Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) Link to this
I seek the leave of the Committee to take this bill as one question.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this
I take a very brief call to say that although Labour supports the principles of the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill, it comes at a very important and difficult time for this Parliament. I see colleagues around the Chamber who are on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is currently considering deeply flawed legislation, the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill, which is the companion bill to this one. It is essential to make cross-reference to that bill because it is moot to be talking about the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill when the basics of the trading scheme are themselves in doubt.
I will give the Committee several examples of why this is, for New Zealand, a train wreck waiting to happen of such serious magnitude that it will result in an intergenerational disaster for our children. The first of those issues is that it is not possible to have a coherent “cap and trade” system without a coherent cap. The companion bill to this one, which is before the select committee, removes the cap that is currently in law from many of the sectors that this bill would cover. The economic effects at the macro level would be that it would be impossible for efficient trading to occur between sectors and therefore impossible for the New Zealand economy to adapt to, mitigate, or prevent climate effects at the lowest economic cost. That means, unfortunately, that ordinary, hard-working New Zealand families will be paying too much tax, losing too many jobs, or paying too high a price for their power or petrol because this Government is too determined to suppress dissent and ram the bill through Parliament than get it right.
Simon BridgesHon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I hear the member laughing. The Government will make this country a laughing stock in Copenhagen, and that saddens me.
The second reason this bill is being cynically manipulated at this time is that it is predicated, as is its companion, on interface with the Australian emissions trading system, which does not yet exist and in its current form has been thrown out of the Australian Senate. I argue that matching the Australians, when they have a different emissions profile, is in itself about as smart as putting a fox in a chicken coop. The Australian system is devoted to protecting its minerals sector, and Australia’s agricultural emissions are less than half of ours, as a percentage. Why are we trying slavishly to fall on our backs in front of our largest neighbour, which has a different emissions profile by a factor of two? The answer is that this Government has given up. It has given up the idea that New Zealand is a nation. It has given up the idea that we stand for something unique to our identity and that we are proud New Zealanders. We are not slaves of Canberra, and we should not be fawning over the Australian system when it does not exist. It is ridiculous, embarrassing, and illogical, and the Government should be ashamed.
The third reason the bill is a train wreck is that it and its companion bill, in their current form, will imply huge risks to New Zealand’s fiscal balance. The only way that the Crown and future generations of taxpayers will not be subject to massive fiscal liabilities is if the carbon price increases by less than 1.3 percent per annum on average, because that is the rate of decay built into the companion bill to this bill for the decline of the subsidies to National’s rich donor mates. No forecaster I know of, not even the New Zealand Treasury, believes that is the case. Nobody is saying that the carbon price will be flat or have less than 1.3 percent growth. Of course it cannot happen. Most of the developed and developing countries of the world will find themselves in carbon deficit and will be competing on the open market for the credits. How ironic to have this bill’s second reading the day the New Zealand Treasury has published its long-term fiscal outlook! Absent this bill, it already projects a total net debt by 2050 of 220 percent of GDP. Do members know what net debt was when Labour was in Government? Zero.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Zero. We were in credit for the first time in a century. Under National less than a year later, debt is projected to rise to 220 percent. Here is the rub. Can members guess what the imputed carbon liability in Treasury’s long-term fiscal outlook is? Zero. The 220 percent net debt is without any carbon component. Another branch of Treasury tells us that it does not believe that there has been adequate analysis, and it does not believe that it will be possible to have a growth rate in carbon of less than 1.3 percent. So not only is this embarrassing bill here on a day when Treasury has not been talking to itself, but it adds to the burden on our children. I do not know how members of the Government can look their own children in the eye and say to their sons and daughters that they are leaving them a world so much worse than the one they inherited. It is so much riskier that their children’s very existence—their lives—are on the line because of climate change. They will do nothing much about it other than give open-ended subsidies to some of their best mates at the Wellington Club and the Northern Club and to the other people who have paid them handsomely to sit on that side of the Chamber. How can those members opposite look their children in the eye and say that they are bequeathing them a future that is at least as good as the one that the people remembered around this hallowed Chamber fought and died to give us?
