Kiwiblog

Nick Smith said:

A joint report by economic consultants NZIER and Infometrics concludes that a modified emissions trading scheme is the best way forward for New Zealand on climate change policy.

“This report is a useful contribution to the important debate on how New Zealand meets its environmental goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least cost to the economy,” Dr Smith said today in releasing the report.

The report was commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment and provided to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee as part of its terms of reference.

“This report concludes that a modified emissions trading scheme is the best way forward. I am releasing this report to assist with informed public debate on climate change.

“The report highlights that the costs to New Zealand’s climate change policy are significantly greater if other countries do not put a price on carbon. This reinforces the Government’s policy of aligning our response more closely with other countries.

Yep any post-Kyoto arrangement must include all major emitters.

Anyway let us look at the actual report. They note:

There are a number of policy options available to New Zealand to pay for any international liability. The options are all on a continuum between the following two ‘extreme’ bounds:

(i) The government purchases all of the liability offshore using general taxation to raise the revenue required to do so. In this scenario, no carbon price is introduced in the New Zealand economy.

(ii) The government introduces a price for all greenhouse gases in all sectors, with no exclusions. In this scenario, emitters face the entire burden of the international liability.

They conclude:

Our modelling shows that if the rest of the world takes steps to price carbon, and technological change is induced by this pricing, then a broad-based domestic carbon pricing scheme is the least cost way to meet New Zealand’s international obligations. Without action by the rest of the world or technological change, the least cost option can include the free allocation of permits and exemptions for some industries and/or gases.

My version of this is they say we should have an ETS. If the rest of the world signs up to a price on carbon, then our ETS should cover all sectors. If however major emitters (such as China and the US) do not sign up, then some industries should be exempted from an ETS – agriculture being my guess as the most likely.

Indeed I am right. They say:

On balance, our recommendation in the short run is to introduce an ETS with free allocation to competitiveness-at-risk sectors, with agriculture excluded if measurement of its emissions is prohibitively expensive. Free allocation should be output-linked and phased out as our competitors adopt carbon pricing. If agriculture is initially excluded it should be transitioned into the ETS, with free allocation if required, as measurement becomes economic.

It will be interesting to see what the Select Committee recommend.

Stuff reports that Nick Smith does not have swine flu, and so presumably all of the Cabinet are safe.

So this means ambitious backbenchers can stop texting John Key with their CVs.

I heard a rumour very early this morning that Nick Smith was in isolation, as he had Influenza A and it is possible he may have Swine Flu as he has been overseas on his honeymoon.

I forgot about the story until 10 minutes ago and finally rang up the Beehive to ask if it was true, and found the story had broken a few minutes ago on Stuff. If I had drunk less, I could have had a scoop!

We obviously wish Nick a speedy recovery, and hopefully he does not have Swine Flu.

If he does, then it is possible he has infected the Cabinet with it. And in Mexico it has a 6% mortality rate, and we have a Cabinetof 20 – so hey Nathan Guy may be getting a promotion from Chief Whip earlier than he thinks

Okay joking about it is a bit too bad taste – especially if anything bad does happen.

Talking of swine fly, I see we are being told we should no longer be calling it Swine Flu and the WHO wants to have people refer to it as “2009 H1N1″. Yeah right – that will catch on.

Labour and Greens are going on about how awful it is the Government has killed off the carbon neutral public service programme run by the Ministry of the Environment:

Nick Smith points out:

The Carbon Neutral Public Service was just a feel good slogan cooked up by the previous Government. Its only achievement was to cost this country millions of dollars. Ironically, since the programme was launched by the previous Government, emissions from the Ministry for the Environment increased from 656 tonnes in 2005/06 to 766 tonnes in 2007/08.

That is hilarious.

Humans tend to cause carbon emissions. So the quickest way to have a carbon neutral public service to to sack everyone

Nick Smith has just announced that John Judge will replace former CTU President Ross Wilson as Chairman of ACC. Other board appointments will be confirmed by the end of March.

