Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this
As discussed in the Business Committee the other day, I seek leave to amend the motion on the Order Paper in my name to include an additional term of reference after the third paragraph, to read: “identify the central/benchmark projections which are being used as the motivation for international agreements to combat climate change; and consider the uncertainties and risks surrounding those projections;”.
Mr SPEAKERHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this
I move, That a special select committee to review the Emissions Trading Scheme and related matters be established with the following membership: Hon Peter Dunne, Craig Foss, Nicky Wagner, Dr Paul Hutchison, Hekia Parata, Hon Rodney Hide, Hon David Parker, Moana Mackey, Charles Chauvel, Jeanette Fitzsimons, and one member of the Māori Party, and that Hon Peter Dunne be chairperson.
And the terms of reference of the committee shall be to:
hear views from trade and diplomatic experts on the international relations aspects of this issue
consider the prospects for an international agreement on climate change post Kyoto 1, and the form such an agreement might take
identify the central/benchmark projections which are being used as the motivation for international agreements to combat climate change; and consider the uncertainties and risks surrounding those projections
require a high quality, quantified regulatory impact analysis to be produced to identify the net benefits or costs to New Zealand of any policy action, including international relations and commercial benefits and costs
consider the impact on the New Zealand economy and New Zealand households of any climate change policies, having regard to the weak state of the economy, the need to safeguard New Zealand’s international competitiveness, the position of trade-exposed industries, and the actions of competing countries
examine the relative merits of a mitigation or adaptation approach to climate change for New Zealand
consider the case for increasing resources devoted to New Zealand-specific climate change research
examine the relative merits of an emissions trading scheme or a tax on carbon or energy as a New Zealand response to climate change
consider the need for any additional regulatory interventions to combat climate change if a price mechanism (an ETS or a tax) is introduced
consider the timing of introduction of any New Zealand measures, with particular reference to the outcome of the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting, the position of the United States, and the timetable for decisions and their implementation by the Australian Government
and report to the House accordingly.
The motion that is before us lays out in some detail the terms of reference for the select committee to consider, and, further, it names all the participants in the select committee. The committee will consider those terms of reference against the backdrop of the commitment from the new Government in the Speech from the Throne to ensure that New Zealand honours its Kyoto obligations in this first commitment period.
I think that from the committee will emerge a road map for where to from here, as negotiations continue throughout this year towards the decision in Copenhagen in December about the second commitment period. Although there are a lot of pessimists out there about what might happen to the climate change policy of the various countries that are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol as a result of the non-signatory countries coming to the table, I think we in New Zealand should be optimistic that we have a profile such that we can, firstly, negotiate a better position, and, secondly, do something about it. The real effort that has to be made by the world, regardless of a price on carbon or a cost on any activity that is likely to produce carbon in one way or another, is to consider how to reduce the emissions that we as humans emit into the world as a result of the activities we engage in.
There are those who say we should start questioning the science. I want to make it abundantly clear that these terms of reference do not allow for questioning of the science. Further, I want to make it clear that the National Government does not engage in the activity of questioning the science. What we do want is to see the development of a system whereby the particular and unique circumstances of New Zealand are recognised. We are an agricultural country that relies very heavily on the produce from our farms to sustain our economy. We know that the same amount of production coming off farms in other parts of the world emits considerably greater levels of carbon dioxide than is the case for our own domestic production. We need to have an international system that recognises the quality of our production. That will be, I am sure, something that the select committee, as it considers things, will look at.
The other interesting thing is the way in which energy is delivered, not only for heating but for transportation, for industrial purposes, and for commercial purposes. New Zealand has a somewhat unique profile in the world in that regard. We have higher levels of renewable energy. Sustaining those over a period of time will be more and more difficult, so it is important that we have environmental standards for energy and fuel use that can guarantee that the steps we are making will make a difference to the country’s carbon dioxide profile.
A number of interesting people will be on the committee. I think it is a fine mix of those who have a long-term interest in this particular issue, those who were on the previous select committee that looked at the establishment of the existing legislation, and, in Dr Paul Hutchison, someone who has a deep understanding of all of the scientific positions that are available for consideration. The committee includes Jeanette Fitzsimons, a co-leader of the Green Party, who has a particular interest in New Zealand achieving a good result as far as the ongoing process of dealing with our carbon dioxide emissions is concerned. The committee will be ably chaired by the Hon Peter Dunne, who brings to the table his experience of being in Parliament for as many years as you, Mr Speaker, I believe, and also is Minister of Revenue.
It is around that picture that there is the greatest threat to New Zealanders, in my opinion. I think there is a huge will to reduce carbon dioxide emissions wherever possible, but I was interested to note that Labour members were talking about their concerns about New Zealanders who live in reasonably strapped circumstances, and who do not have a lot of disposable income. I have to say to Labour members that given the way in which the current emissions trading scheme was progressing, those people were going to bear the biggest cost—every time they filled up their petrol tank, every time they switched on a light, and every time they purchased something off the supermarket shelf.
It is not an inconsiderable issue that we are dealing with. It has very wide-ranging economic implications, as well as those objectives that are for the benefit of generations to come. I think the select committee will produce some interesting information that will be a good guide and form part of the road map for where this country goes in the future. I state again that the National Government has made it very clear that we will meet our Kyoto obligations in the first commitment period, and we will be very, very vigorous in making sure that New Zealand’s unique position is recognised internationally in any agreement that will apply post-2012.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
The Labour Opposition will oppose the motion on the emissions trading scheme select committee. It is but a smokescreen for yet more delay, covering up the fact that National—a decade after it signed the Kyoto Protocol, after 9 years in Opposition, after participation in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and after access to all the officials through and outside of that process—does not know what to do. National is riven with division within its own caucus. Mr Brownlee has just said that we should have emissions pricing without increasing prices. We cannot have emissions pricing without it having an effect on prices. The very purpose of emissions pricing is to change the relative price of emissions-related activity compared with activity that reduces emissions. National does not know what it wants to do.
There is a majority in this House for sensible policy on climate change. Labour supports it, the Greens support it, and National says it supports it. The Māori Party wants something tougher than the existing emissions trading scheme; that is why it opposed the emissions trading scheme legislation. There is a majority, yet here is a move on the part of National for further delay.
Climate change is, undoubtedly, the largest environmental challenge that the planet presently faces. It is caused by population pressures, which will not go away, and by increasing consumption of fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse gases. There is general agreement with that across the world. US, China, Europe, and Australia—to name just a few—all accept that human-induced climate change is real, and that we need to do something about it. Indeed, Mr Key’s Speech from the Throne, read by the Governor-General, said: “My Government believes that New Zealand … must act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions …”. The word “act” is a very small word. I will read it again: “My Government believes that New Zealand … must act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions …”. Unfortunately the word “act”—as we in this House know better than some—has more than one connotation. In this case the word “act” was spelt “H-i-d-e”. The Government is “Hide-ing” behind ACT to try to avoid taking responsibility. After 9 years in Opposition and after full participation in the climate change debate, it does not know what it wants to do next.
