10. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for Climate Change Issues
Does he stand by his statement that the changes to the emissions trading scheme make the scheme “workable and affordable”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) Link to this
Yes. The bill makes 34 technical changes to fix faults in the previous Government’s legislation, including issues like tree weeds, to make it more workable. The bill halves the price increases for electricity and petrol during the transitional phase, which makes the scheme more affordable for families and businesses—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Oh, Mr Cunliffe is in favour of higher power bills and higher petrol bills; why does he not tell the public that?
Has the Minister seen the analysis from Dr Christina Hood, who manages climate change issues for the Kapiti Coast District Council, that shows that his changes to the emission trading scheme represent a Government subsidy of $105 billion to polluters by 2050, and how does he reconcile this with his claims that his changes to the emissions trading scheme make it more affordable?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I do not take my climate change advice from the Porirua City Council; I take it from sources that are far more reliable. But if the member wants to argue that there are tens of billions of dollars of subsidies under the modified scheme, he must put his hand up and say that there are tens of billions of dollars of subsidies under the previous Labour Government scheme.
Jonathan YoungWhat advice has the Minister received from officials on the workability of the timetable for implementing the existing legislation by 1 January if the legislation is not amended?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I was advised that even if the new Government had pushed the go button on the very day that we took office, the time frames for implementing the existing legislation could not be achieved. The stationary energy andindustrial processes regulations come into effect on 1 January 2010. It simply would not have been possible to develop allocation plans by that date with the consultative processes that were added in during the late stages of the bill. That is why it is important that Parliament pass amendments so that we do not have the mess that was left to us by the previous Government with its emissions trading scheme.
Mr SPEAKERThe Hon David Cunliffe and the Hon Gerry Brownlee will cease their exchange. I have called Charles Chauvel for a supplementary question.
Has the Minister seen comments made by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that the provisions of the emissions trading scheme amendment legislation are incompatible with achieving a 50 percent by 2050 pollution reduction target, and will allow carbon credits to be freely allocated for ever; and are these examples of how he thinks the changes he is making to the scheme will make it workable?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The interesting feature is that in aligning the New Zealand emissions trading scheme quite closely with that of Australia, all the criticisms that the member makes of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme are criticisms that he could make of the Australian Labor Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I think the key fault in the analysis is that those parties are not considering the fact that the phase-out rate under the legislation is reviewed every 5 years.
How does the Minister respond to comments from the Business Roundtable that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research - Infometrics modelling is not a satisfactory basis for analysing the complex effect of climate change policies, and to comments from Treasury that the regulatory impact analysis on his emissions trading scheme changes “do not provide an adequate basis for informed decision making”, and what do these statements say about his claim that his changes will make the scheme workable and affordable?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I could list over a dozen bills that the previous Government passed with exactly the same note in respect of—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a very straightforward question. This is the first bill about which Treasury has made this sort of criticism in its regulatory impact statement. I simply ask that rather than talking about other legislation, he address the question.
A point of order is being heard. If I recollect the member’s question correctly, though, I believe that he started with “How does the Minister respond” to certain statements. With a question like that, how the Minister responds is not something the Speaker can have a lot of control over. If the member wants a more precise answer, he needs to ask a more precise question.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I think the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research - Infometrics report is a very fair analysis, and it provides a good framework for a balanced climate change policy. The last point I would make is that what the Government is doing with the emissions trading scheme is exactly what National members said when they campaigned at the last election. We are simply delivering on our election promises.
What further example can the Minister provide of making the Climate Change Response Act more workable by addressing errors in the existing legislation?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Companies such as Olex New Zealand in New Plymouth, which produces cable during a nitrogen cure process, are captured under the existing legislation and face considerable costs from 1 January next year. No other competitor internationally is facing this cost, and it was an error by the previous Government to include its activities in the emissions trading scheme. Quite frankly, that error is putting jobs at risk. The process does not generate greenhouse gas emissions; that is why it should not be included. That is one of the reasons members of this House should support the bill, which fixes that mistake.
David GarrettHas any other country included pre-1990 forests in an emissions trading scheme, and does Australia plan to include pre-1990 forests in any such scheme it may implement?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Two points. The first is that we are the first country in the world to include forestry in an emissions trading scheme, because, unlike most developed countries, forestry actually has a very significant impact on New Zealand. The second point is that, in respect of Australia, there is a complete ban on any deforestation of pre-1990 forests.
Metiria TureiTēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister support the international 350 campaign to return climate-changing gases to a concentration of below 350 parts per million in the atmosphere—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could not hear the member’s question, because there was so much shouting and barracking going on.
I accept that it was difficult to hear the member’s question, and I apologise for not calling her immediately. I invite her to start her question again.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister support the international 350 campaign to return climate-changing gases to a concentration of below 350 parts per million in the atmosphere; if so, how will his changes to the emissions trading scheme help to achieve that goal?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I commend the 350 campaign organisers on their efforts, both in New Zealand and internationally, to raise the profile of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. I do not believe that the 350 parts per million target is realistic. The target that the New Zealand Government has adopted is a limit of a 2 degree temperature rise, and, for carbon dioxide equivalent gases in the atmosphere, a concentration not exceeding 450 parts per million.
I seek leave to table pages 1 and 5 of the submission of the climate change issues manager of the Kapiti Coast District Council to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which state that the changes to the emissions trading scheme represent a $105 billion subsidy from the Government to polluters.
Leave is sought to table those pages from that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I noted that Mr Cunliffe objected to my statement that the Government was committed to a 450 parts per million target—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I seek leave of the House to table a Cabinet minute from the previous Government where it agreed to 450 parts per million as New Zealand’s negotiating position on climate change.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When one is misrepresented it is always difficult to know whether to object before or after the question is put, but, of course, I asked the Minister the question—
No, no. [ Interruption] I am on my feet and there will not be interjection. I cannot allow the member to debate this. I do apologise to him; I should have stopped the Minister earlier. He should have come straight to his point of order, rather than introducing debating matter, and I can see that he acknowledges that he did not quite follow the correct procedure. I invite members to leave it at that, considering that the main purpose was the seeking of leave to table a document, which leave was refused by the House.
I seek leave to table page 8 of the submission of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which states that carbon credits will be freely allocated for ever, and that the changes to the emissions trading scheme are incompatible with the Government’s target of 50 percent—
Leave is sought to table that page from that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
I seek leave to table page 1 of the submission from the Business Roundtable, which states that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research - Infometrics modelling is not a satisfactory basis for analysing the complex effect of climate change policies; and also page 12 of the explanatory note of the amendment bill, which states that Treasury does not believe that the regulatory impact statement provides “an adequate basis for informed decision making”.
Leave is sought to table those two pages from those two documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.
I seek leave to table page 16 of the Cabinet paper from the Minister for Climate Change Issues entitled Moderated Emissions Trading Scheme—proposed amendments to the Climate Change Response Act 2002, which states that proposed policy settings for intensity-based allocation indicate a cumulative increase in Government debt of around 6 to 8 percent of GDP by 2050.
Craig Foss