Judge has a very strong background in financial management and governance. He was Chief Executive of Ernst & Young for 12 years and serves on a number of boards, and is the Chair of both Te Papa and the Auckland Art Gallery Foundation. So he seems well skilled at balancing financial objectives with wider social objectives. He also is on the advisory boards to both the Auckland University and Otago University Schools of Business.

Labour appointed Judge to the Te Papa Board in 2000, so presumably will find it difficult to attack his appointment to chair ACC.

Anthony Hubbard in the SST predicts some axes tomorrow:

ACC MINISTER Nick Smith is likely to sack ACC chairman Ross Wilson and several other board members tomorrow.

And embattled Corrections Department chief executive Barry Matthews is likely to be soon removed from his post by the State Services Commission.

We’ll find out tomorrow if that is correct or not!

Nick Smith makes a very good case for RMA reform in the SST:

Smith replies that he doesn’t so much want to alter the environmental outcomes of disputes under the law, but the process. At present, decisions are made by dozens of local bodies, some of them tiny, and then routinely appealed to the Environment Court. The result is often expensive and unnecessary delay.

Yep, it is not about getting different decisions made, but the idiocy that it takes longer to get a resource consent for a road, than it does to build it.

He offers a couple of examples. “TrustPower has applied for a quite controversial power scheme on the Wairau River in Marlborough. The process has been awful. It went to a commissioners’ hearing and it dragged out for more than two years, but everybody knew from the word go that it would be appealed to the Environment Court. I have sympathy with the Marlborough District Council, which is the administering body for the law. They don’t have a high level of expertise with a very large hydro development. They’ve never had one before.

“And an organisation like Fish and Game has spent hundreds of thousands of their environmental money [fighting the proposal] knowing all the time that the thing was going to the Environment Court.

“Another example is a highly controversial Mokihinui hydro scheme on the West Coast proposed by Meridian. Now Buller District Council is one of our smallest councils in the country. For them to be dealing with a $200m proposal… You’ve got a council with a population of 3000 or 4000 processing a consent that’s got major implications way beyond the Buller District.” The officer concerned with processing resource consent applications, he says, was probably also the dog control officer.

If it involves national infrastructure, it inevitably is dealt with nationally. This doesn’t mean no local input, just that the actual Councils may not be best placed to deal with it.

Smith wants to set up a new body, the Environmental Protection Agency, with a trained and professional staff equipped to do the administrative work with these complex proposals, which would be considered either by the Environment Court or a board of inquiry. Time-wasting and expensive hearings by tiny local bodies would be omitted.

The EPA may actually result in a better level of environmental advocacy.

The RMA, he says, is an impediment to efficient investment in infrastructure “and that’s not helping the environment either”. Auckland has a worse air pollution problem than Los Angeles, he says, with cars stopping and starting in congested traffic. A better roading network would help the environment.

The Greens have an extreme anti-road views, but the reality is that NZ’s future includes both more roads and more public transport. Only extremists think it is a choice of one over another. And delaying much needed roads does have a toll – on the environment, on the road toll, and on the economy.

The RMA, despite some changes by the Labour-led government, presented huge difficulties for the development of environmentally friendly electricity projects such as wind and geothermal. Smith believes there is great potential for green power in New Zealand. The geothermal area of the central North Island had the advantage that it was close to the major growth areas of Auckland and the Waikato. There was some potential for hydro although “we’re certainly not going to be damming every last river”, he says. “And there is some longer-term opportunity around tidal and wave energy.”

A considerable number of renewable energy projects have been killed off due to the RMA process.

The birthplace of Labour, West Coast-Tasman went to National on the party vote by 11%. In 2005 the had a 3% margin. Damien O’Connor had a 1,500 majority and lost to Chris Auchinvole by 1,000 votes. Auchinvole (who once famously told Parliament you pronounce his name like it was Dock in Cole or a rude version that is easy to work out) wan a strong campaign with 160 hoardings and a large campaign team. O’Connor is first in on the Labour List, so if Michael Cullen retires he will be back as a List MP.

