Groser Tim: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Groser Tim: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18622] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 I wonder whether New Zealanders listening to this debate would have fully taken on board that the last Government speaker Mr Chauvel was none other than the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee charged with the awesome responsibility of steering this legislation through it. It has been described by many people from many different perspectives of New Zealand life as the most important regulatory framework to be introduced into New Zealand since the 1990s. I wonder whether they would have truly understood that he is the man who had that responsibility. 
Let me make this clear. In some respects I am not sure whether we should be very harsh on Mr Chauvel because he is a new member of the Government; he joined the Government only in the last 18 months to 2 years. I think we all understand the position that he was put in which was: “You make sure that this bill is rammed through in the life of this Parliament or your career is on the line.” We will never find a piece of paper saying that but I think it is widely understood in this House that that was the case. So my comments are not personal for that reason. 
Putting that aside I say he is living in a parallel universe. First in describing a process that he had the constitutional responsibility of leading he praised it as some sort of perfect process in which everybody had time to put his or her case was heard carefully and was given due consideration. I did not have the privilege of sitting on the Finance and Expenditure Committee but even I know that scores of submitters came out of that select committee that he was responsible for bitterly complaining that they had been given 5 minutes or 3 minutes to put their case when the whole future of their companies was at stake. Goodness knows what universe Mr Chauvel is living in! Of course I think we understand why he was forced to conduct the inquiry at that pace with so little regard for the views put forward by companies and by people who have put skin in the game. 
But of course those people and their views are dismissed as special pleading. One of the things that amazes me about the political debate that I have heard from the Government side is the sort of view that there is this thing called the Government sector and there is this not particularly pleasant thing called the private sector and when the private sector talks it is special pleading. We could not have the Government sector which is supposedly completely detached from the people who actually create wealth bear any cost because the bad polluters in the private sector would then get away with whatever they are meant to be getting away with. There is a complete lack of understanding that the Government does not have money of its own; the Government gets taxes from the people and they are telling this Government: “Do this at your peril.” The Government gets the money to provide public services from the productive sector and that sector is telling us time after time that this measure is a bridge too far. 
We had another one today. It is a relatively small organisation but one I personally have a lot of time for and that is the—what is the horticulture industry organisation called? Horticulture New Zealand is the new term for it. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That shows how much time he has for them—he doesn’t even know their name. 
TIM GROSER 
: I say to the member who in his arrogance thinks this is funny that he should consider the people out there in his area of New Zealand whom he will have to face down. You will have to speak to those people and if you think this is just a joke— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please avoid the second person. 
TIM GROSER 
: If the member thinks this is just a joke I think he will have a nasty surprise. Mr Fenton the Horticulture New Zealand President stated: “The legislation has been rushed. It is not well thought through in terms of its impact on our position as a global food producer and exporter. We calculate this will cost our industry in excess of $40 million a year.” He actually went on to say things that were a lot more extreme than that but I will let the member find that out on the hustings. 
That is just the latest in a whole series of industry statements. Phil O’Reilly the head of Business New Zealand has come out with a very trenchant criticism. My colleague Paul Hutchison talked about New Zealand Steel’s view on this bill. But all of that is dismissed as special pleading on the basis that only this wise Government is capable of measuring the actual economic cost and we are told that it is very small and it might turn out to be a benefit. 
One of the other things that disturbs me is that new middlemen are created by this legislation.