6. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for Climate Change Issues
Is he confident he is fully informed about the long-term fiscal costs of his changes to the emissions trading scheme; if so, why?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) Link to this
Yes. I have always said that figures out beyond a decade are very uncertain. For instance, whether one chooses a carbon price of $25, $50, or $100 has an enormous impact on the numbers. I also believe that projections about what the international agreements might be in 10 or 20 years’ time and what the growth of industry might be have huge uncertainty, which has always been acknowledged by Treasury.
Why did Treasury fail to use up-to-date assumptions around the price of carbon when modelling the long-term fiscal costs of the Minister’s changes to the emissions trading scheme, as was done with other climate change policy initiatives, or is the figure that he originally included in his Cabinet paper just another example of his selective and manipulative use of different prices for carbon to justify whatever policy he is peddling on the day?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I assume members of the House would have sufficient common sense to work out that for costs based on a $25 price for carbon, if $50 is put in instead, the price will be double, and if $100 is put in, the price will be four times more. If members opposite cannot work that out for themselves, heaven forbid that they ever appear again on the Treasury benches.
Does he stand by his disparaging remarks about the evidence of Dr Christina Hood that he took his advice “from sources that are far more reliable.”, given that it turns out that Dr Hood did a better job of modelling the costs of his changes to the emissions trading scheme than Treasury, and that Treasury’s subsequent advice on the emissions trading scheme confirms Dr Hood’s original advice?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Quite the opposite. Anybody who thinks that Labour’s existing emissions trading scheme, which is the most aggressive emissions trading scheme in the world, in phasing out industry support at 8 percent per year—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Minister but he is simply not addressing the question I asked. I asked him whether he stood by criticisms he had made of a previous analyst and he launched into an attack on the existing emissions trading scheme. The matter is simply not being addressed.
Mr SPEAKERI do not need any assistance on this. I invite Charles Chauvel to reflect on the questions he has been asking. They are absolutely marginal in terms of the Standing Orders but I have allowed them to go through. He has made unnecessary assertions about what the Government’s motives may or may not be. I allowed his questions to go through, but for him to then seek my assistance to try to get a more precise answer is not on, at all. If he wants precise answers, he should get the assertions out of the questions, and I will help him to get precise answers.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
It is very important to put on the record that all these numbers are being talked about on the assumption of the most aggressive emissions trading scheme proposed anywhere in the world.
Hon David CunliffeHon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The member opposite, Mr Cunliffe, says that that is not true. The reality is that the 8 percent phase-out rate—[ Interruption] Members opposite said that the 8 percent phase-out rate in their legislation was a figure they never expected to apply. The numbers are completely different if industry support is not phased out at 8 percent per year.
Amy AdamsHas there been any change in Treasury’s estimates of costs of the emissions trading scheme for the first decade of the scheme?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
No, there has not, because it is possible in the first decade of the scheme to provide quite accurate data. Members opposite went out and said that the data were true. Despite the scrutiny of the select committee process, the data were found to be the best possible estimate, albeit—and I emphasise this again—there is significant uncertainty into the future around any costings of an emissions trading scheme when there are elements like a carbon price and the fact that the international framework around it is not yet resolved.
Why does he continue to pursue harmonisation with Australia when that country has just announced that agriculture, our highest-emitting sector, will not be included in its emissions trading scheme, and when more significant changes to the Australian scheme are possible? Does this not demonstrate one of the major failings of his harmonisation policy, which is that it is all one-way in favour of the Australians?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
That sort of silly trans-Tasman parochialism is underwhelming on an issue as important as climate change. If there is any issue on which New Zealand and Australia should work closely together, it is the issue of climate change. I say to members opposite, now that they want to somehow separate off from Australia, that they are undermining the very real interests of the New Zealand economy, and the future of our country.