National finally won the party vote in Nelson. Labour won it by 6% in 2005 but National has a 5% lead in 2008. And no one was surprised that Nick retained his seat, although his majority did shrink from 9,500 to 7,900.

Kaikoura was marginal in 2002 and today the party vote was won by 23%, up from 9% in 2005. Colin King doubled his 4,700 mJority to 10,100.

Clayton Cosgrove did well to hold on in Waimakariri with 500 votes against the competent and hard working Kate Wilkinson. National won the party vote by 15%, up from a 0.3% margin in 2005. Cosgrove’s 2005 majority on new boundaries was 5,000.

Christchurch East remains red with 45% party vote Labour to 36% for National. However that 9% gap is a lot less than 24% in 2005. Dalziel’s 11,000 majority halved to 5,500 – still very safe. However National now has a List MP in the seat and will have hopes for when Lianne retires.

Christchurch Central was a great battle. Labour won the party vote by 1.4% and held the seat by 900 votes only. Nicky Wagner ran a very strong campaign but seats ending in Central are very hard to win for National. In 2005 the party vote margin was 22% and the majority for Barnett was 7,800.

Ilam has National 53% to 27% on the party vote. Gerry Brownlee also drives his majority from 5,500 to 10,800. This may finally stop Gerry from referring to his seat as marginal

Wigram saw Labour win the party vote by just 2%. In 2005 it was 12%. And Jim Anderton scored a fairly safe 4,500 majority despite new boundaries.

Finally we have Port Hills. National won the party vote by 16%, yet Ruth Dyson held the seat by 3,100. In 2005 Labour won the party vote by 12% so there was a massive swing there, yet Dyson’s majority shrank from just 3,600 to 3,100.

I’ve blogged over on curiablog the results fo several recent electorate polls, including tonight’s one in Tauranga. The topline results are:

• Tauranga – Bridges 26% ahead of Peters. Labour’s Pankhurst in 4th place at 5%. NZ First Party Vote down from 13% in 2005 to 6%.
• Palmerston North – National candidate Malcolm Plimmer ahead by 3%
• Ikaroa-Rawhiti – Parekura Horomia 5.4% ahead of Derek Fox
• Nelson – Nick Smith 36% ahead of Maryan Street
• West Coast-Tasman – Damien O’Connor 3.5% ahead of Chris Auchinvole
• Te Tai Tonga – Maori TV/TNS has Mahara Okeroa ahead of Rahui Katene by 10% – 49% to 39%. However Marae Digipoll has Okeroa bejind by 6% – 40% to 46%
• Hauraki-Waikato – Nanaia Mahuta ahead of Angeline Greensill by 0.6%

All three Maori seats held by Labour are highly competitive. In two seats Labour is ahead and in the seat with conflcitign results, an averaging of them out would see Labour ahead. This means that the Maori Party may not have much of an overhang at all – in fact they could even gain a List MP if they got 4% or so party vote.

Palmerston North is the only Labour held seat that a public poll has shown National ahead in, so far. Due to boundary changes Taupo and Rotorua are technically National’s on paper.

Based on boundary changes and public polls (and note this is not a personal prediction) the electorate seats would be:

1. National 35
2. Labour 28
3. Maori 4
4. ACT 1
5. United Future 1
6. Progressive 1

Labour will in one sense be very pleased to be ahead in all three Maori seats. However this does lessen their chances of winning via overhang.

And the Tauranga result is superb. With only 5% voting Labour on the electorate vote anyway, it means no amount of tactical voting in Tauranga can put Winston back in that way.