You know, in the months leading up to the election different members of the National Party said different things. David Carter told the farming lobby that National would soften the emissions trading scheme for agriculture. Jacqui Dean said that the legislation would be repealed.
Jacqui DeanJacqui Dean was reported in the Timaru Herald—and after she made a denial, the paper stood by its report—as saying to an electoral meeting in Timaru that National would repeal the emissions trading scheme.
During the election there was a debate on Radio New Zealand National. Nick Smith took umbrage at my claim that National did not know where it stood and was planning to do things other than proceed with an emissions trading scheme. I remember his words. He said: “Hear me, Kathryn Ryan. Let me be quite clear.”—he uses that phrase quite often—“National is going to proceed with an emissions trading scheme, and it’s going to include agriculture.” That was his promise during the election. Jeanette Fitzsimons buttonholed John Key at Waikanae. Again, this was reported verbatim; the recording was played repeatedly on Radio New Zealand National. He said that his party, if elected as Government, would proceed with an emissions trading scheme, and it would include agriculture. Yet what is it doing? It is setting up a select committee that will consider, among other things, whether we should have any pricing, whether we should just mitigate rather than do anything to reduce emissions, and whether we should have a carbon tax. This is yet another flip-flop.
If the select committee proceeds—and the Government has the numbers, so it clearly will proceed—we will hear all the emitters, having opposed the carbon tax, say that they now want a carbon tax. The gas lobby, the coal lobby, the smelters, the Major Electricity Users Group, the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, and the Business Roundtable, all of which are interlinked—if one looks at the individual members of these groups, one finds that they are just about the same people every time—will come along and say that they want a carbon tax. They will say what the Business Roundtable has already said, which is that it wants a carbon tax of about $5 a tonne. In other words, these emitters want four-fifths of the cost of increasing emissions to be with taxpayers, and one-fifth of the cost to be with them. They are not worried about the environment. That system will not reduce emissions, but that is not their concern. They just want to minimise their own costs, and they want to be able to increase their emissions at the cost of the environment and at the cost of taxpayers.
This is just bad, bad policy, and it is having real effects already. The leading publication on energy, in my opinion, is NZ Energy and Environment Business Week. I have in front of me issue 55, of 26 November. It says: “Forestry projects worth about $400 million have been cancelled, within a week of the Govt announcing it will delay the ETS while it carries out a review. Scores of new forestry jobs which would have been created due to the ETS are now going to be put on hold.” It then lists the projects, and it has Roger Dickie and a consortium, GreenAir, saying that some of these projects will not come again. There are real consequences of doing this, and the real consequences include rising unemployment, which the Government is responsible for and should be held to account for.
In addition to those jobs, there is the fledgling carbon trading market to consider. The carbon market is a service industry. We need jobs in New Zealand. We need new, high-value jobs. New Zealand was a world leader in this area. The service industry was locating here. The same issue reports that EcoSecurities, “one of the biggest players in the international carbon market, which was due to launch its business in NZ this week, has pulled the plug.”—further economic consequences for our country of National doing nothing.
This is an outrageous proposition. It does the business of the major emitters, at the cost of taxpayers, at the cost of people who are employed in New Zealand, and at the cost of rising unemployment. National is using the ACT Party—the last naysayers in the country. ACT accuses everyone else of being dogmatic and refusing to listen to alternative points of view, but it is unwilling to accept the majority view of scientists, which is now compelling and has reached the stage that Governments around the world are accepting for policy purposes that human-induced climate change is proven, and that we have to get on and respond to it. The ACT Party sits out there as naysayers; it criticises everyone else who has the gumption to make a decision and to take on their responsibilities as parliamentarians around the world. ACT says that we are the ones who are intolerant and dogmatic, not themselves.
How can John Key stand there and say that he will promote employment growth, economic growth, and tourism? He is the self-appointed Minister of Tourism. He had his first little wake-up call when he went to see Gordon Brown, did he not? Gordon Brown slapped down the little upstart who had turned up from New Zealand to ask him to please not impose a tax on long-haul flights to New Zealand. What was he told? He was shown the door. He could not stand there and credibly ask Gordon Brown to please not do anything improper to the interests of New Zealand, because he was having an inquiry as to whether climate change was real. Having promised an emissions trading scheme, which the whole of Europe already has in place, he recanted and said that National will now look at it again.
This is an outrageous breaking of a promise by the National Party. It promised time and again, during and prior to the election, that it would proceed with an emissions trading scheme. It said it would amend it—that is fine. I concede that there are grey areas; there always will be. There is a discussion to be had as to whether the phasing out of free allocation is right. There is a discussion to be had around whether there should be a reserve for new entrants to the scheme. Those are proper areas for discussion, and that is where the discussion should be focused. There was no need to suspend the market. There was no need to ruin the prospects of the fledgling carbon market industry. There was no need to ruin the hundreds of millions of dollars of inward investment that will now not come to New Zealand. There was no need to unnecessarily increase unemployment, which the Government is doing as a consequence. This is bad policy, and the motion will be opposed by Labour.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) Link to this
This is a very important motion to set up a very important select committee, and I think a really important select committee like this needs to have a title that is rather less boring than just the “Climate Change Committee”. I think it should be honoured with a title that indicates what it will do and just how very important it is. I have three proposals.
We could call it the “Climate Change (Avoiding All Action) Committee”, because its clear purpose is to cause delay. When we look at the terms of reference and think seriously about what it would take to deliver on these terms of reference, and when we consider that a select committee normally meets for 3 hours a week, my guess—and it is quite an educated estimate, having sat through the last such committee—is that it will take 3 to 5 years. It will take 3 to 5 years to do justice to these terms of reference. But clearly that is not what the Government has in mind, and that means the evidence that will be accepted will be highly selective, because there will not be time to receive all of it, and we know how the selection is likely to be made. So this committee is there primarily to waste time, to delay the point at which emitters have to pay to clean up their own mess, and to extend the period during which taxpayers pay for it all.
There is another title we could give this committee. We could call it the “Stifle Innovative Investment in New Zealand Project Committee”, because that is what it is already doing. We have heard from the Hon David Parker, the previous Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, that some investors are turning their backs on New Zealand and going away. I happen to know about one case that I think is environmentally very serious, and that was a great economic opportunity.
A smallish firm had established some strategic partnerships to permanently reforest steep, eroding land, the sort of land that desperately needs reforesting. It was doing so in partnership with a honey producer, which was to plant some mānuka as part of the regeneration project and get high-quality mānuka honey for medicinal purposes, and it was to do it in partnership with landowners. The firm had an amazing project going; it had it all worked out. The firm has folded its tents and left permanently. It struggled all last year, waiting to see what the final form of the law would be. It managed to keep going during that time. The firm now says that with the scheme suspended and with no guarantee that it will ever exist, it cannot afford the overheads of keeping the business together, so it has gone. I think that is a tragedy, because there is much land in New Zealand that would benefit from that kind of reforestation, to say nothing of the effect it would have on our greenhouse emissions.
