one rather than the price of diesel going up by 7c per litre it will go up by 3.5c per litre. Who benefits from that? The fishing vessel operator. In effect and if we look at the fiscals that have been provided in the advice we have the choice of providing the support for the quota holder or providing the support for the fishing vessel operator. The reduction in the increase in the price of diesel is a benefit for the fishing vessel operator. The other provision which provides the allocation to the quota holder provides the other benefit. 
So the member’s claim is simply incorrect. She does not understand the bill. The reality is that there is a benefit from these amendments to the fishing vessel operators and that is part of the package of reforms that we have provided for in this bill.