Q+A’s Guyon Espiner Interviews ACT Party Leader, Rodney Hide

The interview has been transcribed below. The full length video interviews and panel discussions from this morning’s Q+A can also be seen on tvnz.co.nz at, http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news

Q+A is repeated on TVNZ 7 at 9.10pm on Sunday nights and 10.10am and 2.10pm on Mondays.

RODNEY HIDE interviewed by GUYON ESPINER

GUYON Thank you Minister for joining us this morning, we really appreciate your time. Can we focus first on the impact on consumers of the Emissions Trading Scheme. The government says $3.17 a week, about the price of a cup of coffee. I mean in terms of New Zealanders doing their bit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it's not much of an imposition is it?

RODNEY HIDE – ACT Leader
Well that might be what you say, but it is a big cost, it's going to be 5% on power 4cents a litre on petrol, that’s going to feed through to everything, on people on fixed incomes and low incomes that’s a lot.

GUYON Do you dispute the $3.17 figure though that the government's given?

RODNEY Well we accept that, but that’s just the start, because everyone knows that the whole point of an Emissions Trading Scheme is to get people to stop using electricity, to get them to cut back on using fossil fuels, and the government has said this is just a start, they're going to double it in 2013.

GUYON But that’s a good thing isn't it if we use less of those things, because they are things that have a negative impact on the planet. You yourself drive round in a small tiny little car, presumably because you don’t want to use as much petrol?

RODNEY Well no, I don’t think it necessarily is a good thing, people have got to make decisions, and we've got to you know have an economy, and what we're doing is we're artificially jacking up the price here in New Zealand. Nowhere else in the world are they doing that. And so what's going to happen here is that you're going to see businesses that say well actually it's too tough. We're going to see farmers go bust, we're going to see investment actually go to other countries.

GUYON You say that other countries aren't doing it, but that’s simply not true is it? I mean there are 29 countries with Emissions Trading Schemes.

RODNEY There are 29 countries that pretend they have an Emissions Trading Scheme, and that’s where the other countries in particularly Europe, the 29 countries who are in Europe, it doesn’t apply to agriculture, it doesn’t apply across the board to transport, it only applies to big business, only applies to businesses that are trading within Europe. And so they're not actually putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Also it's only applying to carbon dioxide, and New Zealand's applying to all gases all sectors.

GUYON One of your major arguments in terms of comparative disadvantage to other countries, was that Australia was delaying the scheme, and so we should not go ahead. Kevin Rudd though, one of the reasons he was dumped was because of his back flip on Emissions Trading, and Julia Gillard within minutes of becoming Prime Minister, recommitted Australia to an Emissions Trading Scheme. Australia will have a scheme and your argument will be dead won't it?

RODNEY Well let's see, but I mean what we're saying is why would we have one when Australia doesn’t. Why would we have one when the rest of the world doesn’t. And why particularly would we have one when Copenhagen has collapsed, when we've had Climate Gate and now actually this idea that there's consensus about the sciences under question, but more particularly no other country's doing it. Why are we rushing ahead. The National Party promised New Zealand that we wouldn’t be a leader like Helen Clark said, that we'd be a fast follower. Well now we're way out in front, and our point is we'd just put it on hold and let's see what the rest of the world does. And indeed I think because of the pressure that ACT's applied and others have applied, I think the government is softening, particularly on what will happen next year and the years beyond.

GUYON Softening to a degree that you support what they're doing?

RODNEY Oh I'd support any softening, because I think the Emissions Trading Scheme's going to be very hard on families, very hard on business, and especially hard on farmers. And this is at a time when we want to be helping our productive sector and making it easier for families to get ahead.

GUYON Well let's look at your alternative. I mean you say a more appropriate initial step is a low rate carbon tax. I mean isn't it a little bit consistent for a free market party like your own, to support a tax rather than a market based solution, like an Emissions Trading Scheme.

RODNEY Oh yes, in this sense. We don’t think we should be doing anything, but what we've said is, if you were going to do something, it would be far cheaper and far easier just to put a low tax across fossil fuels. That would achieve the same result, you could also subsidise forestry, and we've offered that up to the National Party as an alternative that would be easier. Why would it be easier? It would administratively much less costly, because you'd just put a tax across rather than try and operate a trading mechanism, but more particularly it would prevent the forwarding corruption that’s going to occur with the Emissions Trading Scheme.

GUYON Well let's look at your policy when you went into the election. I mean it was point number 18 on your 20 point plan, and it said 'climate change – adopt saner policies, low carbon tax'. And then it said that it would make someone on the average wage $37.50 a week better off. Do you sincerely and actually believe that your carbon tax policy would have left consumers $37.50 better off each week?

RODNEY Don’t forget what we were looking at then was what the Labour Party was proposing, and that $37.50 a week is what the impact would be on the economy.

GUYON But that’s not true is it? National halved the scheme and halved the impact, so how possibly Mr Hide could your policy have left consumers $37.50 a week better off?

