3. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this
to the Minister for Climate Change Issues
Which is true: his statement to the House of 21 October “in respect of Australia, there is a complete ban on any deforestation of pre-1990 forests”, or his statement to the House of 22 October “In Australia each state requires by law that the deforestation of pre-1990 forests be notified”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) Link to this
Both. The Australian Government has noted that it has not included deforestation in its emissions trading scheme because of the regulatory controls that have been imposed since 1990. For instance, in New South Wales the new Native Vegetation Act and regulations that commenced in 2005 severely constrain land clearance, with only 2,060 hectares approved last year. All of it is subject to offsetting or rather strict environmental requirements. In Queensland, its Act also severely restricts vegetation clearance and also requires offsets. The exact provisions vary from state to state, but they have resulted in very little deforestation in Australia in recent years.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I heard the answer correctly, the first answer was both. Logically, that simply cannot be true—
Mr SPEAKERThe member cannot argue about the quality of an answer by way of a point of order. He has a supplementary question in which to further question the Minister about his answer, or about what he might have said, but he cannot do it by way of a point of order.
How can the country have any confidence that New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme will match up with Australia’s, as promised, when the Minister responsible has not even got the basic facts about its scheme right?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Firstly, this Government campaigned and is now delivering on harmonising our emissions trading scheme more closely with Australia’s. We think that makes good sense, given the CER relationship. We have never said the two schemes would be identical in every respect. There are differences between New Zealand and Australia in areas such as forestry and agriculture. We need to be pragmatic and recognise that.
Louise UpstonWhy is the inclusion of deforestation important in the context of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Firstly, deforestation makes up a pretty large proportion of New Zealand’s emissions. For instance, in 2007 it made up 8 million tonnes, or 7 percent, of New Zealand’s emissions. For most developed countries, including Australia, it is a pretty small contributor. Secondly, it would be very unfair for us to say that those foresters who have credits under Kyoto are able to claim them but those who deforest are responsible for any debits. That would be illogical, and that is why the Government’s policy is the way that it is.
Rahui KateneWhat is New Zealand’s current position regarding the relationship between deforestation liability and afforestation?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
It is Government policy that foresters should be able to earn credits for afforestation and, equally, liabilities should apply for deforestation. That is in accord with the Kyoto rules. The Government is looking to further improve those Kyoto rules, on which I want to acknowledge the good work of both the iwi leadership group and the Māori Party. Priorities for change include provision for offsets, carbon embedded in wood products, and continuation of the credit liability rules for existing forests.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
At the last election National very clearly campaigned on a policy of New Zealand doing its fair share as a developed country in respect of climate change. That is exactly what we will be doing in the international negotiations in Copenhagen, and those are exactly the policy parameters on which we have designed our emissions trading scheme.
Charles ChauvelIs it true that under the Minister’s proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme, made in the name of harmonisation with Australia, hard-working New Zealand taxpayers will be required to subsidise Rio Tinto to the value of $225,000 per worker per year, as the select committee heard last week, and how is it fair to enact provision for that sort of subsidy while reducing support for New Zealanders by cutting effective accident compensation prevention programmes in order to reduce costs?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I find the member opposite’s approach around the emissions trading scheme and the smelter interesting, because in the very scheme that the previous Government put on the law books, the reality was a very substantial allocation. In fact, during the period from—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
What the member opposite said is interesting, because when I was involved in negotiations with the Labour Party about the phase-out over the 12 years, he said Labour recognised that 12 years was unrealistic and was very relaxed about it being extended further.
I ask members to discontinue this exchange, because I cannot hear the supplementary question. I ask the member to ask his supplementary question.
Is it true that under his proposed legislation, made in the name of harmonisation with Australia, carbon credits will be freely allocated for ever, as the select committee was told by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and is it fair to increase taxpayer subsidies for large polluters at the same time as he plans to privatise some of the activities of the accident compensation scheme to foreign-owned insurance companies, at the expense of support and protection for New Zealanders?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very happy to answer the member’s supplementary questions as he succeeds the spokesperson on accident compensation, but the substantive question was about climate change. I think the member should be required to confine his questions to that issue.
I do not think I need to hear further on the matter. I realise that the member, in asking his supplementary question, compared climate change policy with accident compensation policy, but I do not see that as being totally out of order. I think the Minister is perfectly capable of answering it. The fundamental part of the supplementary question relates to the emissions trading scheme.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Just as we said, the Government’s emissions trading scheme strikes a very good balance between making sure we get this economy growing again by providing jobs for New Zealanders, and doing our fair share in respect of the huge challenge associated with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. I challenge members opposite as to why they criticise a scheme that is very similar to the schemes being proposed in Australia and in most other developed countries as a good balance between sensible economics and environmental responsibility.