We could also call the committee the “Keep Rodney Out of My Hair Inquiry Committee”, because that is clearly what it is really about. Members should make no mistake about it: these are Rodney Hide’s terms of reference. When we look at them word for word, we see they are verbatim, except for one small change that looks as though it might be significant, until we look at what has been substituted for it and we find that it is not significant at all. John Key has allowed a party with 3.7 percent of the vote, a party that could not even get 5 percent, and with known extremist views to dictate the way that climate change will be considered by our Parliament. That is undemocratic and it is a travesty.
The only change, according to what the Minister of Energy and Resources has just told us, is that the committee will not be re-examining the science, because the Government has removed Rodney Hide’s first proposal for the terms of reference. Well, I am sorry, but that is not true. If we look at what has been substituted instead, we see that the committee has to look at the projections that are being used to base the international agreements on—that means the projections of climate change and the rate of it—and to “consider the uncertainties and risks surrounding these projections”. That means the whole question of climate change and whether it is real is on the Table. Rodney has won every single thing he wanted in this inquiry.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has hundreds of climate scientists—highly prestigious, highly specialised climate scientists—and thousands of other scientists and other experts in impacts, responses, and so forth who work every 4 years for a whole 4 years, full time, to peer review all the published science for that most recent period and to come to a conclusion about what it means, and they publish that for everybody to see. It is a large book, with many, many appendices in other large books, and it is published every 4 years. A select committee, meeting for 3 hours a week, is supposed to duplicate that work and come to the right conclusion, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could not—I mean, what kind of a mickey mouse outfit is this? Maybe we should call this committee the “Make New Zealand an International Laughing Stock Committee”, because that is what we will be if we go down this route.
I find it interesting that on the night before the terms of reference were given to Parliament, the Hon Peter Dunne, who is to chair this committee, had not seen the terms of reference. He told me that he understood it would be a narrow review of the emissions trading scheme mechanisms, which is what John Key promised before the election. Well, actually, an incoming Government has the right to review the policy that we use to tackle climate change. We might not agree with where the Government wants to go, but if it had in fact brought to this Parliament a committee to review within a narrow framework whether the specifics of the emissions trading scheme were the best way to reduce our emissions, then the Greens would have supported the setting up of that committee, because we think it is the democratic right of an elected Government to do that. But that is not what the Government is doing and, therefore, we will be voting against it.
The committee is expected to have a crystal ball. It is being asked to guess whether there will be a post - Kyoto Protocol agreement at all for after 2012, and it is being asked to guess what form that might take. Well, we could all have fun speculating on that, but what value will it be to the Government or this Parliament for a bunch of politicians to say: “Hmm, I wonder whether they will or whether they will not.”, when we have negotiators over there in Poznań now. Surely they are best placed to tell us where the international negotiations are heading, and surely it is our role to do our utmost at those international talks to make sure that there is a post-2012 agreement, that New Zealand plays a strong role in getting a post-2012 agreement, and that it is the strongest agreement we can get. After all, that is what the world is relying on us to do.
The terms of reference are very biased. They direct us to look at all the negative local effects of a price on carbon—like what households will pay—but there seems to be no scope to look at the effects of allowing climate change to go unchecked and at the much larger negative effects that that will have on not just New Zealand society but the whole world. There is also no scope to look at the effects on the economy of leaving the taxpayer to pick up the entire bill for climate change. There is certainly nothing here that suggests we have any responsibility at all for what happens to the rest of the world as a result of our emissions—and our emissions, if we go back to 1840 and include all the forest clearance, plus all the burning of carbon fuels, are not insignificant.
We are to hear first in the terms of reference from trade experts. The issue is being treated like a trade negotiation, where all countries fight from their individual corners and no one argues for the common good. This is not a trade negotiation; this is an attempt to reach a collaborative agreement about the future of the world, and we need to take that seriously.
We are to discuss whether it is better to try to limit climate change, which we have been doing so far, or whether we should just adapt to it. That suggests that climate change will bring about some new, steady state that can be predicted, and that we can adapt to. Well, that is not true. If climate change continues unchecked, there will be no new, steady state. There will be constantly changing parameters of climate that we can never adapt to, because they will happen faster than adaptation ever can. Of course, we will have to do some adaptation to what will happen anyway, but it is not a substitute for trying to stop climate change.
The Greens are not apologists for the current emissions trading scheme. We are sceptical that emissions trading creates an opportunity for many people to create markets in buying and selling carbon where they do nothing except leverage the market, but it is the only thing going to put a price on carbon. We need to get on and do that.
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
I thank the Hon David Parker and Jeanette Fitzsimons for their contributions. I can understand their frustration, because David Parker put a lot of effort into the emissions trading scheme, and I know that for Jeanette Fitzsimons this has been a key policy for the Greens. Pete Hodgson also did a lot of work in the early days of the scheme, and I can imagine the frustration of those members when we have an election and the scheme comes up for review, but that is the nature of democracy.
I should also say that this was not easy in our discussions between National and the ACT Party. National and ACT share a philosophy and a vision of New Zealand, and therefore we were able to conclude our confidence and supply agreement quite quickly. I note that the Greens and the Labour Party, or the Labour Party and the Māori Party, have never been able to reach a confidence and supply agreement, but between National, ACT, and the Māori Party we could do it in 8 days. For National and ACT, working with John Key and the National Party, it was easy and seamless because we share a vision and a philosophy. Our differences on policy were relatively small, but this was one difference. The National Party had campaigned to keep the emissions trading scheme, and the ACT Party had campaigned to dump it. As it turned out, we got five MPs, and National got—how many MPs?
Overwhelmingly, the vote went National’s way. But what I appreciated about John Key and the senior team of MPs he had as part of his negotiating team, was their willingness to sit down and work with the differences we had, not in order to get some political solution but to get a solution that was in the best interests of the country. That is what I appreciated about working with John Key. As it turned out, even our differences could be worked through quite quickly. I contrast that with the Labour Party and the Greens, who have never been able to work out their differences. As for the Labour Party and its appalling attacks on the Māori Party that we have witnessed in recent times, there is absolutely no respect from Labour for other political parties and differing views. If that is the attitude of the Labour Party, then it has not learnt the lesson of the 2008 election campaign.
So what do we have here? We have a select committee looking at what Labour and the Greens should have done from the start, which is to analyse this issue, to consider it in a world setting, and to consider the costs and benefits to New Zealand. I ask members whether they remember when Pete Hodgson came back from overseas. He glowingly told the House that he had done a deal that would see us better off—I think, from memory, by $500 million—because we were so clever. I think a year or two later it became a $500 million loss. The idea then was that taxpayers would have to write a cheque to benefit the Russians because their industrial economy had collapsed. The idea that Labour and the Greens think it is OK to be writing a cheque to the Russians because Pete Hodgson had signed some deal, I have to say is nuts.
