7. HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this
to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues
Does he stand by the reported statement in Saturday’s New Zealand Herald that the “Government [is] undertaking cost-benefit analyses on proposed energy and climate change policy.” and that he “envisaged a scheme covering all the greenhouse gases and all sectors of the economy.”; if so, on what date will the cost benefit analyses be publicly available?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) Link to this
In the full context, yes, I do. As the member will be aware, the cost-benefit analysis, in the form of a regulatory impact statement, will be prepared if legislation is proposed.
When the Minister says he envisages a scheme that covers all sectors of the economy, does that include agriculture; if not, why not; and if so, will the cost-benefit analysis assume that agriculture will be taxed or brought into the carbon credit trading regime in advance of taxes imposed by our international competitors and trading partners?
Cabinet is yet to make decisions on the detail of climate change policy, but the fact of the matter is that all sectors will have to do something.
Hon Marian HobbsI have seen any number of reports. I think I could probably point to today’s announcement by Pacific Blue, which said that its carbon offset scheme for customers is yet another step to drive this nation towards carbon neutrality. It was announced today—the first time this has been announced by any airline in New Zealand—that Pacific Blue intends to source customers’ offsets from the Projects to Reduce Emissions programme, which was set up under this Government.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
What changes is the Government making in the process for developing climate change policy, when the last 7 years have seen seven major policy debacles—notably, the billion-dollar bungle over New Zealand’s Kyoto balance, the failure of the animal emissions levy, the failed 2001 energy efficiency strategy, the launch and then the scrapping of negotiated greenhouse agreements, the announcement and then the abandonment of the Projects to Reduce Emissions, the removal of climate change from the Resource Management Act and then its putting back in, and the failed carbon tax—or will the same errors be repeated in developing an emissions trading system?
As the member wants to course through a history of climate change policy, I remind him that in 1992 the National Government signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , and that right through the 1990s there were consultation programmes. I can remember one of them, called “WOGOCOP”, on emissions trading. I can remember Bill Birch taking to Simon Upton time and time again throughout the 1990s—
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has chosen to give a recital of history from the 1990s. My question asked what changes the Government was making in the process for developing climate change policy, in respect of the emissions trading system. He has made no attempt to address that question.
Madam SPEAKERI think that the original question did make reference to other matters, and the Minister is in the process of getting to the answer.
Why do I not just skip the rest of National’s stuff-ups on climate change right through the 1990s, and say that we are making really good progress in developing climate change policy, including the possibility of emissions trading. I contrast that with National’s current policy, which is to reduce climate change emissions by 50 percent by 2050. That is a “kick for touch” 43 years from now, by which time its author, John Key, will have turned 90 and will himself have become carbon dioxide.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Would the Minister expect that somebody who claims to be an expert on climate change emissions and the environment would know how to wear a nuclear-free badge the right way up; if so, would he draw the attention of Dr Smith to the fact that he has his upside down?
Peter BrownIs the Minister aware that the Howard Government in Australia has just released a comprehensive report, compiled by an independent task force, on climate change, which makes sound recommendations on how to proceed and on a reasonable time frame; if he is aware of such a report, does he not see advantages in New Zealand proceeding in tandem with Australia; and if not, why not?
As it happens, I am a little familiar with developments in Australia on climate change. They are not, in my view, as well advanced as those in New Zealand, but I think that the change of position within Australia is to be welcomed. I do hope that the various effects of climate change—that is to say, serial drought followed by heavy floods—abate for that nation.
Rodney HideHow will the cost-benefit analysis that is being proposed by the Government establish the benefits to New Zealanders of any regime that New Zealand will implement, when, in fact, whatever New Zealand does is so small in its effects on the global climate that it will have no impact?
That is the argument that is always raised, I think, by those who prefer to do nothing—saying that because we cannot achieve everything, it would be irresponsible for us to make a start. That is not the position that this Government holds. It never has been, and it is has never been the position of the international community, which realises that in order for there to be a contribution that is realistic, everybody has to do something.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take you back to the question, which was actually about the cost-benefit analysis. That was the primary question; it was not about the policy. I was asking the Minister how the cost-benefit analysis proposes to handle that matter. The question was not about whether the policy was a good idea or not. The Minister chose to just skip the question and answer something completely different from it.
I am sorry if I have offended the member. Let me just put it to him this way: the benefits from reducing the impact of climate change include a reduction in drought, a reduction in the severity of drought, a reduction in storm events including storm surges, a reduction in ecological effects, a reduction in economic dislocation, and various other things.
Is the Minister aware that the British newspaper the Financial Times has identified major flaws in the European emissions trading scheme, and, if he is aware of that, does it not lend strength to the argument that proceeding in less haste, as the Government is intending to do now, but going along the same lines as Australia, which is planning for a 2 or 3-year intervention to address the issue, makes more sense than the European scheme?
I am afraid I am not aware of that, but I am not surprised by it. Emissions trading was always going to be difficult to get running, which is why a few years ago this Government chose, instead of emissions trading, to pursue a carbon tax prior to moving to emissions trading when we had made some more progress as a globe. In the event, some parties in this House, including the party the member belongs to, decided they did not want a carbon tax, and that is why we are looking at emissions trading.
I seek leave to table the executive summary of the report of the Australian Government’s task force on emissions trading.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.summary of Australian report on emissions trading
I seek leave to table the article in the New Zealand Herald from Saturday, which states that the Government is undertaking a cost-benefit analysis on proposed—