RODNEY That was our best estimate for the impact on the economy as a whole of the Labour Party scheme. And don’t forget that there's the cost that it's going to be to consumers. There's the cost direct that it's going to be to producers. But more particularly it's the lost economic opportunities, because we're gonna see farmers go to the wall because of the scheme. We're gonna see businesses not set up because of the scheme.

GUYON Let's look at the actual reason though behind some of this, despite all the technicalities about what the best solution is. I mean the blunt truth is that you simply don’t believe that man made climate change is occurring do you?

RODNEY I'm very sceptical.

GUYON You're very sceptical about this, but you have a recent survey in a scientific magazine of 1372 climate science experts – 98% of them believe that man made climate change is affecting the planet. I mean isn't your position a little bit ridiculous?

RODNEY Not at all. Science isn't a matter of doing a survey and a consensus. Science is about the facts and about the theories, and about testing those theories against the facts. When you take the theory of human induced climate change, the facts don’t support. Now what we're saying is, it could be true but we doubt it, and why would we be rushing off having this complex scheme if it hasn’t been demonstrated to be true? Particularly we've also seen NIWA now having to rework all it's own figures because of the work that ACT's done in parliament and others, exposing them for being nonsense.

GUYON There have been some minor error in some of the work that’s been done.

RODNEY But they're not minor errors Guyon. What we've seen NIWA is they produced their famous seven series graph showing that it had warmed one degree. What we've discovered is that when you look at the raw data it's flat for a 100 years, those changes were all done by the scientist themselves. When we've asked in parliament and formally, they’ve said oh we can't justify that, the result of that is our own government appointed scientist having to spend six months redoing the entire work.

GUYON But you’ve got a situation Mr Hide where 127 countries have signed the Copenhagen Accord, where the vast and overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is saying that this is occurring. Where all the major world leaders of all the major world countries are saying we have to do something about this. And then we have the ACT Party in New Zealand saying convince us. I mean doesn’t that put you in some sort of conspiratorial position of ridiculousness?

RODNEY No not at all. What you’ve got is this. You’ve got a government of New Zealand putting Emissions Trading Scheme on to our businesses and on to our households, and on to our farmers. No other country in the world is doing that. And you’ve got the ACT Party saying hang on why are we putting this big cost on our farmers? Why are we putting this big cost on to our businesses? Why are we putting up fuel prices and electricity prices to New Zealanders, when no other country is putting in – and you have to accept this Guyon – no other country in the world is putting in all gases, all sectors Emissions Trading Scheme.

GUYON Yeah until 2015. But before I leave...

RODNEY Ours is legislated to happen, and what we're saying is that we should pull back right away from that, and we should do this Guyon, we should wait till the rest of the world catches up. It's all very well for these scientists to be signing up on this, and the world leaders talking big talk, it's the New Zealand consumer and the New Zealand farmer that is paying now. Other farmers, other consumers aren't in the rest of the world.

GUYON Just before I leave climate change, you say you're sceptical, fair enough. There'll be a lot of New Zealanders who would be unconvinced that a major disaster or a major earthquake would happen in their lifetime, but they pay earthquake levies, they pay their insurance bills, because that is the prudent thing to do.

RODNEY Yes but it's not prudent to incur huge costs when they actually do nothing to mitigate any risk. Because what we do know is that you could shut New Zealand down and it will make no difference, even if you accept the models, it will make no difference in terms of those models to world climate. So why are we incurring this cost when it will make no difference to the world. Indeed the government is arguing an incoherent position, because it's saying look these costs are little, you're hardly going to feel them. But if you're hardly going to feel them it's not going to change behaviour much. The whole point of this scheme is to change behaviour, and we're saying why, why are we particularly doing it ahead of the rest of the world? Why are we making it harder for our farmers when we need every dollar that we can possibly make. I don’t think that’s sane, nor does the Act Party.

GUYON The Emissions Trading Scheme is coming in on July 1, whether you like it, well the amended scheme, we already have a scheme up and running. Let's look at some of the other things that you are hoping to change. Your coalition agreement with National says that there will be a Taxpayers' Rights Bill, which is effectively a law putting a cap on government spending. Now that was supposed to happen within six months of you forming a government with National. Where is that measure?

RODNEY Oh I put that on hold, because when we got elected we were quite busy with the recession, and I knew that the Treasury wouldn’t have the opportunity to put attention to it.

GUYON That’s what you told us nearly a year ago. Where is it now?

RODNEY Well it's being discussed with the Treasury, and it's available to go to a Select Committee this year. I've also got the Treasury working on alternatives to the Taxpayer Rights Bill.

GUYON So is it going to happen?

RODNEY Well we'll see. All that we said is that we'd put it to a Select Committee. That will happen, but what I'm making sure is that we get the proper work done. But go back to the point. The point of this is this...

