Norman Russel: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7934. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 For those who are listening from outside this Chamber I say that tonight we are debating the Government’s proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme. The Government’s proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme are fundamentally about weakening the emissions trading scheme and reducing the price signal that the emissions trading scheme sends through to the economy. I think it is an extraordinary night to be discussing the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill given the news that has come through tonight that the Liberal Party in Australia is currently tucked away in a caucus meeting of all of its MPs who are looking at some proposals from the Australian Labor Party to give $8 billion to greenhouse gas polluters in Australia. The Australian Labor Party Government—the Federal Government—has put a proposal to the Australian Liberal Party that would dramatically weaken its scheme. Tonight we are also looking at a proposal from the Government to weaken the price signal and emissions trading scheme dramatically in New Zealand. 
It is an amazing night for another reason. Only today we were looking at a study in  
Nature Geoscience 
 that looked at what is happening in Antarctica at the moment. One of the issues around climate change is sea level rise. Sea level rise is driven in part by the melting of ice sheets particularly in Greenland and Antarctica. For quite some time there has been concern about the West Antarctic ice sheet. At the moment it looks like the West Antarctic ice sheet is dumping about 132 billion tonnes of ice per year on average into the ocean as a result of human-induced climate change and global warming which is warming the ocean around Antarctica and resulting in a warming in Antarctica. At the same time as we are looking at a significant shift in our knowledge about what is happening with the Antarctic ice sheet in this bill tonight we are looking at a proposal to weaken the price signal around greenhouse gases so that greenhouse emissions coming out of New Zealand will increase. It is extraordinary that on the very night that we discover that the evidence around human-induced climate change is building we have a Government proposal to weaken the emissions trading scheme even further. 
I will also talk about a few Supplementary Order Papers. The Green Party is putting up a number of different Supplementary Order Papers or amendments to this bill tonight. A series of those amendments are in relation to increased transparency. Those amendments are important because under the Government’s proposed changes there will be a dramatic increase in the free allocations given away to big polluters. There will be a very significant increase in the allocations given to big polluters so that they can produce greenhouse gases for free and the taxpayer picks up the bill. Within the Kyoto framework New Zealand is responsible for the increase in emissions and will have to buy carbon credits internationally so any increase in emissions coming out of New Zealand will result in the New Zealand taxpayer being liable to buy those carbon credits. 
It will be a very significant increase. Of the Treasury estimates that were given to the select committee—there were various Treasury estimates; they changed rapidly because Treasury did not have enough time to prepare properly—one estimate was that Government debt would increase by $110 billion by 2050 as a result of the changes in this emissions trading scheme. That is the increase in emissions would be so significant and hence also would be the increase in carbon credits allocated to big polluters that the taxpayer would have to cover the difference and the difference by 2050 including interest would be around $110 billion. Obviously that would add a significant amount of money to Government debt. Of course this was from a Government that tells us day and night that there is not enough money to spend on the different kinds of social and environmental programmes that are essential to our country but at the same time was willing to take on a massive increase in debt according to Treasury in order to weaken the emissions trading scheme increase our greenhouse emissions and increase our total debt on the Government. 
The problem is that as part of the allocation of these free emissions nobody really knows exactly whom these credits are going to. One of the changes the Government is making is decreasing the transparency around the allocation of all these free carbon credits. So it is giving away our money—around $110 billion of it by mid-century—to its mates who are the big polluters in the form of free carbon allocations but it wants to decrease the transparency around the allocation of this taxpayer money. That is what the bill does. It makes those changes so the Green Party is putting forward a series of amendments in order to increase transparency. 
When we think about it we see that it is interesting that at the same time as we are proposing in this bill to decrease transparency around the allocation of taxpayers’ money to big polluters we have a system of donations to political parties that is fundamentally not transparent. Basically it is very difficult to know who is funding political parties. On the one hand big polluters will be making large donations to political parties that will at some point or another occupy Government benches. At the same time we are pulling the cloak over the allocation of free carbon credits from the Government to big polluters. There is clearly a transparency risk in these two things combined. It is unacceptable in our country that we do not know which big polluters will be making donations to governing parties at the same time as those governing parties have control over the allocation of free carbon credits to big polluters. We are setting up a strategic risk of corruption. 
The Green Party thinks that there is no reason to set up this fundamental risk of corruption. Why should we? New Zealand currently rates as the No. 1 least corrupt country in the world and that is a great thing and something that we should be proud of. Why would we put in legislation a set of rules that opens us up to the risk of corruption when there is no need to? In fact why do we not have a set of rules so that there is transparency in donations to political parties and in this bill make sure that there is transparency of allocation to polluters? If one is receiving support from the Government in the form of free allocations—and this legislation allows it as did the previous legislation—then one should be transparent about it. What is wrong with having transparency around allocations? For that reason the Green Party is moving a series of amendments in order to increase transparency around the allocation to big polluters of what is effectively taxpayer money. We think that if we are to have this terrible scheme of subsidising pollution which this bill exaggerates even more than the last one did then the public has a right to know who is being subsidised. To us that seems a fundamental principle and for that reason we will be moving a series of amendments around transparency. 
Finally I touch on the process around all of this legislation coming together. The Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith has made the comment that that $110 billion should not be relied on and there is some contest as to what the $110 billion really means. I point out that in the select committee Treasury officials were so confused about the real impacts of this bill that we had to take a 20-minute break in proceedings so that they could go away and try to figure out whether they were wrong by $50 billion. We had to face a $50 billion mistake in the select committee. The bill had been so rushed through and had had so little proper consideration that Treasury officials had to request a 20-minute break from the select committee so that they could go and figure out whether they were out by $50 billion. My question is whether this is an acceptable way to make Government policy. I ask whether this could possibly be an acceptable way to make Government policy and the answer of course is no. That is why the Government should take this bill away and get the work done properly rather than rely on 20-minute consultations between Treasury officials and others to figure out whether they have made a $50 billion mistake increasing liability on the taxpayer. 
I ask the Government to support our amendments to increase transparency in order to protect the reputation of the New Zealand Government as a non-corrupt Government. I ask the Government to consider the true fiscal and environmental implications of this bill.