Lots to cover in brief. First the Australian political party leader who told off his 17 year old daughter on Facebook, exposing her drunken party photos to the world! Also wonderful is the conversation between two of Alexander Downer’s children on Facebook about why he was so pompous in a photo

Bernard Hickey complains (as I often have done) that we are paying $79 million into TVNZ6 and TVNZ7 yet they won’t make them available on Sky TV. He quotes former TVNZ Head of News Paul Norris in support – they have a reponsibility to make them widely available and could extend them with a flick of a switch to 700,000 households overnight.

Andrew Bolt has a fascinating exchange with an academic over the “stolen generation”. While there certainly is much in Australia’s past that was deplorable (as in NZ), it is apparent that certain portions of it such as the “stolen generation” have been over-hyped. He cites the example of one Aboriginal leader who claimed to be part of the “stolen” generation who was “taken from my family” but in fact was put up for adoption by her father who could not cope with five children.

Lindsay Perigo writes a moving account of his last face to face meal with Anna Woolf, who is dying of brain cancer. Even just reading his account makes the eyes water – I can’t imagine how hard it is for those who are close to Anna, let alone Anna herself.

The Telegraph points out that if Michael Phelps was a country, he would be coming 5th on the Olympic medal table – ahead of Italy, Russia, Australian and Great Britain.

Frog Blog joins Nick Smith on wondering why DOC is spending so much money on a new corporate brand, when it has just laid off 60 workers to save money.

Liberty Scott exposes Sue Kedgley’s scaremongering over cellphone towers. Good God, this debate was settled over a decade ago in terms of science. I’d be more inclined to take Sue’s campaign against the towers seriously if she’d give up her cellphone.

Lindsay Mitchell covers the launch of a second Maori based party. The Hapu Party is led by David Rankin, and three policies to date:

1. To have Maori eligible for the pension at age 56, because of the lower life-expectancy of Maori
2. To introduce a flat rate 18% personal tax and GST rate.
3. To immediately allocate all treaty settlement money directly to hapu and marae

They have me with policy No 2. Policy No 3 is between Iwi and Hapu to resolve in my opinion, and Policy No 1 has no chance. Worryingly for the Maori Party, Rankin also talks of financial irregularities with a Maori Party MP and a SFO complaint.

The Infrastructure Forum has just started. I’m only half taking it in, as was a pretty late night out with the Young Nationals celebrating the All Blacks massive victory.

Got absolutely soaked to the bone getting home – it was thundering down, and taxis were scarce with a 30 minute delay if you phoned for one.

Anyway back to infrastructure. First up was Maurice Williamson on transport and he summed it up himself with a one liner – National will build more roads – lots of them! He gave some staggering figures on the massive increase in costs that some roading projects have incurred due to consent delays. He stressed this wasn’t about even getiing enough roads for future volume, but just getting us enough for our current needs.

Then Gerry Brownlee on energy. Gerry said that if we found Maui field today, it would be worth around $50 billion. Said that concern over carbon emissions doesn’t change the fact that replacements for current fuel sources are not extensively available, so demand will stay high. NZ second only to Canada in our mineral endowment.

Third up was Nick Smith on RMA reform.  Round up of how multiple business organisations, government advisory groups and surveys all rate this as the highest priority. Will be enacted within months not years of the election.

Questions were fairly as expected. A patsy on why broadband is a better infrastructure investment than trains. Some discussion on coal and carbon emissions and whether one can sequester the co2 from coal. Also focus on consenting for roads – the desirability of having one consent application for an entire motorway, rather than breaking it down into lots of small packages – each of which has its own process.

I’m a big fan of John Armstrong but he should not fall for Clark’s spin:

It didn’t help Key that his colleague Nick Smith made the mistake of responding to Clark’s taunts about the “Freedom of Speech” Trust set up to help pay Smith’s legal bills. Smith replied that he had sought advice from the registrar of pecuniary interest as to what disclosure requirements he should follow. He was told he only needed to declare a pecuniary interest in a trust.

Quick as a flash, Helen Clark retorted that if Smith did not have to declare either debts or gifts, “then nor does Mr Peters”.

