3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues
What changes does he propose to make to the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill to gain sufficient votes for it to pass?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) Link to this
As I said in response to the same question last week, the bill was reported back to the House in very good shape, and talks with other parties are continuing.
Does the Minister plan to compromise on the phase-in dates for agriculture or liquid transport fuels in order to meet the Greens’ demands, so as to have the emissions trading scheme go through?
Hon Marian HobbsThe NZ Energy and Environment Business Week newsletter last week said: “National’s call for further delay is illogical. The issues have already been thrashed to death during the consultation and submission process. The implication from National is its version of the ETS will give business and farmers an easier ride. If this is so, then inevitably a higher cost will fall on taxpayers. National is simply trying to have a dollar each way.”
Will the Government consider reversing the delays announced by the Prime Minister, in order to meet the Greens’ demands in return for having the emissions trading scheme go through?
Do the talks with other parties include discussion about the compensation that householders might receive for the costs put on New Zealand households as a result of the emissions trading scheme, and is the Government seriously considering the levels of compensation requested by New Zealand First?
As I have said repeatedly, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, and as the Minister of Finance has said repeatedly, that is one of the issues that are being discussed with the support parties.
Is the Government contemplating proposals that superannuitants receive compensation for the impact of the emissions trading scheme, but other groups, such as low-income families and beneficiaries, do not, because of the expense of compensating everybody?
Can the Minister confirm whether the length of time that it has taken to conduct talks with other parties means that, in order to have the emissions trading legislation go through, the Government will be required to jumble together a series of contradictory policies demanded by other parties whose objectives are directly contradictory, with no attention to the practicalities of actually implementing the final messy policy?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was going to raise this point of order when Mr English mentioned New Zealand First in a prior question, but I am raising it now: obviously, the Minister has no responsibility for the policies of other parties, but, more particularly, the member is misleading the House when he says that New Zealand First seeks to make this matter a tradable, negotiable item. We think it is important in and of itself, and by itself.
Madam SPEAKERThat is a matter of debate. It is not a point of order, although the member has, obviously, raised it as such. I listened very carefully. The member was not actually asking for a comment on others’ policies; he was asking what the Government was doing.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is out of order for the member to try to conduct his negotiations with the Government in the House. The House is for question time and for points of order that are related to order, not debate—and not the negotiations, which seem to be failing.
I will ask that one again, because it was not answered. Can the Minister confirm that the time that it is taking for the Government to get enough votes to pass the emissions trading legislation means that the Government will ultimately be required to put together a bunch of contradictory policies that reflect the divergent objectives of parties like the Greens and New Zealand First; and can he confirm that the Government is going about this process without paying any attention at all to the practicalities of actually implementing some of this contradictory policy?
No, I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that the negotiations are, of course, happening in private, and I will not comment on other parties’ positions in those negotiations, other than to say that I find that the engagement with other parties on what is an important issue to be responsible.
Rodney HideWhat does it say about the integrity of the process that the Government is following with this legislation, and, indeed, about his ability as Minister, that all parties bar ACT agree with the emissions trading scheme, that the bill has been before a select committee, which heard substantial submissions and made a thousand-odd changes, and that now, behind closed doors, major planks of the legislation are still being negotiated, and the Minister cannot even tell us what the parameters are?
As I have previously said to the House—and as I would have hoped the member now understood—the fundamentals of the emissions trading scheme are quite simple: it creates a marginal price for increases in emissions, it avoids distortions between different sectors of the economy, and, therefore, it incentivises lower-emission alternatives over high-emission alternatives. Those principles, which are fundamental to the scheme, remain intact.