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) Link to this
I rise to make a contribution on the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill. It was good to hear that Labour is supporting the bill, but then I just heard the previous speaker say it is an embarrassing bill, which somewhat confused me. I want to get back to the facts of the parts of the bill, which we are debating as a whole.
Part 1 provides that trades, securities, and other products can be cleared and settled through designation systems that meet expectations of international and domestic participants in the New Zealand financial sector. Part 2 contains a savings provision that ensures that two payment systems already designated under existing Part 5C of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act are not affected by the amendments in this bill. Part 3 of the bill is to do with the Securities Markets Act 1988, and it amends the Act to align the regulatory environment for exchanges seeking to operate in both securities and futures markets. Registered securities exchanges and authorised futures exchanges are regulated slightly differently from each other under the Securities Markets Act. Currently, a securities exchange registers under Part 2B of the Securities Markets Act, while a futures exchange is authorised under Part 3 of the Act. Part 4 of the bill, which addresses the Personal Property Securities Act 1999, claims to clarify the regulatory treatment of emissions units to support the development of the market for emissions units. We have just heard a fair bit about that from the previous speaker. Emissions units are a relatively new product in our market. Some members of the financial sector submitted that in order to trade emissions units, the treatment of those units under our securities legislation needed to be clarified. Part 4 of the bill supports that objective by defining what an emissions unit is for the purposes of the Personal Property Securities Act. Part 5 addresses issues to do with the Securities Act 1978. It defines what an emissions unit is, and it amends the definition of “chattel” in the Securities Act to include an emissions unit. It also inserts new definitions of “emissions units” and “greenhouse gas”.
There are two Supplementary Order Papers on the table. The first, Supplementary Order Paper 81, divides the bill into four bills. That will enable Part 1 and Part 2 to become the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill; Part 3 and schedules 1 and 2 to become the Securities Markets Amendment Bill; Part 4 to become the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill; and Part 5 to become the Securities Amendment Bill. Supplementary Order Paper 80 makes very technical amendments to the bill.
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this
The Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill is a very good bill, and Labour does support it. It might be useful to briefly remind the House of the legislative history of the proposal. The bill in its original form was introduced by my friend and colleague Lianne Dalziel, on 2 September 2008. On 23 September 2008 it was read a first time and referred to the Commerce Committee. Some time later, on 18 June 2009, we see that the bill was reported back to the House, and we finally get to debate it now.
I will touch on some of the main features of the bill for those listening to the debate. The legislation is intended to signal that trades in securities and other products can be cleared and settled through systems that meet the expectations of both international and domestic participants. The bill provides for settlement systems to operate in New Zealand with the option of applying for designation and being regulated to relevant international standards. In return for that, a designated settlement system receives additional legal protections to support the integrity of the system in the case of a participant’s default or insolvency. As we have just heard from the Minister, the legislation will also amend the Securities Markets Act. Clearly, if it is done properly, that will reduce compliance costs. We will be able to align the regulation of exchanges that seek to operate in both the securities and the futures markets. Also, if we enact that a person approved by the operator of an authorised future exchange is an authorised futures dealer, then we ought to get that level of efficiency as well. One would assume that the New Zealand Exchange would expect to benefit from those amendments through a reduction in its compliance costs.
The legislation also clarifies the regulatory treatment of emissions units to support the development of the all-important market that we want to see arise for these emissions units. The bill will give effect to that policy through a number of technical amendments to existing legislation. Settlement systems do contribute to a well-functioning capital market—there is no doubt about that. Capital market development will also be enhanced by this legislation, and, hopefully, it will also contribute to building our infrastructure.
I reiterate some of the concerns that were pointed out to the Committee of the whole House by my colleague David Cunliffe. The first concern is that this legislation has been allowed to languish on the Order Paper for some time. As I said earlier, it was reported back from the Commerce Committee on 18 June. Since that time we have seen an excessive amount of urgency used in this House on matters that surely any objective reader of the Order Paper would agree simply do not merit the use of urgency. There has been a shambolic management of the House by those responsible. Why this legislation has had to wait until now is really beyond members on this side of the Chamber. We could have got to it much earlier than we have. We should have debated it soon after its report back in June. There was ample time for the Commerce Committee to do a good job as I think the report back indicates.