She is wrong. The Freedom of Speech Trust is a legal entity and Nick Smith has declared in his register he is a beneficiary of it.

The so called legal fund that Peters has is not a legally constituted trust with Trustees and its own legal personality. It is either a solictor’s trust account (not the same as a trust) or the money went straight to debtors. In both cases it is paying off debts directly on behalf of Peters. And this is not my assertion – this is what Brian Henry said.

Clark’s statement is wrong – simple as that. Smith has declared the beneficial interest in the Trust.

John Armstrong does note some welcome strong language from Gerry Brownlee:

Brownlee accused Peters of touting himself as “one of the great parliamentarians of our age” when his failure to disclose the $100,000 donation from wealthy expatriate Owen Glenn actually displayed Peters’ “utter and complete contempt” for Parliament.

Peters’ claims about what he knew or rather did not know about the donation were “unbelievable”, “irresponsible” and were “destroying the credibility of Parliament” as an institution.

I was on National Radio’s “The Panel” briefly yesterday along with Michelle Boag and David Slack. Jim Mora asked us why National and Labour did not simply get together and agree neither party would do a deal with Winston after the election, hence excluding them from weilding all the power on their 5% (if they make it).

I responded, noting that Michelle and I had both worked for National PMs, and David S for a Labour PM – and that on behalf of the three of us I was sure we would all be willing to represent National and Labour in negotiating such an agreement

Sadly it isn’t quite that simple, as if a party gets seats in Parliament they are a reality to deal with as they get to vote on every proposed law and budget etc. But I would observer enthusiasm in both Labour and National is waning for dealing with Peters – not just on the actual allegations – but more so on his response to them – his absolute inability to apologise or admit any wrong doing – such as continuing to insist the NZ Herald Editor and Political Editor should apologise to him and resign.

The Nelson Mail reports on the engagement of Nelson MP Nick Smith to Linley Newport.

I’ve popped into National’s Lower North Island conference in Wellington for some of the speeches. First up was Nick Smith who assailed Labour’s environmental record. Nick pointed out the following under Labour:

1. Carbon emissions increased 14%
2. NZ placed 38th out of 43 for growth in emissions
3. The proportion of energy produced from renewable sources has dropped from 72% to 66%
4. Coal generated power has increased from 4% to 12%
5. 75% of all new production has been thermal
6. The first deforestation since 1952
7. 40,000 hectares of forests destroyed in the last four years
8. The Marine Reserves Bill has been stalled since 2001
9. Funding for pest control has been cut
10. No national policy statement produced, as promised, on biodiversity

As I heard and saw this, it got me thinking about why you never hear that from the Green Party? It is a mystery to many commentators that they are only at 6% or so, despite Labour having dropped into the 20s.

The Greens need to think about whether they really want to gain significant support or not. Unless they like being a minor prop to Labour, they should set a target of 12% to 15% of the vote – something high enough that it is impossible for a centre left Government to be formed that does not include them.

To do that though, they need to stop being so polite about Labour’s record of failures. They need to take to Labour, like NZ First took to National in 2002 – and NZ First got 11%.

Could you imagine the media reaction if at a leader’s debate you did not just have Jeanette or Russel saying “Oh yes Labour could have done more” but instead was saying that the record was a litany of failure on the environment. The Greens would be on the front page of every paper.

Now one can say that I am fomenting mischief and the Greens attacking Labour will not result in a centre left Government. That is true. However a centre left Government is looking a very remote possibility anyway. So do the Greens want to be a 6% party in Opposition or an 11% party, which would guarantee it a significant role in a future Government?

Just to show that there is no shame, have a look at how Labour Ministers both claimed wrongly a National MP had said something he had not, but then how nasty they get, and how the Speaker protects them. From yesterday:

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What changed between the time when David Cunliffe, the then Minister of Immigration, was briefed, as he now alleges, on completion of the Oughton inquiry in July of last year, and when he himself was fully briefed in December last year on the Oughton report—what changed between then and April this year, when the Oughton report was exposed to public scrutiny, other than the fact that the cover-up was over?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: In order to assist the member, I tell him that the previous Minister was not briefed in December. I was the Minister at that time.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I said you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No, the member said “the Minister at the time”, and “the previous Minister”.

