2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
When he said last week in the House that the Government was interested in “making sure that our scheme is affordable.”, what is the estimated cost to the New Zealand taxpayer over the life of the scheme of the changes he announced to the emissions trading scheme?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) Link to this
As the Prime Minister said last week, over the next 3 years the revised scheme will cost around $415 million to halve the petrol and electricity price increases that were inherent in the scheme that was already on the books. It is more difficult to estimate the costs past 2013 because the international rules are not known. However, Treasury’s mid-range estimate is that the revised scheme will actually save $493 million during the period 2013 to 2018, so over the next 9 years it will cost taxpayers less than the existing scheme. That brings into question some of the claims that have been made about huge industry subsidies.
How can the Acting Prime Minister make that comment when the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, which represents about 43 percent of the gross domestic product of this country, says: “Capping the price on emissions and delaying the phase out of assistance for major emitters could cost the taxpayers billions of dollars,”?
The advice that we have been given by Treasury, which has had many years to work out how to calculate these things, simply contradicts the claims by that council, and contradicts the claims made by the member. In the interests of broad agreement about the scheme, it should not be too difficult to get to the bottom of what drives the numbers.
Why, in making the changes to the emissions trading scheme, has the Prime Minister transferred billions of dollars of costs for carbon and methane pollution from those causing the pollution to ordinary, hard-working New Zealand taxpayers?
The Government simply disagrees with that description. It does not matter how many times that member uses it; it does not make it right. We have balanced up our environmental responsibilities with our economic responsibilities. The member ought to bear in mind that Labour’s scheme was going to impose very significant price increases on electricity and petrol, and very significant job losses for the hard-working New Zealanders whom he pretends to represent.
Chris TremainIs the Government still open to discussions with Labour on changes to the emissions trading scheme, noting that Labour’s opposition is based on a flawed assumption that these changes will cost taxpayers a whole lot more over the next decade?
The Minister for Climate Change Issues, Dr Nick Smith, has said he is open to talks at any time. It seems to me that, in light of the advice from Treasury, it should not be too difficult to get agreement on the numbers about what the scheme is costing, but I understand that those are not the principal issues that Labour is concerned about. We are open to further discussion on the issues that Labour is concerned about.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask whether the question you have just allowed from the National whip about the policies of another party, and the assumption he made about what the effect would be of the policies of another political party, are now in order. If they are, the Labour Party cannot wait to start asking those sorts of questions.
Mr SPEAKERI assure the honourable member that he ought to be pleased that I do not apply the particular Standing Order, because more than half the questions his colleagues ask would be ruled out. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and that is why—
I just alert members to the fact that if they put those kinds of assertions into questions, they will not get the answers they expect—
Members will not interject while I am ruling on the point the member has made. If those kinds of assertions are put into questions, members can expect the Minister to respond to the assertion, not to the question. At the end of the day, I have to make a judgment about whether to rule them out. I do not want to intervene all the time. If I were to rule out that particular question from the Government member—certainly it was not strictly in order, and I accept that—I would have to rule out many questions from the Opposition. I have to try to play an even hand.
In response to the statements made by independent economic commentators about the billions of dollars of cost that this scheme will impose on the taxpayer, will the Prime Minister release to the public and to Parliament a breakdown of the cost of subsidies that he is making to a range of multinational companies that will continue to emit for much longer, such as Rio Tinto, Holcim Cement, BlueScope Steel, and Methanex; if not, why not?
The information concerned will be covered by the same rules as every other bit of policy advice that the Government gets, which means that it will almost certainly be released. But I stress to the member that there will be plenty of access to the information if we can have a reasonable environment in which to discuss it, and that would mean that the member would need to correct some of his more outrageous claims.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Why does the Prime Minister think it is affordable for New Zealand taxpayers that just one firm—Methanex—will benefit by $74 million a year more in free credits when it expands production, as it is planning, and that that level of subsidy will hardly reduce over three generations? If he disagrees with those numbers, will he release his analysis?