The legislation was thoroughly considered by the Commerce Committee. There are sensible amendments being put forward, and I pay tribute again to the able chairpersonship of my friend and colleague Lianne Dalziel, in that regard. Quite why some of the measures that we have been considering in urgency in the House have been allowed to proceed while this has had to wait its turn beggars belief.
The second concern that has to be stated is that although this legislation has no direct bearing on the operation of the Government’s emissions trading scheme, it will facilitate the creation of a system that will allow for the trading of units generally. It is incumbent on any speaker trying to give an honest context to this legislation to point out the fact that while it has been languishing on the Order Paper we have also had climate change policy, in general, languishing in this country. As Mr Cunliffe said, we currently have a process where emissions trading legislation is simply being rammed through the Finance and Expenditure Committee with no regard for the public’s right to give proper submissions, no regard for the right of this Parliament to hear properly from officials, and no regard on the part of the Minister for the obligations that exist under the Official Information Act for the release of Cabinet, and other, materials. Members and the public are not able to make a proper assessment of whether the fiscal cost of the emissions trading scheme amendments are those that we should agree to. In fact, as Mr Cunliffe said, the evidence that the committee has heard to date on that question is of fiscal recklessness and a complete lack of transparency. But more of that anon, when we come to what will no doubt be the debate of the emissions trading scheme, mark whatever it is, under urgency in this House next month.
The other concern is that we have had yet another select committee, the special committee on the emissions trading scheme, considering questions arising out of the scheme. That has meandered on from February through to June or July with no particular urgency. The Government finally forced it to a conclusion and put that committee out of its misery. That was probably a very good thing, but it again points to a real waste of the time of members in this House. That process occurred, we had this rushed Finance and Expenditure Committee process, and now, finally, we are dealing with the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill. I note that it was introduced under urgency yesterday. Thank goodness we are at least not taking the Committee stage also under urgency! It is good legislation, it does deserve proper consideration, and I do hope that the Committee will give it that under this process.
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) Link to this
I rise to take a short call on the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill. Unlike my colleagues opposite, I will not traverse what was said in this House yesterday during the bill’s second reading, but I will acknowledge the officials who are here in the Chamber for the good work they did during the course of the select committee process.
I think it is apt that a member who attended the Commerce Committee and heard the submissions should stand and speak on this bill, rather than speak on another bill that is currently going through another select committee.
This bill is being supported by all parties in the House. As we have already stated, it is part of the economic package that this Government has put in place during its first year of government.
Grant RobertsonPESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA Link to this
Dare I remind my colleagues opposite of the sort of damage they did in 9 years in Government in this country. Dare I remind them of their failure in respect of economic growth; we had 0.2 percent annual growth in GDP in the year ended December 2008. Dare I remind those members of the high inflation rates that the previous Labour Government oversaw during its period in office. Dare I remind members opposite of the contraction in exports that occurred over the last 5 years. According to my colleagues opposite, it is all National’s fault.
This bill is part of a package that will transform this country. It will transform our economy. That is the reason why members opposite as well as Government members support this bill. I commend this bill to the Committee.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
I would like to make a few things clear to Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, the member who has just resumed his seat. First, this legislation was brought into the House by the previous Labour Government. He can stand up and lecture members about how wonderful it is and say that we should be so grateful to be here debating it, but he might also like to acknowledge the fact that the Labour Party in Government brought this legislation into the House. Secondly, the member may not like the fact that we are discussing the implications of this legislation in conjunction with the emissions trading scheme amendments, but members on this side of the Chamber will not stop talking about the huge liability being forced on to the next generation of New Zealanders just because the National Government does not like hearing about it. Thirdly, I would also tell him that it is very worrying for the public of New Zealand that Government members are talking about the kind of fantasy situation that was outlined by the member in terms of the economic position that National inherited from the previous Government. It should be very concerning to New Zealanders that the National Government is trying to rewrite history and is not acknowledging the fact that it actually inherited the lowest levels of debt as a proportion of GDP in the world, the lowest unemployment in the world, and zero net debt. I find it very concerning that a member of the Government would stand up and attempt to rewrite history in that way. It does not bode well for the future.