Now have a look at the Hansard.  Lockwood clearly refers to David Cunliffe as per-December and Cosgrove as the Minister in December as he says “he himself” in the question to Cosgrove. Cosgrove is clearly wrong with his insistance Lockwood had it wrong.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’re wrong.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I think we may need stretcher-bearers for one particular member. This is a serious issue, and should be dealt with in a serious way. We may need stretcher-bearers for the other Dr Smith. Can I say—

Now again remember Cosgrove is in the wrong here, and Nick Smith is correct in backing up Lockwood. So what does Cosgrove do – resort to the normal smear they use against Nick.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: There is a point of order; it will be heard in silence.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister, in reciting my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s question, was mistaken in his restating of the course of events. In response to an interjection from me saying that he was wrong, I was then subjected to personal abuse. I think it would be helpful if Dr Smith re-asked his question—in which his dating and timing were correct—because it seems that the Minister was confused about the question that my colleague Dr Smith was asking.

Nick doesn’t respond to the taunt, but just makes the point that the Ministers were mistaken so the question should be re-asked, so the Minister addresses the correct question.

Hon David Parker: I, as well as Minister Clayton Cosgrove, listened carefully to the question, and I am clear that the question that was asked included the imputation that the Minister was the prior Minister, not the current Minister, and that is the point to which Mr Cosgrove was responding.

David Parker jumps in, and also has it clearly wrong, as the Hansard shows.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank members for their interventions. I think if members would keep the noise down, it would be easier to hear. As I have said, interjections do occasion responses. Would the Minister please just respond to the question as succinctly as possible.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would appear that confusion has arisen around my question. It was very clear. I would be very happy to repeat it to avoid that confusion.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think we should take it in the order it was. I am happy to look at the Hansard. I heard it also in the way that, I am afraid, others did. The member, obviously, feels that he did ask another question. As I said, I am happy to go and look at it later. Could we have a succinct answer to the question, and there is always an opportunity to ask another question—there are still supplementary questions available.

And now the Speaker also gets it wrong, and even worse won’t let Lockwood re-ask the question, despite the fact clearly the Ministers misheard what he said.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are on question No. 8 and we have had Dr Nick Smith running interference on every question across the House. He is not asking questions; he is just interjecting and yelling out personal comments. I think we have just about had enough today, and I ask you to require him not to continue going on in that fashion.

Annette seems to have missed the log in her own colleague’s eyes.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, I think that today comments have been made from all sides of the House. Obviously, it does create disorder, and it has. Members have noted the comments that have been made from all sides of the House on this matter. Could I please ask the Minister to succinctly address the question, and then we will ask Dr Smith to ask the question again. Thank you.

And then the Speaker totally confused says Cosgove will answer/address the question, and then have it re-asked!!! And then it isn’t!

Labour have been warned many times over their repeated goes at Nick with references to taking pills, and now out on a stretcher. That is bad enough at any time, but Labour may wish to consider the old saying that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

The SST reports on how an American multinational timber company, Osmose,  is suing Nick Smith and a local scientist for $15 million each. Nick has already had $300,000 in legal costs and it is likely his bills will reach $500,000.  It is worth remembering this is costs to be met from after tax income. On an MPs salary, take home pay is only around $71,000 a year, so the cost is more than the entire take home pay for seven years.

The company of course has the right to take legal action if it thinks comments made were defamatory and hurt their business.  They have to prove actual lost income to succeed (so I understand). But if as reported, the company is refusing any offer to settle, you wonder if the motivation is to destroy Nick and Dr Wakeling rather than have the record set straight and receive compensation.

Nick has been sued before – ironically for the first time by the Exclusive Brethren. But all the other cases have been won or settled.