2. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Did he discuss with Kevin Rudd the report from the Australian Treasury entitled Australia’s Low Pollution Future: the Economics of Climate Change Mitigation that says “economies that defer action face higher long-term costs, as global investment is redirected to early movers”; if so, what implications does he see for New Zealand?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister) Link to this
No, the Prime Minister did not discuss that report with the Prime Minister of Australia.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Why is it that although the Australian Treasury now understands that acting promptly to address climate change brings prosperity and a host of Green New Deal jobs, the Prime Minister has given into pressure to set up a time-wasting review with terms of reference that question whether we should act at all, and has created yet another year of business uncertainty and lack of investment in solutions?
Mr Key did discuss with Prime Minister Rudd the importance of a successful Copenhagen climate change conference in December to decide on the post-Kyoto framework, and they also discussed the desirability of harmonising to the greatest extent possible the emissions reduction regimes in both countries.
Charles ChauvelIs not the real reason for the foot-dragging by the Prime Minister’s Government on climate change policy revealed by the Prime Minister’s reference, in an interview with Mr Ian Wishart in this month’s Investigate magazine, to the need to “have flexibility so that if the science deteriorates and the climate change sceptics are right, we have an ability to alter the impact on our economy”?
I think the member can understand how much uncertainty there is around the climate change policy process. The Australian Government is not exactly clear where it is going, the world carbon price is very difficult to predict, and the effect of recession on carbon emissions is also very difficult to predict. The Prime Minister is wisely making sure that people understand that the Government retains the flexibility to adapt to those circumstances.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question was very clearly directed to a quote that the Prime Minister gave about whether the science deteriorates and the climate change sceptics are right. The answer had nothing to do with the science and everything to do with the economics. I ask you to ask the Minister to answer the question.
Mr SPEAKERAs I heard the honourable member’s question, it was seeking an opinion. Often when members seek an opinion they may not get the exact answer they are seeking.
The member will show a senior member of the House some courtesy as she seeks to ask a question. Thank you.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Will the Prime Minister instruct officials working on the cost-benefit analysis of New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme to take into account the methodology and the conclusions of the Australian Treasury report, or will oversight of that analysis be left entirely to those in his Government with extremist views on climate change?
My understanding is that the cost-benefit analysis that the member is referring to has been commissioned by the select committee, so it will be subject to the committee’s oversight. I would imagine that any such analysis would draw on credible sources.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a somewhat jocular way I probably inappropriately interjected before, but can I ask you to clarify the ruling you have just made as to whether a Minister holds a view previously expressed is a matter of opinion for that Minister, or just a matter of fact. I think when Government policies—
The honourable member knows that a member who asks a question does not necessarily get the answer he or she might want. That has been very clear for many years in this House. When Ministers are asked their view about a statement, members are seeking an opinion, and they cannot be too prescriptive about the answer.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On advice from the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, I will correct an aspect of my last answer: the cost-benefit analysis has in fact been commissioned by the Government for the select committee. But the same direction applies—that is, the analysis should look to credible sources.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Is the Prime Minister satisfied with the Job Summit not mentioning in its proposals the benefits of investing in emissions reduction through energy efficiency and renewable energy, despite worldwide evidence that they are job-rich and cost-effective? Is it not time New Zealand embraced a Green New Deal that tackles the economic recession and climate change together?
No, the Prime Minister is not disappointed about the Job Summit not prioritising that particular policy proposal, because the summit put up a number of other quite constructive proposals that the Government will work through. But that does not prevent the Government from investigating the kinds of stimulatory activities the member is referring to.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Has the Prime Minister studied the economic stimulus packages of the United States, France, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Australia, South Korea, China, or Mexico—some of which are actually called a Green New Deal—and when will he orient New Zealand’s economic stimulus packages to tackle the triple crises of oil depletion, climate change, and economic recession, as those other countries are doing?
Yes, the Government has studied those packages, and the Government has included that orientation in its own package. For instance, it announced $500 million of infrastructure spending a month or so ago that includes significant upgrades of the insulation of State houses. The Government has signalled an interest in the same kind of package for non-State houses.