Mackey Moana: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 17 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7718. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call in the third reading debate on the four component pieces of legislation coming from the Settlements Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. Labour will be supporting this legislation. Indeed it was introduced to the House by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel last year. It was reported back from the Commerce Committee in June this year and I congratulate the select committee under the leadership of my very good colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel who was the committee’s chair. I thank the committee for the work that members have done on the legislation. I think it is good work. It is a shame that it has taken so long for this legislation to come back to the House; I think that it is far more important than a number of other pieces of legislation that have been progressed under urgency in this House. 
But I say to the member who has just resumed her seat Melissa Lee that if she does not see any connection between a bill that facilitates a carbon trading market and an emissions trading scheme then that may go some way to explaining the complete shambles that we have had to sit through over the last few weeks on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. If that member thinks that carbon trading and the facilitation of the purchase of international Kyoto-compliant emission units are in no way related to the emissions trading scheme and that Labour members should therefore not be allowed to talk about that scheme then I say that that is a very very worrying position that the Government is taking. At the moment it is a little bit as if the Government has its blinkers on: “Here is a piece of legislation that people support and so much is going on that people are opposing out there that we really just don’t want to think about it so could Labour members please not bring it up.” But we will talk about it because it is very important. 
This is the only stage of this debate where members have been able to stand up and publicly speak about what happened at the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. Prior to this it has been in committee and we have been very careful about commenting. In my short time in Parliament and I have been here since 2003 this is undoubtedly the absolutely worst process I have ever seen for anything. 
David Garrett 
: Are you voting against it? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No no—for the emissions trading scheme. This bill went through a very very good process and it shows what would happen if legislation were allowed to go through due process in the House. 
Melissa Lee 
: Why don’t you talk about the bills? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am talking about them now; if Ms Lee just listened she would hear that. The Commerce Committee did a very good job. They made some good changes. I am particularly happy that they have been flexible about some of the definitions because there will be a lot of innovation in the area of carbon trading. 
We need legislation that does not continuously have to keep coming back to the House to be amended and that allows that innovation to be covered under existing legislation. The fact is that when we compare this legislation to the piece of legislation that is the most important when it comes to the carbon trading market—the emissions trading scheme—the contrast could not be more stark. On the day that we were deliberating on the emissions trading scheme amendment legislation we were still receiving advice from officials and our specialist advisers. We could not even consider that advice before we had to decide whether to support the emissions trading scheme legislation. That is absolutely appalling. We did not even have time to consider a revision-tracked version of the bill because the time frames did not allow it. We finished hearing submissions the week that we had to deliberate. We went through a departmental report that had no clause by clause analysis yet this was the most important piece of legislation when setting up any kind of carbon trading market. 
The Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee that was set up was nothing more than a smokescreen. We had no idea what we were meant to be doing. The terms of reference were so broad that it was clear that all it was there for was delay and that delay has done incredible damage to our prospects as a serious engager in international carbon trading markets. We had the opportunity in this country to create enormous wealth from being a country— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Vote for the National bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: What bill—the emissions trading scheme amendment bill? We actually have an emissions trading scheme in place at the moment; we do not need to vote for National’s bill. 
Again I find it very disturbing that National members opposite do not seem to realise that this legislation is not the emissions trading scheme legislation. Labour is supporting the legislation that we wrote and that we put into the House. But we are raising serious serious concerns about passing this legislation when the most important piece of legislation to a carbon trading market the emissions trading scheme has gone through such a shambolic process. That has done so much damage in terms of the delay. 
We are now a year out from the election. We went through a review period on the special select committee set up to review the emissions trading scheme a committee that really was stumbling around blindly in the dark. We did not know what we were meant to be doing but then all of a sudden the Minister said we had to report back and we were not allowed to discuss anything more. We then had a process of something like 6 weeks to consider the most important piece of legislation in this area—the emissions trading scheme and why that is important. 
Dr Mapp can chip away he was not at that select committee and he does not know how shambolic that process was. He does not know that the National Party complained last year about the nearly 60 hours we spent in hearing submissions saying that it was not enough. This year it was about 20 hours of submissions but somehow that is OK. When the Labour Party restricts the hearing of submission to 60 hours then that is an absolute outrage to democracy because it is not nearly enough. But when the National Party hears those same submissions in 20 hours well that is fine— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Because it’s an amendment bill! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh Dr Wayne Mapp says that that is because it is an amendment bill. Well the fact is that no one who came to the committee knew what the Government wanted to do. It did not give the Supplementary Order Paper to the members of the committee. We have not seen it and we do not know what will be in it. It will be dropped in the House—as they always are—just before we are about to debate it so that we will not get a chance to see it. I say to Dr Mapp because he said that it was just an amendment bill that it is an amendment bill for which Treasury we were told at the select committee this week was put under enormous time pressure. Treasury did not have time to do the analysis properly but the legislation will impose a $110 billion liability on the taxpayer—a $110 billion liability. Dr Mapp says that this is just an amendment bill so it does not need to go through a proper select committee process. Eighteen percent of GDP debt will be added; that is what Treasury said. But Dr Mapp says that it is just an amendment bill so it does not need to go through a proper process. Well I tell Dr Mapp that the submitters who were rushed through that process did not think it was just an amendment bill. They did not think that it was just an amendment bill. 
What the Government does not tell people and why the bill is so important—a bill that facilitates the purchasing of international emissions units—is that we will be buying a whole lot of units. When the Government decided that it would have an emissions reduction target of between 10 to 20 percent it did not say that it had no intention of reducing emissions. Officials confirmed this for us at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. When the Government says an emissions reduction target of 10 to 20 percent it does not actually want to reduce emissions; it just wants to purchase enough emissions units to pay for it. That is quite different. But when we look at the Government’s emissions trading scheme we clearly see that the emissions trading scheme amendment bill that has just been reported back from the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee will not reduce emissions. In fact ironically there are incentives in the bill to increase emissions. 
We will be buying a lot of emissions units on the international market. Treasury officials told us this week that they made a $50 billion mistake because they were under such incredible time pressure. They did not have time to do the work properly. It is not their fault; they were put under unrealistic time frames for one of the most important economic measures our country will ever see. I ask members what time the measure had. It had only 6 weeks at select committee and officials were not able to do the work properly—and they told us that. The Parliamentary Counsel Office told us it did not have time to do the work properly. Everyone said there was not enough time. The Business Roundtable said there was not enough time for it to do a proper submission. It was rung the day—the very day—it had to do its submission; it was asked to come in that night to do a submission. The Business Roundtable complained about the process as well. 
Although Dr Mapp may say that this is just an amendment bill members on this side say that it is $110 billion worth of liability that Dr Mapp is putting on to future generations. The bill had 6 weeks at the select committee which is an absolute outrage. It is just as well we are passing legislation here to facilitate the purchase of international emissions units because we need $110 billion worth of them.