Oh, the member says read the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. I am going over a bit of history here. The second thing to happen was when we had to have the emissions trading scheme in order to reduce the liability of the taxpayer, but that liability was created by Pete Hodgson in his signing up. We have had a change of Government, so I say let us look at it. It is called democracy. So what do we do? Jeanette Fitzsimons has criticised me for not turning up to the Finance and Expenditure Committee when it considered the bill. I made a deliberate decision not to turn up. Why? Because that select committee concentrated only on the bill.
That is right. If anyone came along to question the science or ask about the costs and benefits to New Zealand, I am afraid they were given short shrift. I will tell the former Minister for Climate Change Issues, David Parker, what my job was. My job was to go out and get the party votes so we could establish this select committee and do the job properly in the best interests of New Zealand.
First of all, here is the issue of the science. David Parker goes around telling the world that all the scientists are agreed. That is a lie. That is not true. He goes around telling the world that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. That is not true. That is a lie. David Parker goes around telling the world that we are living in a carbon-constrained world.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Local Government is making a robust contribution to the debate but he cannot, as he has done twice now, accuse a member of telling a lie, or refer to a statement of a member as a lie. That is not within the Standing Orders.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
The member is correct. By phrasing the matter in the way he did, the member is clearly trying to say that a member of this House has told a lie. That is not within the Standing Orders.
The former Minister went around telling New Zealand that we are living in a carbon-constrained world. That is not true. The whole thing was just beat up on these particular stories. This is what we have. We have an interesting theory that has been around now for well over 100 years that says if we increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in particular carbon dioxide, then we could warm the planet. It is a theory. It is a hypothesis. We then have computer models that work on that theory and hypothesis to produce projections 100 years out that say it could warm in this particular way. By the way, the computer models must have a very interesting interaction between carbon dioxide and water, because water vapour is the chief greenhouse gas. I remember Moana Mackey—
I am sorry. I was thinking of the member’s mum. I was getting confused. When someone pointed out that we had pictures on Television New Zealand of water vapour going up chimneys, Moana Mackey said water vapour is a greenhouse gas too. I thought this Labour Government will not only be controlling the dribble in our showers but also stopping us boiling the kettle, because water vapour is the chief greenhouse gas. That is how silly they are with their science. I would have thought Ms Mackey, who supposedly has a degree in science, would understand a little bit more than the stupidity that came out in that select committee.
So we have this model, and we look at it, and we find this—the data does not back it up. The models have never been verified. We had people coming to the select committee hearing, pointing out the flaws in the model, and the Government refused to hear them, to question them, or to take on board what they said.
Here is what we have happening—it can move quite quickly; there is no need to take 5 years. Jeanette Fitzsimons might think that doing a bit of work takes 5 years, but when we have the National - ACT - Māori Party Government, things do not take 5 years.
I know that the Labour Party wishes the Māori Party did not exist, but I say to Labour members to get over it, because it does. Why does it exist? It exists because Labour screwed up. It tried to take people’s property rights and deny them the opportunity of justice.
I am not patronising it; I am patronising the Labour Party, because it had the attitude that Māori people did not have the rights of all New Zealanders—the rights that people fought and died for. Yes, we are going to listen to and consider what scientists say. Yes, we are going to look at what is happening around the world and see what other countries are doing, and we are going to look at the costs and benefits to New Zealand. Then ultimately, there will be a political response. That is what a democracy is about, and it does not matter—whatever way it goes, ultimately it is politicians elected to Parliament who will decide the appropriate response for New Zealand. The ACT Party says to get some evidence here, because David Parker’s mind is made up, Jeanette Fitzsimons’ mind is made up—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
I regret to advise the member that his time has expired.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Huri rauna, tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Tēnā tātou i te mea ko taku kōrero tuatahi tēnei i roto i tēnei wāhanga o te tau. Nō reira tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.
[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all throughout the House. I extend greetings to you, because this is my speech for this part of the year. So greetings to you, and to all of us.]
Just very briefly, because this is my first opportunity to speak in the House since the new Parliament started, I would like to mihi to everybody here. Ki a koe e te tuahine, e Hekia, Carmel, e Sio, koi anō hoki e Nanaia me taku tuahine anō e nohonoho nei, Rahui, tēnā koe. Huri rauna, tēnā tātou katoa.
[To you, sister colleague, Hekia; to you, Carmel and Sio, as well as Nanaia, another sister colleague; to you, Rahui, seated there, greetings to you and to everyone throughout.]
In the last dying days of the recently departed Labour Government, the Māori Party put up a proposal to recognise the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the emissions trading scheme with reference to all iwi that have reached settlement and with the specific inclusion of the words “the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1998”. We put up the proposal because we believe that the integrity and value of Treaty settlements should not be set aside during the crucial debate on the legislation regarding climate change. Unfortunately, however, our proposal to include the Treaty was voted down by the Labour Government, including every single one of its Māori MPs. Indeed, the only people with the courage and the foresight to support the Treaty were the Māori Party, the Greens, and—surprise, surprise—ACT, and I extend my deepest thanks to the Greens for their consistent support for the Treaty over the years. And so we are glad that the Government has agreed to set up a special select committee to review the emissions trading scheme, which enables us to raise the concern expressed by iwi that the emissions trading scheme as it is currently worded represents a significant threat to the integrity and finality of their Treaty settlements.
Just to put some context around that statement, Ngāi Tahu advise us that in their analysis the emissions trading scheme will impose heavy liabilities on their pre-1990 forestry lands and wipe tens of millions of dollars off the value of the forestry assets they acquired through their settlement. It is their contention, in fact, that the Crown was bound, both legally and morally, to address their concerns, knowing full well that the emissions trading scheme would significantly erode the market value of the pre-1990 forestry lands they had purchased with the intention of converting those lands to better use. Now, 20 years after the settlement, the loss to Ngāi Tahu under the emissions trading scheme will, in fact, exceed the total quantum of their settlement.
It is fundamental to good relations between the Crown and Māori that the Crown does not act unilaterally to erode Treaty settlements, so we are glad that this Government is reviewing the emissions trading scheme, in the best interests of honour, good faith, and the national interest in terms of the integrity of Treaty settlements. In order to help the Government to honour its commitment to Māori, we are happy to suggest that the following phrase be added to the terms of reference for the committee: “The committee shall consider the impact of the Emissions Trading Scheme on the integrity and finality of Treaty settlements, having particular regard to the relationship to pre-1990 forested Maori land.”
On another related matter, it should also be a matter of grave concern to learn today that Labour’s shameful failure to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples continues in the negotiations currently taking place at the UN Climate Change Conference, where it appears that Labour’s appointees continue to oppose recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities in a decision on deforestation and forest degradation, and continue to oppose measures to protect the rights of the very indigenous peoples who have sustained and protected the forests targeted under the agreement for thousands of years.