I seek leave to table a supplementary submission tabled and released by the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week, showing that the subsidy per job to Rio Tinto under the Minister’s changes to the emissions trading scheme is worth $225,000 per annum.
I do not see why I should waste the House’s time on that, because the document is already publicly available to members. The recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee, which are published in the Standing Orders, are very clear that leave should not be sought for the tabling of such documents. I make it clear that I intend to make sure that the power to seek leave is not abused, because I do not see how it assists members at all if the document is readily available to them.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Previously you have advised the House about your views on this matter, particularly citing that particular report of the Standing Orders Committee, and I say that although that matter is noted in the report, it was not a recommendation of the committee that the Standing Orders be changed in respect of the ability of a member to seek leave. That is the primary purpose of what my colleague is doing; he is seeking leave under the Standing Orders to undertake an action. Until such time as the Standing Orders are changed in that respect, the words that you are quoting are the views of that select committee but were not felt strongly enough for it to recommend that changes be made to the Standing Orders.
I will hear the members, because, OK, I have obviously annoyed them by what I have just done. But I make it very clear that there are also Speakers’ rulings that indicate that where information is readily available to members, it is not the purpose of the power to seek leave to table documents that members should seek to table documents that are already readily available to members.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to make the point that I am not seeking to trifle with you or the House by asking for this leave. The material was tabled by a submitter at the select committee. Yes, it is technically available, but it is not by any means readily available—for example, to the media or to other members who do not sit on the committee. In my submission the document contains very important information about the amendments to the accident compensation scheme, and I am simply, I suppose, asking that you consider the matter carefully, because the document is something that I think the House should see.
I hear the member. On this occasion I will seek leave, but I make it clear that I will seek further advice on this issue in terms of situations where documents are tabled at select committees—they are released immediately, and they are available from the select committees; they are already available to Parliament, if you like—because I think there should be guidance on that matter. On this occasion I will seek—
Hon Peter DunneBefore you seek leave, I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 142/2 by Mr Speaker Tapsell: “Leave should only be sought to table papers that are not readily available from other sources.” The practice that has developed in recent years has been that members seek to table a range of documents, but, as Mr Tapsell’s ruling points out: “The tabling of a document is not an occasion to make a point; it is an opportunity to produce for the House a paper that other members may not see or may not have seen.” I submit to you that papers that have been released by a select committee, or papers that are in other ways put on the Table of this House or released in the public arena, conform with Speaker Tapsell’s ruling, and that you were right in your initial assessment not to seek leave in this instance.
I do not want to take up any more time of the House at the moment. I appreciate the point made by the Hon Peter Dunne. He is quite correct, of course, in quoting Speaker Tapsell. I was aware of that particular Speaker’s ruling; I just did not want to take too much time over the issue. On this occasion I will seek leave, and members can make their own judgment about the document. But I make it clear that in future I do not intend to seek leave; I intend to uphold the practice of the past, whereby seeking leave to table a document was to provide information for the House, not to make a political point. In recent times greater emphasis has gone on to seeking leave to table documents in order to score a political point, and that is not the purpose of such leave. The power under a point of order to seek leave to table a document is a very significant power, and it should not be abused. But on this occasion, because I have not given prior warning of that, I will seek leave for the submission to the select committee to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point goes with the ruling you have just given. I happen to agree with your perspective on what should be tabled and what should not, but, unfortunately, this matter was considered by the Standing Orders Committee. Effectively, it considered whether discretion should be given to the Speaker to decide whether to put leave to the House, and decided to leave it as a recommendation to members that they should not seek leave—that it is not an appropriate thing to do. I think we would probably agree that the Standing Orders Committee, at the time when it considered this, did not go far enough. I suggest that before you go further than the report that has been adopted by the House from the Standing Orders Committee—because there were a lot of other matters there—it might be a good idea to call that committee together again. I know, as I say this, that I am not universally supported by members on my side of the House. But I think the matter would be worth considering, because I have had some experience on the other side of the House, and I know that from that perspective at least, as well as from yours, seeking leave to table such documents can be seen as trifling. It is not so in this particular case, but I think it is something where the House should support you in a new ruling. I think it is appropriate that the Standing Orders Committee consider the matter first.