I would have to go back and see whether the member’s analysis is correct. In the broad approach to this scheme, the Government has balanced up its environmental and economic responsibilities. We have been quite upfront in expressing our objective of wanting to reduce the cost. In fact, we have halved the cost to consumers of electricity and petrol—which is most New Zealanders—and we have made sure that successful industries are not exported overseas, taking with them thousands of well-paid jobs. I accept that other parties might have a different view; that is our view.
Does the Minister agree with the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, who said last week that polluters will not face the full cost of their emissions for 90 years; if so, does that mean that New Zealand taxpayers will continue to pick up the bill for polluters until 2099?
We have made decisions that balance up the needs of the economy, the needs of the environment, and costs for everyday New Zealanders. It is a bit difficult to speculate 90 years ahead because past 2012 the international rules are not known.
Why is the Government prepared to spend what other independent commentators have estimated as billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to subsidise polluters, when it is going to slash adult education by 80 percent for the sake of just $16 million?
It is one thing for the Opposition to make extravagant claims, which I guess is the job of the Opposition, but if Labour members really are putting a priority on getting a broad agreement on the emissions trading system, then they need to put up their propositions, which I presume would take billions of dollars off these industries and export the jobs that go with them.
Before I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition I say to members that if they want to hear an answer to a question, then it is not helpful to interject quite so intensively.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If Ministers give political answers that are provocative to the Opposition, then clearly there will be interjections. You have ruled in that particular regard. The Acting Prime Minister, who spoke about making extravagant claims, should have chosen slightly shrewder words that he did.
The member has just highlighted the problem of when members asking questions insert claims into their questions. The Acting Prime Minister, in responding, commented on the Opposition making an extravagant claim and thereby invited lots of interjections. The House would do so much better if members would simply ask clear, hard-hitting questions instead of making claims and allegations about things. Please understand that that statement applies to both sides. I guess, by and large, most of the questions are asked by the Opposition. I urge members to simply ask clear, hard-hitting questions. We can see the problems that come when statements are made instead of questions being asked. We get this kind of unhelpful interaction. I am sure people would have struggled to hear the answer.
Following your advice, Mr Speaker, I ask what the deal to get Māori Party support for the emissions trading scheme will cost the taxpayer, and who will benefit from that expenditure.
As the member knows, there are ongoing discussions with the Māori Party. But I make the point that if the member really is interested in considered discussion about the emissions trading scheme, he has every opportunity to take part in that discussion. That might be better for the country than making extravagant—
On this occasion the Leader of the Opposition asked a perfectly straight question. The Acting Prime Minister, in responding, either has information about the cost of an agreement reached or he does not. The House would appreciate receiving information about that cost, and certainly does not appreciate a lecture being given to the questioner, who asked a straight question. I invite the Minister to provide the answer.
I will just repeat the first part of my answer, which was that there are ongoing discussions with the Māori Party.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Clearly, that answer did not answer the question, which was about what the deal will cost. The Prime Minister, in negotiating the deal, must have some idea of what it will cost, otherwise he would have been totally irresponsible in making the deal.
I hear the point the member has made. Either the Acting Prime Minister has information about the cost of an agreement entered into, or no agreement has been entered into. Either way, the House deserves an answer to a straight question. I have been trying to encourage straight questions. A straight question has been asked, and the House deserves an answer.
I can only repeat the answer I have already given: there are ongoing discussions with the Māori Party. There is no final information about cost.
I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first document is from the Taranaki Daily News, in which the Minister of Agriculture says that it will take 90 years of subsidies before the emission—
I seek leave to table a media release from the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development on 14 September, which sets out how this scheme will cost the taxpayer billions of dollars.
I seek leave to table an article by Brian Fallow, a respected economics journalist for the New Zealand Herald, where he makes exactly the same point: that the purpose of this scheme is to transfer the cost—
That is a recent edition. I will put the leave, but I ask members, in response to recommendations from the Standing Orders Committee, not to take the time of the House to table recent newspaper articles from major dailies that members see regularly. I am obliged to put the leave. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave to table the analysis by Treasury that shows that in the first decade following the changes to the emissions trading scheme it will actually cost $100 million less than the scheme proposed by Labour.