In the final analysis, the emissions trading scheme is, at best, only a scheme. We must all take responsibility for our emissions, we must all be inclusive in our approach, and we must agree to work together to develop a programme of emissions reductions that slows climate change and protects the environment. The Māori Party will be a willing and active participant in the special select committee to review the emissions trading scheme. In recognition of the particular concerns highlighted by Ngāi Tahu, we have decided that our MP for Te Tai Tonga, Rahui Katene, will be our representative on that committee. No doubt National will appoint Hekia Parata for the very same reasons. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just seeking some clarification from you, procedurally. Mr Harawira signalled that he had additional terms of reference he wanted to have included into the work of the select committee. I am just wondering whether he will now seek the leave of the House to have those specific terms of reference included so we can debate the whole motion: the Government’s published terms of reference; the terms of reference paragraph we have added subsequently by leave, which has been agreed to; and now Mr Harawira’s terms of reference as well, about Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Negotiations are already under way to table those terms of reference to the select committee. I say thank you very much to Mr Hughes and tell him that we will be doing our utmost to ensure that the Treaty of Waitangi is raised in relation to every piece of legislation that comes before this House.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important motion regarding the formation of the special select committee to review the emissions trading scheme set up by the previous Government and related matters around it. There is no doubt that this is a unique opportunity to be thoughtful, balanced, and wise over the world’s most important environmental issue. Indeed, it was refreshing to hear the Māori Party and Hone Harawira point out in a measured, insightful, and forward-thinking way how Māori and New Zealand’s interests must be looked at in this manner. It is extraordinary to think that the losses to Ngāi Tahu under the emissions trading scheme will exceed their Treaty settlements. Something must be fundamentally wrong with Labour’s emissions trading scheme legislation if that is the case.
Whatever the evidence of the science, the potential risks of climate change due to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are enormous, and New Zealand must develop a best practice, practical risk-management response based on the most up-to-date information available. Indeed, the formation of this select committee is very important and a unique opportunity to do exactly that, given the history of the formation of Labour’s emissions trading scheme over the last 10 years.
I agree with David Parker. It was, indeed, a National Government that signed up to the Kyoto Protocol back in the 1990s. But it was extremely worrying that in 2001-02 a somewhat zealous Labour Government decided to become the white knights or crusaders of the climate change world and ask New Zealand to lead. But it did this in a very shrill and, certainly, not a practical way. In fact, it was quite extraordinary when, in its initial legislation the Government became so zealous that it had carbon police—I can think of no other term for it than that—who were going to go around New Zealand farms and other institutions checking up on New Zealanders to the extent that Professor Joseph from Canterbury University said this was nothing other than State-sanctioned trespass being encouraged by the then Labour Government.
As Rodney Hide pointed out, it was, indeed, extraordinary that the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues at the time predicted that New Zealand would have a windfall gain of over half a billion dollars; instead we have a debt of over half a billion dollars. This exemplifies just how out of touch the Labour Government was in the origins of its emissions trading scheme.
But it was not until 2007-08 that the Government finally formed its response to this hugely important world situation. I think there is no doubt that it was not brought together with the sort of responsibility that is required from such a hugely important issue. People and submitters all over New Zealand were simply not given time to be heard appropriately. Labour rushed through its emissions trading scheme with reckless irresponsibility.
I think it is important to say that National is absolutely committed to its Kyoto obligations, and we have said quite clearly that we will base legislation on six very important principles that will balance our environmental responsibilities with the economic practicalities that face New Zealand. As the member of Parliament for Hunua, I think there is probably no other electorate in the country that has these practical issues so personified. Firstly, of course, there are the large farming areas, the producers, and the vast glasshouses that are directly affected, adversely, by Labour’s emissions trading scheme. It puts them into a hugely uncompetitive situation with the rest of the world. There is no doubt that this must be revised, because the primary producers of New Zealand are the backbone of our economy. This has been agreed on by every party in this Government, yet the current emissions trading scheme adversely affects them to the extent that their competitiveness is deeply, deeply affected. It is that sort of thing that the Labour Government has swept over and that is so important to the future of New Zealand.
But another practical example in my electorate of Hunua is that of the New Zealand Steel mill. If, indeed, New Zealand Steel was to go under, New Zealand would become totally dependent on imports from overseas. Already BlueScope Steel has put on hold a $1 billion investment into the New Zealand Steel mill, including $200 million that will expand a vanadium extraction plant and allow New Zealand to become one of the leading exporters of vanadium, a low-volume, high-value, high-technological export that is the very sort of thing that New Zealand should be doing. On the other hand, if New Zealand Steel was to close down, we would lose 1,200 direct jobs and 5,000 to 6,000 jobs around the country, and we would be dependent on the rest of the world for imports to New Zealand. Further, New Zealand Steel operates under world best-practice, with 66 percent cogeneration of electricity. Inevitably a much less efficient steel factory would replace it, probably in India or China, and the net effect would be more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is the sort of thing that Labour’s emissions trading scheme did not take into account. Therefore it is hugely important, like the situation with Ngāi Tahu where, indeed, the loss under the emissions trading scheme will exceed its Treaty settlement, that it is right and appropriate that this Parliament, in a careful, calm, and collected way review Labour’s emissions trading scheme and look at how, indeed, we can balance our environmental responsibilities with the economic practicalities.
The terms of reference have been well-thought-out. There is no doubt there are uncertainties about the science, but any scientist in this world would say there are some uncertainties. There is no doubt, however, that the responsible response is about practical risk-management. We must do exactly that because, unfortunately, the Labour Government failed to do it. This is a unique opportunity to look at it and I support this motion. I believe it is hugely important. I want to call upon all members of Parliament to support it in a thoughtful, balanced, and careful manner.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
The fact that this Government motion is on the Order Paper at all is a disgrace. It is a deception, it is time wasting, it will cause significant economic damage, it will create business uncertainty, it will damage our reputation internationally, and it will generate an impost on taxpayers. It is a disgrace for all those and many, many other reasons. It is a very, very bad move.
It is a very bad move for two reasons. The first reason is that it tells me that National did nothing about climate change in detail when in Opposition; it was there long enough. It tells me also that when it forms a Government the National Party is weak. The Prime Minister of this land is a weak man. That is what it tells me: lazy and weak. A good Opposition, instead of spending all its time always opposing, would have thought through what it wanted to do in Government in some detail. It should have said that it wanted to change the current law. It said it when the law went through—we heard it, that is fine; they won, that is fine. So what changes did it want to make: little ones, big ones, many ones, just a few? We do not know. We have not had any detail from National, despite the fact that it has had 9 long years in Opposition to have a look at it.
National members have said for years that they wanted an emissions trading scheme. They voted against the version that was put in front of them. They said they did not like bits of it. They said they still like the idea of an emissions trading scheme, and, indeed, the Prime Minister said so again as recently as Monday. But actually we do not know what version they want. They do not even have a discussion paper for this select committee, let alone anything resembling amendments to current law. No, they have not done the work. They have picked up their salaries, they have grizzled, and they have done no more than that. That is not good enough. They have done nothing except oppose that which has come forward, and now the emperor has no clothes.