Labour is very happy to support this legislation and to take a call in the Committee stage. As we said in the bill’s second reading, we thank the Commerce Committee for its work. It was ably chaired by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. We acknowledge the work of the officials in bringing it to this House. We will be supporting this bill, because it is important legislation. I concur with my colleague Charles Chauvel, who said that it is a shame it has taken as long as this to bring it before the House. Many pieces of legislation that are not as important as this bill have been pushed forward.
I believe that the select committee made its report back on this bill in June. I acknowledge that at least this bill has had a proper select committee process, unlike so much other legislation that we discuss in this House. The bill was fulsomely considered by the Commerce Committee, and I think we can see that in the quality of this legislation. When we take the processes of this Parliament seriously and allow bills to have a proper amount of time at select committees for proper consideration and the proper interaction with the members of the public who want to come along and submit, then we can see that in the quality of the legislation that comes out the other end of the process. This bill is of far greater quality than much of the legislation that we have seen forced through this House under urgency, without a proper select committee process. But it is a shame that this bill has taken so long to come back before the House.
I think we must reflect on why this legislation is so important when we are looking at carbon trading, both domestically and internationally. The reason it is so important, particularly when we look at the process for purchasing international emissions units—and I do not think that people realise this, and it has not been said in public often enough—is that when we see, for example, the Government’s target of a 10 to 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, a target that has been heavily criticised in public because it will not do enough to address the issue of climate change, most people do not realise that the Government has no intention of trying to reduce our emissions by 10 to 20 percent. Saying that it is an emissions reduction target is very misleading.
What the Government intends to do is to purchase emissions units internationally to pay for that difference. Instead of the Government saying that it will try very hard to get our emissions down by 10 to 20 percent, it is saying that it will go overseas and buy emissions units for the 10 to 20 percent reduction, which is the target. Those are two very, very different things, and they are core to this legislation. Purchasing emissions units overseas costs a lot of money. This Government has decided that its preferred method for dealing with climate change is to buy our way out of it and not actually reduce our emissions at all.
Some people might ask what the point is. If the intention of the emissions trading scheme amendments, or legislation—as it currently exists, and as it will exist once the amendments have been passed, with the support of the Māori Party, which I am sure will just support it all the way right through to the end, regardless of who has to pay for it—
Hone HarawiraI am voting for this bill, because it sets up a carbon trading market, but I am talking about the emissions trading scheme legislation amendments, which is something quite different. I am a little concerned that Mr Harawira does not seem to realise that this bill is not the emissions trading scheme legislation. I find that more than a little concerning. I know that he has been out of the country for a little while—
—that is right—but he might like to know that that legislation is coming up later. He might like to talk to his colleague Rahui Katene, who is having to carry the can at the select committee on that legislation. She is doing so, I have to say, with great dignity, given the pressure that she has been put under. He might like to talk to her about that.
But what this comes back to, and why this is so important, is the fact that we will be purchasing all these emissions units from offshore, no matter what the cost. If the carbon price goes up, then that is billions of dollars’ worth of liability being placed on the New Zealand taxpayer, because this Government has decided that a reduction in our emissions target of 10 to 20 percent is not about reducing emissions. That is a really important point to make, because I do not think the general public understands that.
Ha, ha! Mr Bridges should wait until the report comes back from the select committee where it has been confirmed by officials, and then see whether it is still cynical. Alternatively, he could stand up in this Chamber and take a call, and say that the Government will reduce emissions by 10 to 20 percent—but the Government will not do that.
It is very important that we set up international carbon trading, because we need to buy ourselves out of a big problem, according to this Government, given that the companion emissions trading scheme legislation is currently being rammed through the select committee process. We finished hearing submissions this week, and in 2 weeks’ time the legislation has to be reported back. It cannot be done. It is impossible. [Interruption] This is the third select committee I have sat on, I say to Mr Lotu-Iiga, on this legislation. Last year National criticised Labour for the fact that we considered the legislation in 6 months. Now we have 2 weeks to get this legislation back before the House. It cannot physically be done.
When we are being asked to truncate parliamentary process to do it, because we cannot get a departmental report and we cannot get a revision track bill in time, that is a serious problem. Why are we being asked to do this? It is so Nick Smith can go to Copenhagen and brag that he has passed a scheme that will not do anything. That is why. Why not let the select committee go through its proper process, and then go to Copenhagen and say that the legislation is still in the process? Why would the Government not do that? Mr Tremain thinks this is funny. Why would the Government not do that? Why can select committees not do their work?