GUYON But hang on, before you say that, the point is that you had a written agreement with the National Party saying we will have a law to put a limit on government spending.

RODNEY No we didn’t.

GUYON Yes you did. Well I'll quote it to you. It says there'll be a government measure with the aim of passing into law a cap on the growth of core Crown expenses. That’s effectively a law putting a cap on government spending.

RODNEY The agreement, and I know it word by word, is to send the Taxpayer Rights Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee.

GUYON But there's no point in that is there. The point is whether it becomes law or not, otherwise there's no point just going through the motions. I'm asking you whether it's going to happen, or have you flagged that away?

RODNEY No we haven't flagged it away, and I'm in discussions, I've been in regular discussions with the Treasury and with Bill English. I'm actually getting government expenditure under control. But let's back the truck up a bit, and think about what this means for New Zealanders. Our big concern is this – jobs, wages, keeping people safe, and getting a better education system. We've got five MPs, we're part of a conscience and supply agreement with the National government, we're delivering on that. How are we doing that? First of all we set the big goal of lifting our performance to match Australia by 2025. We used a taskforce to set up a blueprint to get there.

GUYON And National shredded that document didn’t they?

RODNEY We'll come to that. Second thing. We have big concern about government expenditure. I'm on the expenditure control committee. We've got expenditure down and under control, we need to do a lot more, and our Taxpayer Rights Bill will be a step in the right direction. The second point is to get red tape under control.

GUYON Yeah, and we'll come to that with respect, because the end game is catching Australia isn't it? You said that that was the centrepiece of your coalition agreement with National, centrepiece, and National tore it up, they're not doing one thing about it are they?

RODNEY It's not fair to say they're not doing one thing, but they're doing nowhere near enough.

GUYON Name one.

RODNEY Well I'm hopeful we'll get our Regulatory Responsibility Bill through. I'm hopeful that we'll get other measures through that the taskforce identified.

GUYON Like what?

RODNEY But here's the thing. Here's the thing Guyon.

GUYON What are they Mr Hide, because they shredded that document, you know it yourself, sitting here this morning. They did shred it, and I mean I think that is terrible, they shredded the centrepiece of the agreement didn’t they?

RODNEY Yep, and what it means is, that on our present track we haven't got a chance of lifting New Zealand's economic performance to provide wages equivalent to that of Australia by 2025. What's the answer to that? The answer to that is for people to give their party vote to the ACT Party, and we'll make sure that the government does the sort of economic changes needed to boost our performance.

GUYON But you haven't. You got an agreement and they shredded your document.

RODNEY That’s right, and why? Because we actually didn’t have a sufficient influence on this government with five MPs. But if we had eight MPs or ten MPs which is another 60 or 80 or 100,000 votes – if we had that we would have been able to dump the Emissions Trading Scheme and indeed lift New Zealand's economic performance. It is about influence in parliament, and to get that influence in parliament you need the party votes to do it. We're very proud of what we've achieved with five MPs. We need more votes to get more done.

GUYON Let's look at one of the things that you have achieved, setting up a Productivity Commission. It'll cost five million dollars ultimately, kicks in next year. What are they gonna do?

RODNEY Oh well they're part of the success of Australia for the last sort of 12 or so years.

GUYON What would you be expecting them to do in New Zealand? What sort of ideas would you be looking for?

RODNEY Well what they can do is, they can depoliticise some of the big thorny policy issues that we have in New Zealand, because what you have is an independent commission that can go out and consult with the people of New Zealand and make a report back to New Zealand. I'm in discussions with the National Party and the Labour Party, I'm establishing that commission, we've got the legislation.

GUYON Who's going to head it?

RODNEY Well that'll be a consequence of discussions with both National and hopefully the Labour Party, and indeed the other parties...

GUYON The Labour Party?

RODNEY Yes

GUYON So this is gonna be broad ranging because your 2025 taskforce was a little bit weighted to the right wasn’t it? That’s hwy National shredded it?

RODNEY It's not weighted to the right.

GUYON Well are you going to be more representative than Don Brash and a bunch of business people?

RODNEY It's not about being representative. The concern that the government had with the 2025 taskforce, was it involved reform, and the National Party, are very very conservative, and very anxious not to be a reforming party. We believe that if we're gonna lift New Zealand's economic performance we do need change, and the way we're gonna get that change is for people to give their party vote to ACT. And it will work like this Guyon. We know that the party vote for ACT is safe because I'm working very hard in Epsom, and I intend to secure Epsom. Second of all we can show that we can work with the major party in government and have stable government. Give your party vote to ACT and we can make it happen.

GUYON This is not a party political broadcast. A final question for you. You stand in parliament and are in parliament because you hold Epsom. Have you had discussions with National about their not standing a candidate there?

RODNEY No.

GUYON One word answer and a good one. Thanks very much for your time this morning Rodney Hide, appreciate it.

ENDS

© Scoop Media