They are derelict, as well. They are derelict because earlier this week we got a fine-sounding Speech from the Throne that was all about the economy front and centre, and all about economic growth. Do we remember that? Not any more! That was Monday. Today is Thursday, and today we are debating whether to set up a select committee to start all over. What is meant by starting all over? We have been starting all over for long enough. We started starting all over in 1992 when Rob Storey, who used to sit over there, went across to Rio de Janeiro and signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That was 16 years ago. We started all over in December 1997, 11 years ago this month, when Simon Upton, a National Party Cabinet Minister, went all the way to Kyoto in Japan, along with Jeanette Fitzsimons, if I recall correctly, and signed the Kyoto Protocol. That was 11 years ago. We started all over in 2002 when the Prime Minister of the land at the time, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, and I ratified the Kyoto Protocol in Wellington.
Why are we starting again? What is going on here? The starting points have long since gone, and the policy debate that must occur in parallel with the decision to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or to ratify the Kyoto Protocol has been going on for well over a decade, as well. Simon Upton started it. He asked whether we should have a carbon charge or emissions trading. The very first thought that came back to the then National Government was that we would have a mixture. That was in the late 1990s. The Government of the day said that it did not want a bar of it.
Upon the change in Government, our initial approach was to go for a carbon charge as a way to transition towards an emissions trading scheme. That was put into the public arena. The National Party said no to that, and Business New Zealand said no to that, they did not want a carbon charge. The Business Council for Sustainable Development said no to that, and after the 2005 election the majority of the House said no to that. All those people said that they wanted to go directly to an emissions trading scheme, so we began the consultation again.
An emissions trading scheme was put to a select committee, it went around the traps, it came to this House, and it became part of New Zealand law. At the last minute the National Party said it really liked an emissions trading scheme, but it did not like that emissions trading scheme. It wanted some differences. That is fair enough. The Greens said they would go with this emissions trading scheme but that they would rather have some differences themselves, which of course were different from the National Party’s differences. But that is all fair in negotiating a way forward. Now, even though National’s members went to the public before the election and said they were committed to action on climate change, to an emissions trading scheme, to some amendments to the emissions trading scheme that is already part of New Zealand law, even though they publicly did all that, they caved as soon as they had the election result in.
That brings me to the bit about weakness, because this National Party secured 58 seats. The ACT Party secured five seats, yet with its five seats the ACT Party ran a rod through the heart of the emissions trading scheme and through this Parliament’s approach to climate change over all these years. I congratulate Rodney Hide. I did not believe that a person with a negotiating coin as limited as his could have achieved as much as he has. The only reason he has been able to achieve as much as he has is because the National Party is weak. The Prime Minister of this land is a weak man. He caved on the spot. He did not say: “Rodney, you can have your regulatory review position, you can be Minister for Regulatory Responsibility, but you cannot go near the climate change stuff.” He did not say that; he just said: “Tell me what you want. You want a select committee? Fine, we will do that. It does not matter that your wishes, Rodney, contradict what my National Party has been saying all this while, or that they contradict our saying that we were going to make these changes, done and dusted, by September 2009.” Now we have a select committee that does not have to report until 2009. We have ourselves a weak Prime Minister and a lazy National Party in Government.
You see, it is going to come home to roost. For example, take a look at this morning’s New Zealand Herald and at what Brian Fallow has to say. In his first paragraph he said: “It is troubling how wide a gap has emerged between what the new Government is saying and what it is doing, with respect to the select committee review of the emission trading scheme. … if you look at the terms of reference the select committee is to be given, you get a starkly different impression [from what National campaigned on].” He goes on to quote the Prime Minister of this land on just Monday, and says “It is the Act Party’s wish list verbatim,”. Here we have the 4 percent economic and environmental vandals of the ACT Party telling the Prime Minister what to do.
I say to the Prime Minister that his dog has a very, very big tail. I say to the Prime Minister that he is a weak man, and he should not have given ground on an issue of this consequence that has been developed over this length of time.
We then get the unctuous prattle of people like Dr Hutchison, who said that this policy is being rushed and that it might have some losers. For God’s sake, if we do not change behaviours we will not get on top of the issue of climate change, nor begin to. So we have the ultimate conservative response coming out as a bunch of clichés from the National Government, now it has won the election. It has become clear that the Government does not actually give a toss about the most serious problem that has faced this civilisation in my time on the planet. I think this is an outrageous Government motion. I think it is a disgrace, and I feel ashamed to be part of this House. Indeed, I will be seriously voting against it.
NICKY WAGNER
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this
I have listened to the debate this morning, and I have considered the intent. As each member has spoken I have started to build a picture about what is really happening in the House today. It is a very interesting debate, and for all the right reasons Labour will be voting against the establishment of the emissions trading scheme select committee.
Jeanette Fitzsimons proposed a number of titles for the emissions trading scheme select committee; I agree that we could put many names to this particular committee. I thought of one myself: the “Emissions Trading Scheme (Reward ACT) Select Committee”. If the truth be known, there are climate change deniers in this House; we saw that very clearly in the election campaign. In fact, at a campaign meeting that I attended in Papakura, one person stood in the room with a billboard that said: “Get rid of the emissions trading scheme”. We already know ACT’s position on this issue. The establishment of this select committee is a convoluted effort to placate political ideology, rather than an attempt to consider the serious and important implications of climate change for our environment, our economy, and our people.
One particular maiden speech yesterday put those implications at the forefront of our thinking as members of Parliament. But Rodney Hide got up and said that the select committee is about doing a lot of things; he said that the select committee can think about them and then we can move on. Well, I say to Mr Hide that it is not as simple as that. Indeed, the establishment of this select committee will delay the introduction of the emissions trading scheme, and will risk New Zealand’s reputation as a clean, green country at a time when young New Zealanders all over the country are very hopeful about the type of country they want to live in and continue to live in. They want to be good stewards of our environment in our communities at a very local level. They want to champion the cause of being responsible global citizens who care for our environment, but now they hear the message from the Government that it will establish a select committee and think about a whole lot of other things before it actually gets on with the business. I think we are sending the wrong message to young New Zealanders.
I have a question. Does the Government believe in climate change or does it think it is a hoax? Before the election National promised to proceed with an emissions trading scheme, and that it would include agriculture—another promise broken. Before the election National’s environmental climate change policy said it would set up and legislate for an emissions reduction target for New Zealand, it would honour New Zealand’s Kyoto Protocol obligations, it would support international efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, and it would support the emissions trading legislation because it “believes that a well-considered carefully balanced emissions trading scheme (ETS) is the best tool available to efficiently reduce greenhouse gas …”, whilst also pledging to make amendments to the legislation within 9 months of being in office—9 months.
The establishment of this select committee could well delay the implementation of the emissions trading scheme. I ask members to look at the terms of reference. Jeanette Fitzsimons made the point very clearly to members of this House that it will take a lot of time to get through those terms of reference. To think that the emissions trading scheme select committee can be advanced in 9 months! I think it is a delay tactic and one can come to only that conclusion on listening to the debate in this House today.