This is very difficult. I will have to explain it like explaining literacy and numeracy standards to someone who thinks they will actually improve education.
This process was good for this legislation, but the companion legislation relating to the emissions trading scheme has had a very, very bad process. They are actually linked to each other, I say to Mr Bridges. It is very worrying that the Government is so ignorant on the basics of legislation that it is passing. It is very worrying to the Opposition. If Mr Harawira does not realise that this is not the emissions trading scheme legislation, and Mr Bridges thinks that as well and is getting very confused, then I am worried about how we can seriously think that this Government will be able to pass any kind of climate change legislation of any meaning. This is very, very concerning. This bill—
“Come on!”, I say to Mr Bridges. Seriously! This bill will help us to facilitate trading in the emissions market. It is important for that reason, and Labour supports it. It is also very good that the select committee has allowed the definition of an emissions unit to be more flexible to allow for innovation. That is good as well. But the fact is that there is no point doing all this when the opportunities in the carbon market have been missed.
We had an opportunity to be one of the very first countries to set up carbon trading in conjunction with a European company. That company looked across and saw great opportunities in New Zealand, on the other side of the world and in a different time zone, but pulled out because of this Government’s moves in stalling on the emissions trading scheme. That is the reality of the situation we face. That is why this has been delayed.
This Government has no sense of urgency around carbon trading. It has no sense of urgency at all. We are setting up a flawed “cap and trade” scheme that has no cap. We will be purchasing an awful lot of emissions from overseas, so we had better get this right because it will be a big part of this Government’s target. We will not be reducing emissions; we will be paying for them. When I say “we”, I mean the taxpayers of New Zealand who will be subsidising big polluters to the tune of billions of dollars, for 90 years or more. That is an outrage.
STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this
I must admit that it is good to see Hone Harawira back in the Chamber. He has been in Geneva representing New Zealand at an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference. He said that he gave a speech in front of a delegation; I will tell members what Mr Harawira would have said. He would have stood and commented on what an aspirational country he comes from. He would have commented on what an amazing place he lives in. It would have been fantastic. Now he has come back here and is part of the support party that will ram through an emissions trading scheme bill that is an absolute disgrace. That is the irony. We saw the same sort of behaviour from Nikki Kaye. She stood up and said she was a leader in climate change and a magnificent ambassador for the youth of New Zealand, yet she supports this legislation. Simon Bridges was the same: he supports this rubbish legislation. It is amazing.
I stand in support of the Settlement Systems, Futures, and Emissions Units Bill, but just because I support it does not mean that I support the companion bill, the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Bill. In fact, it is quite the opposite. There is a big difference. Like other speakers have done, I acknowledge the hard work of officials and I congratulate them. This is a very good bill. Any bill that gets the unmitigated support of both sides of the Committee must be well drafted and must have gone through good processes.
Sorry. The acting chair of the Commerce Committee stood up and said this is wonderful legislation. It is fantastic legislation, but that is because it is a Labour bill. It goes without saying.
I also say that, without a doubt, settlement systems contribute to a well-functioning capital market, capital market development, and world-class infrastructure objectives. I think we all agree with that. But most of us would also agree that in this country at the moment we have an underdeveloped capital market. This is perhaps one of the reasons why many New Zealanders prefer to invest in the housing market as opposed to other forms of investment. For example, if we look at our capital markets and the finance companies, then—goodness me—we see what a disaster they were. Many good, hard-working New Zealanders took responsibility for saving for their retirement. Savers put money in finance companies and they were let down absolutely. They have been let down even further by the axing of the contribution to the Superannuation Fund and the cut to KiwiSaver. Then there is the sharemarket. I admit that Mark Weldon has done a superb job in raising the standard of the sharemarket, but we did not have the regulation right. I will use the example of Feltex Carpets. There was a “buy” recommendation on Feltex Carpet shares a week before it fell over. I congratulate Mark Weldon on getting the regulations right around the NZX. There is a lot of mistrust from people investing in banks as profits head offshore. There were allegations in the Multi-party Parliamentary Banking Inquiry, led by Labour, of price gouging. The banks would not turn up to that inquiry and none of the National Party members turned up, and that just increased the mistrust we had.
