The words of John Key 10 May 2005!!!
Hansard Volume 625 p20394
Climate Change Response Amendment Bill
JOHN KEY (National—Helensvill
Party to give the good news to the people of New Zealand—that is, the
Climate Change Response Amendment Bill is a load of rubbish and the
National Party will not be supporting it, for very, very good reasons
indeed.
I want to start off with a broad-ranging discussion, if I may, around
the Kyoto Protocol and the absolutely nonsensical road that this
Government is taking New Zealand down. I know we have a Prime Minister
who is very confident, and all the rest of it, but maybe she would
like to step out of her office on the 9th floor and realise which
planet she is on. She is on the same planet, she may be surprised to
learn, as India, China—
Hon Ken Shirley: And Mugabe.
JOHN KEY: And Mugabe, yes—and a lot of other countries out there that
have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. And why would they not, because they
have absolutely no requirements on them, whatsoever. Yet here we are
down in New Zealand, a very little country with about 0.2 percent of
the world’s emissions, putting a self-imposed straitjacket on our
businesses, and waving a huge flag that says: “Foreign investment,
don’t come anywhere near us. Australia is over there—the West Island.
Go over there to pour your dollars in.” To the Chinese we are saying:
“Come in and buy as much coal as you like from our West Coast. We’ll
sell it to you and you can burn it without a carbon charge—but, by the
way, to those back here in Aotearoa New Zealand we will be slapping on
a carbon charge and you won’t be able to operate.”
This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the
Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming—and I am
somewhat suspicious of it—is that we will see billions and billions of
dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a
problem. Even if it is a problem, it will be delayed for about 6
years. Then it will hit the world in 2096 instead of 2102, or
something like that. It will not work.
Let us have a look at the Government’s response to the Kyoto Protocol.
Our friends in Australia said they do not want a bar of it. They do
not want to know anything about it; neither do our friends in America.
I saw George W Bush, the President of the United States of America,
talking about the Kyoto Protocol on CNN one night. George Bush is not
necessarily known as the most eloquent speaker in US history. He is a
fairly straight shooter, but he is not necessarily seen as being one
of the great orators of all time. I plugged in the TV set, turned it
on, and what did I see? There, on CNN, late at night, at about 11.30,
was George Bush saying that America would not be ratifying the Kyoto
Protocol, because it is not good for jobs and it is not good for the
American economy. I understood that. I got it. Then I saw John Howard,
the Prime Minister of Australia, addressing the Australian people and
saying the same thing—that it is not good for jobs and it is not good
for the economy. So when I turned to New Zealand TV and found out that
we not only would be ratifying the Kyoto Protocol but in fact would be
the first country in the world—that is right—to be blazing a trail to
put on a carbon tax, I was somewhat astounded.
Now, I should not have been quite so worried, because when we
questioned the Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change last
week, he said not to worry. He said that the carbon charge was not a
tax increase; it was a tax shift. I was beside myself, as members can
imagine, because I just could not understand it. So the next day I
asked the Minister of Finance to point out to me what the discernable
difference to the average New Zealand worker would be when they
received about $400 less from an average, run-of-the-mill tax
increase. I might add that this Government has had about 35 of those
in the last 6 years, but that is another debate that we will come back
to. I asked him what the difference would be between the $400 less
they will get because of a tax increase and what they will get from a
negative tax shift. Dr Cullen is no slouch in the House, is he? He is
no slouch in the House, but he gave a sort of garbled response. We
raised a point of order and he had another bit of a go at it, but that
was a complete and utter failure. Then he came out with the real
doozy. I said to him: “You know the carbon charge that you’re telling
us will cost the people of New Zealand $200 a year, based on carbon
prices of $15 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions, or whatever?
Well, actually, you have given yourself provision for it to be $25 per
tonne. That will actually double the cost to about $400 per household,
especially when you add in all the second-order effects, because
supermarkets are going to have higher prices for its electricity, and
more for a sink.” “No!”, said Dr Cullen. “You’re wrong!”, he said to
me. I asked the Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen, what role he played in
devising the carbon charge. He replied that he was responsible, along
with the convenor. Well, that is very good. I thought to myself that a
new member like me could possibly be wrong—I mean, I do not want to
question the Minister of Finance, after 30 years—
Jill Pettis: Yes.
JOHN KEY: Exactly! I tell the senior Government whip that that is what
I thought the case was. So I scurried up to my office, got the
transcript of the questions and answers, came back to the House, and
took a point of order. Questions and answers are a sort of fancy term
for “small print”. I read out what he said: “Oh, well. Actually we may
allow the carbon charge to go to $25, because we are not quite sure
what rate it will hit at internationally.” I said that it happened to
be trading at about €17 that day, which, with the New Zealand exchange
rate, was about $30 to $35, and that would mean the price would
double. Dr Cullen looked at me, smiled, and acknowledged the fact that
I had understood that. He sort of nodded quietly, and away we went.
That is a tax shift. So if any New Zealanders are feeling in any way
better off today, it is because of that tax shift.
That sort of tax shift, recycling—all that sort of stuff—would not be
quite so bad, I suppose, except for what we are doing to the public of
New Zealand. What are we doing to the consumers and businesses of New
Zealand? We are putting a tax on them. I could understand that if the
Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change was coming to the
Chamber and saying that every single dollar would be spent on reducing
emissions in New Zealand—every single dollar. But no, that is not the
case. At the International Fiscal Association conference, where the
Minister of Finance was speaking on the previous Friday, he said that
his fringe benefit tax cuts—yes, he wanted some business tax cuts,
because business confidence was collapsing around his ears, and he
therefore needed to prop up that vote a little bit—would be partly
funded by the carbon charge. Very good—that is a good one, is it not?
So the consumers of New Zealand are now paying an additional tax shift—
it might be negative in their case—to prop up the failing business
confidence that has been caused by the Government making such an
atrocious job of managing the economy. All of that is actually
happening while the Government has a $7 billion surplus. Now, excuse
me, but George W Bush, at 11 30 at night on CNN, is starting to make a
hang of a lot more sense than the Convenor, Ministerial Group on
Climate Change when he tries to tell me the difference between a tax
shift and a tax increase. So my prediction is that that will be the
straw that breaks the camel’s back. The public are sick and tired of
paying additional taxes for all sorts of crazy ideas. They have heard
the message from that promising Opposition spokesperson on finance,
when he told the public—
Simon Power: Who is that?
JOHN KEY:—John Key, apparently—that $50 billion worth of additional
taxes have been imposed in the last 5 years. And on top of all that—
and with a $7 billion surplus—they have to pay a carbon charge. It
will be paid for by consumers so that other businesses, which have
absolutely nothing to do with emissions, can have a tax cut.
I want to make one last point before I sit down. I remember that about
a year or so ago Pete Hodgson said on radio that this first commitment
period would be free money for New Zealand—worth $500 million. What
sort of idiot, he asked Larry Williams, would rip up a cheque for $500
million, as the National Party would do? What sort of idiot would do
that? Well—hello, Minister! I do not know whether he has noticed, but
forests are being chopped down around his ears. In fact, the first
commitment period will, at best, probably be very close to flat, and
could even be negative. So the $500 million is a typical Labour Party
cheque, if I may say so—it is bouncing all the way back to the bank.
This is not a good idea for the people of New Zealand. This is not the
best thing for the planet. If the Prime Minister of New Zealand wants
to get out there and convince the Prime Ministers of India and
Australia, and the Presidents of China and America, to sign up, then I
will be with them all the way to the bank. But the last time I looked,
we were part of the same planet. New Zealand going it alone has not
worked in the past; it will not work on this issue, either.