More important, when Hone Harawira spoke—and he raised a number of important issues—he proposed an addition to the terms of reference. Anyone who has served any length of time in this House would know that the decisions of the select committee can be overruled by this House. So I say to Mr Harawira—and I know he knows this—that although he might discuss and propose additions to the terms of reference at the select committee, he could easily table those additions in the House, as Gerry Brownlee did this morning, so that the whole House can vote on the matter. But I suspect he does not have support from his coalition partner, National. He will raise the issue in the select committee and not put it to a vote, because he already knows that he does not have support from his National coalition partner.
I know clearly that National has seated Tau Henare behind him in the Chamber to be a minder and to ensure that the process the Māori Party follows is stewarded very clearly along the lines of what National is really trying to achieve. That is fine, but when people raise the issue of being respectful in the House, I say that respect relies on a number of things. Firstly, in response to Tau, I ask Hone to say what he means, to stick to it, and to not say different things to different people in different forums. He knows that in marae protocol that is very clear. Although he has the opportunity right now to table that amendment to the terms of reference so that the whole House can vote on it—he already has the numbers, with his partners ACT and National, which could see it pass—he would prefer to raise the issue at the select committee without asserting the real influence that he has.
At least with the honourable member for Te Tai Tokerau, Hone Harawira, people know that what he does say he says consistently everywhere. People know what he thinks. That deserves respect. I think that, when we consider where the real weight of his mandate lies, he has the influence and the leadership to pull his coalition partners together on issues his party believes are really important and to get them to move on them. I ask him to table his amendment in the House and to get his partners to support him. It will pass by a majority—I have no doubt about that, if he has support for what he is saying.
The establishment of the emissions trading scheme select committee is a matter we should all be concerned about. Forestry owners have invested heavily on the basis of the introduction of this scheme. I am informed that Peter Berg of the Forest Owners Association indicated on Morning Report that one particular deal was worth more than $100 million on the basis of the proposed emissions trading scheme. Forestry owners would be very concerned that ACT, National, and the Māori Party have introduced a measure that potentially could delay the introduction of the emissions trading scheme. They should have done what they told everybody well before the election they would do: amend the scheme slightly but keep it on track.
I pick up on the point the honourable Paul Hutchison raised when he said that we need people to—
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA Link to this
Maybe he is yet to be honourable; maybe I heard something that I should not have repeated.
Paul Hutchison raised a point with regard to taking a considered approach to this issue. I know that the issues he raised with regard to BHP Steel are very real in our particular region. But let us not delay the emissions trading scheme because of those.
I am sure another question will come up at some point. What consultation occurred between the Government and sector industries on the potential impact of delaying the introduction of the emissions trading scheme as a result of setting up this select committee? I suspect that the answer is none. There was a good degree of discussion about, and working through of, the emissions trading scheme with Māori representatives. The Māori reference group, in particular, sought heavily to put before David Parker the issues of the Māori community. So when challenged on whether it delivers to Māori, I say that I am sure ample advice would have come from the people who were involved in that process.
I end on the reputational issue of flip-flops on various aspects of climate change that National has put before New Zealanders. We need to ensure that our international profile builds on clear expectations that we hold at the core of our national identity. I, for one, love Aotearoa New Zealand and the value we place on our national heritage and the value we attribute to our cultural heritage, but we need to walk the talk. Any indication of our pulling away from an emissions trading scheme at a time when inspirational leadership from Barack Obama aligns with Labour’s similar approach means that National is going in the reverse direction. Mr Key actually flip-flopped on this issue, and we should be concerned about it. In May 2005 he said on the subject of Kyoto and climate change that it was “a complete … hoax.” In November 2006 he said: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.”
If Mr Key needed a reminder that the rest of the world has accepted the singular importance of climate change, he got it on his first international visit to the UK in November this year, when he found himself being addressed by Gordon Brown on the issue of travel tax. We know that the introduction of a travel tax would hurt our tourism industry, but in the first test of his leadership as a Prime Minister who walks the talk on promoting a great nation and its clean, green image, what did he do? He grinned and giggled like a newbie. What should he have done? He should have been clear and decisive.
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) Link to this
I rise to oppose the motion put by the Hon Gerry Brownlee that a special select committee to review the emissions trading scheme and related matters be established. The Green Party may have been disposed to accept the establishment of a special committee had it been established on the basis of the more narrow terms of reference originally envisaged by the Prime Minister, but we are not so disposed to accept the much more general terms that have been proposed by Mr Hide, which are essentially based on the campaign slogan put across by that party to the effect that climate change is essentially a question of belief. That premise, on which that political party campaigned, is an extreme form—I put it to members—of political irresponsibility. When I look at the terms of reference proposed for the committee—and there are around 10 or so—I ask myself what I suggest all members of this House ask themselves: are each or any of these terms of reference essential for the clarification of the issue of climate change, for the elucidation of the matter for the public, and for the efficient governance of this House? My answer in each case is no.
The first term is to “hear views from trade and diplomatic experts on the international relations aspect of this issue;”. I can personally vouch for the fact that that has been under way in this country, by Governments, for the past 25 years. The second term states: “consider the prospects for an international agreement on climate change post Kyoto 1, and the form such an agreement might take;”. That has been explored and discussed by professionals and political leaders around the world for at least the past 5 years. The third term states: “require a high-quality, quantified regulatory impact analysis to be produced to identify the net benefits or costs to New Zealand of any policy action, including international relations and commercial benefits and costs;”. That is, essentially, a national impact analysis, which the various concerned ministries have undertaken—and put memoranda to Ministers for discussion and judgment—for the last decade, I should say.
Some of these terms have some passing merit, but not when they deliberately seek to delay progress by this country, by this Government, on meeting our international obligations under Kyoto. The question of what is the most appropriate policy response to the challenge of climate change is a legitimate issue. Seeking to conflate that with the scientific question of the phenomenon of climate change, its anthropogenic causes, is not. I have noted, in the last few days, what I take to be a deliberate attempt to conflate the two. The House is not well served by that approach. If we wish to take a similar approach, to distract the attention of this House, we could engage in considerable innovation and consider the relationship between creationism and evolution; or whether the natural elemental components of the lunar body are rock or hard cheese—essentially we would be between them!
I recall the facts that climate change was first mooted as a possible phenomenon in the course of the 1970s; that it was brought before national legislators, particularly the US Congress, in 1982; that a responsible international commission, the Brundtland Commission, was established in 1984 and reported back in 1987, endorsing the fact that climate change was a clear phenomenon; that the international community, solemnly acting on the recommendations of the Brundtland Commission, met in 1992—16 years ago—and adopted a framework convention that acknowledged the existence of climate change and the need to combat it; that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change worked, prior to 1992, in support of that judgment; and that it has produced four assessment reports, the most recent being within the last year, each one acknowledging the existence of climate change and sounding an increasing note of alarm about its implications. All of this reflects the fallible but collective and informed judgment of the international community, based on the advice of the scientific component and reflecting the judgment of the political component of the whole international community. New Zealand has reflected that and is participating in it.