I am hopeful that this bill will facilitate the trade in carbon units and New Zealanders will embrace it in the knowledge that we have it right and that this is a step to ensuring legislative integrity. I am hopeful that investors will invest and trade in the knowledge that Parliament has got it right, so that this sector of the overall capital market at least is disassociated from market risk. Of course, we understand that there is risk in any sort of international trading, derivative trading, or futures markets, and investors will understand that. But ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders do not want and should not expect other types of risk associated with poor legislation. That is why I say that this legislation is pretty good. It will take away that risk. It is just a shame, as my colleague Moana Mackey said, that the emissions trading scheme, which is before the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the moment, will really suboptimise the ability of people to trade in emissions trading units. That is the shame of this bill. It had the potential to be of huge benefit to New Zealand—absolute huge benefit. [Interruption] Is anyone on the other side keen to take a call? I was half expecting Simon Bridges to stand up. I saw him in the Chamber, but when I heard him ask what the bill was about, I knew we were in trouble. Mr Bridges should listen and he might learn something, or maybe he should go back to his office and read a little bit.
This bill is good legislation. But as I mentioned, I am without doubt a big supporter of anything that improves the economic prosperity of a country. In fact, if we look at the statistics of the 9 years under the previous Labour Government, we see that businesses thrived, GDP flourished, and this country boomed. There was zero debt under the previous Labour Government.
Mr Chauvel makes a very good point. The World Bank came out and said that New Zealand was the easiest place in the world in which to do business. We had zero debt. As Mr Cunliffe said earlier, Treasury has come out and said that by 2050 we will have a gross sovereign debt of 250 percent of GDP. That started on this Government’s watch. It is a disgrace.
In my maiden speech when I came into Parliament, I said that my time in this Parliament will have been successful if I can walk away knowing that I have left this country slightly better off than it was when I entered Parliament. But this legislation is dreadful. When I heard about the emissions trading scheme, I saw opportunities for forestry. I tell Mr Bridges and Mr Harawira that there was real opportunity in Rotorua for Māori. The emissions trading scheme was going to be a fantastic scheme to really optimise the forestry sector in this country. But when the National-led Government put Labour’s emissions trading scheme on hold, $700 million in forestry investment went south. I am sorry to say that when I say “south”, I am not talking about Invercargill. I am talking about it disappearing in a puff of smoke because the investors said that they could not operate under that level of uncertainty. Millions of seedlings are rotting in the ground. How was Mr Bridges going to go to the people of Rotorua—
—and tell them that the forestry industry in Rotorua, which is a huge supplier to the people of Tauranga, had been thrown into disarray? I am sorry; I must admit I got him mixed up. I never know where he is at. He is all over the place, is he not?
Rotorua will be an easy trick for Labour. When I worked in the forestry sector we used to go out and give forestry plans to farmers to plant up unproductive land. They were planting for the value of the timber. But Labour’s scheme—and this is a very good point—meant that people could go out and plant trees not for the value of timber but for the value of carbon credits. That scheme has gone. That has been wiped away, and it is an absolute disgrace. I cannot believe it—$700 million of investment.
That is because they have heard enough from that side of the Chamber. They have heard the facts, they have got the arguments, and they can now go out and say that the emissions trading scheme under the National Government is a disgrace. They are walking out because it is a disgrace what the National Government has done to the emissions trading scheme. I agree with them. Sue Bradford left because of what the National-led Government is doing, and now people in the gallery are leaving. It is an absolute disgrace! What Labour would have done! What could have been! But we are very lucky: there are only 2 more years. Mr Bridges should probably leave because he does not know what this legislation is about. Tony Ryall does not even know what the health legislation is about. The only thing this legislation does is create uncertainty and unemployment. The previous Labour Government believed in taking responsibility. Our emissions trading scheme created a level of certainty, it created responsibility, and I must say it was superb legislation. Thank you very much.
CHRIS TREMAINA party vote was called for on the question,
That the question be now put.
Ayes 63
Noes 58
Motion agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 80 in the name of the Hon Simon Power be agreed to.
The Committee divided the bill into the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill, the Securities Markets Amendment Bill, the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill, and the Securities Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper81.