So where do we stand today? We have a proposal from a political party that attracted less than 4 percent of the vote that we put the brakes on it and go back to reinvent the wheel. The Prime Minister took the better part of 20 of those 25 years to be convinced that climate change was a real phenomenon. He expressed his suspicions—which, I suppose, is putting a gloss on it—as recently as 2005. But he now heads a Government that acknowledges the existence of climate change. One of its senior Ministers is currently negotiating the implications of the next protocol. Meanwhile, this House is being invited to expend public money, which is contrary to the campaign commitments of the party proposing this, to re-educate, or perhaps educate, anything between one to five of its members on the basics—101—of climate change. I conclude by simply saying that the Green Party opposes the motion not for the sake of opposition alone but to guide this new Government in the right direction and in the same manner of efficiency that its predecessor displayed. Thank you.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
I am happy to stand to take a call in this debate and say that Labour will be opposing the motion. I want to go a little step further than my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson, who said that the motion was an outrage. I say that it is an embarrassment for our country internationally that we are taking this huge backward step at a time when the rest of the world is moving forward.
There is no need to move this motion under urgency. There is no need to stop the current legislation in its tracks. The only urgency we should be having is over the impact of climate change on our planet. We need only look down the east coast of both islands to see changes and to see the irrevocable damage that climate change can do. We need only look in our backyard of the Pacific to see that in countries that we, as a member of the Pacific community, have a responsibility to help, island homes are disappearing. While those island homes are disappearing, the National - ACT - Māori Party Government says: “Hang on! We’re not sure anything is actually happening. Why don’t we sit down and do a bit of navel gazing.” In the meantime climate change marches on.
I have to say I am surprised that they got to Dr Paul Hutchison. He stood up and said straight-faced that the science on this matter was not settled, simply because not every single scientist in the world agrees that human activity has caused climate change. Well, we could probably go back 20, 30, or 40 years and find many scientific studies that said thalidomide was absolutely no problem for women who were pregnant. As Dr Hutchison knows, one needs to look at who is commissioning a lot of the work and a lot of the studies that are being done. One needs to take that into consideration. A lot of money is to be made out there discrediting climate change right now. If the members of this select committee are not aware of that, if Dr Paul Hutchison, who is a member of this committee, is telling me that it is not something he is aware of, then I am afraid that the work of this committee will not be particularly productive.
I say that advisedly, because although I completely disagree that a group of politicians here in New Zealand will somehow be able to overturn the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I do believe that all the members on this committee are honourable members, and I do believe that they intend to work hard. Although I think we disagree on whether the terms of reference are appropriate, and although I think we disagree on what needs to be done, I am sure that all members will work hard to improve the current legislation.
However, during the election campaign we were told by the National Party that it had a plan, that it knew what changes needed to be made, and that it knew what it was going to do. It gave us its six-point plan, but as we come past the election we realise that National had no idea. Where are the amendments to the current legislation that National talked about before the election campaign? The members of this committee, the members of the House, the media, and New Zealand need to see them. Why is the committee not discussing the specific changes to the emissions trading scheme that the current Government—which is perfectly within its rights to review the scheme—wants? Labour members have no problem with a select committee looking at the emissions trading scheme, asking whether we got it right, and saying what needs to be changed. But that is not what these terms of reference do. These terms of reference bog down this Parliament in a select committee process that I am absolutely sure is intended to take us past the next election, while we do nothing on climate change. It is a delay tactic, and that is absolutely all it is. This House should be ashamed that this motion has come before us at all, let alone under urgency.
As I have said, the fact that we are in urgency is ironic, given that the only urgency is for our agricultural sector, to ensure that farmers are still able to farm in the future; for future generations of New Zealanders; and for our Pacific neighbours. Apparently, what the National - ACT - Māori Party Government thinks is urgent is that we stop this debate in its tracks, we stop the legislation in its tracks, and we go backwards while the rest of the world is going forward.
Mr Rodney Hide gave an interesting contribution. He talked about what a great Government this is and what a great Prime Minister John Key is, because it was easy for him to negotiate with him. Of course it was. That was what John Key wanted to do all along. He wanted ACT to be there, demanding that the emissions trading scheme be slowed down and stopped, because that is what he wants to happen. We had all the nice, fancy words in the campaign. He went from saying in 2005 that he was suspicious of climate change and that the Kyoto Protocol was a hoax, to telling us, once he became the Leader of the Opposition, that he had always believed in climate change. The only thing we can draw from Mr Hide’s admission that it was easy to get this concession out of the National Government is that it was what Mr Key wanted to do all along. And he got what he wanted.
The other thing Mr Hide made clear is that a potential outcome of this committee will be our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. He said that. He said that we may find that we do not want to be in it. I will be interested to hear what Dr Paul Hutchison thinks about that. He can sit there and mouth my name to me quietly, but that is what Mr Hide said.
Oh, very misleading? Well, Mr Rodney Hide clearly articulated that one of the outcomes of this select committee might be that we do not feel the need to be in the Kyoto Protocol. Is that not interesting? That is a dangerous, dangerous position for us to be taking, for many, many reasons.
We do not need to be rushing this measure through in urgency. We have all of next year before any other sector comes into the emissions trading scheme. We could keep the current legislation in place, and clearly signal what changes might happen and what shape they might take—they do not need to be specific. We could give some security to our foresters and to those who are already engaging in carbon trading. We could let them feel that the investments they have already made in their businesses are secure, without completely undermining everything they have done. Jobs and investment are going offshore to other countries, and it does not need to happen; $400 million worth of forestry investment has gone, and some of it will never come back, even if the outcome of the committee’s consideration is a decision that the status quo should prevail. This motion comes on the back of the axing of the research and development tax credit this morning, which will see even more jobs and innovation go overseas. One has to wonder what this Government is trying to do to this country. Is it trying to get our emissions down by stifling economic growth to such a level that our emissions reduce because of it? The only thing I can take out of this is that that is its overall plan.
This move has huge implications for trade—huge implications. We rely on our clean, green image for tourism, for trade, and for many things. Does anyone think it is a coincidence that right after National does a huge environmental flip-flop, a complete backtracking, we see an impost being put on us in the United Kingdom? Does anyone think that was a coincidence of timing? This committee is opening us up to huge criticism. We have to be far purer on these issues than most other countries, because of where we are and because of who we are. This kind of backtracking is damaging to trade and damaging to our businesses, at the very time when we need to be extra careful because of the global financial crisis.
We should not be surprised. National in Opposition voted against every single environmental issue that came before this House. It always managed to find an excuse. But this motion is an international embarrassment. It is embarrassing for our country, because this select committee will review the science of climate change; the Government may have changed the words, but it will do that. Rodney Hide acknowledged that by nodding when we put it to him. He got everything he wanted. This committee will review whether climate change is actually happening. New Zealand will be seen as a country that is in denial on this issue, and that will be to the detriment of our economy at a time when our climate cannot afford it, at a time when our economy cannot afford it, and at a time when our businesses cannot afford it. This motion is an absolute outrage, and Labour will be opposing it.
COLIN KINGA party vote was called for on the question,
That the question be now put.
Ayes 68
Noes 51
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the motion to establish a special select committee be agreed to.
Ayes 68
Noes 52
Motion agreed to.