Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6460. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 That speech from Kennedy Graham actually exposes the disservice that is done to the environmental movement by the Green Party. If we are to have a rational debate on these issues it is vitally important that we actually do stick to the facts. The claim is made of hell on earth in a decade. Actually the scientists predict that in a decade’s time global temperatures are likely—in a decade’s time—to be 0.3 of a degree higher than they currently are. Remembering that the temperature varies every day here in New Zealand which is a more mild climate by as much as 10 or 15 degrees it is a gross exaggeration to talk about hell on earth. Equally so with the completely over-the-top claims of ecocide and the like in the language that that member uses. 
Let us get down to earth and debate what this bill the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is about. There are two important questions in this bill. The first is whether we should double the costs for manufacturers and for homeowners on 1 January next year to step up New Zealand’s climate change initiatives. The second question is whether we should include biological emissions in 6 weeks’ time in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. We are a Government that campaigned on New Zealand doing its fair share. Is there any other country on 1 January that is going to double the costs of emissions trading on its core industries? Is there any country in the world Mr Kennedy Graham that is going to include biological emissions in its emissions trading scheme on 1 January next year? The answer is not only not one but there is not a single other country in the world that is even considering in the next 10 years including biological emissions in its trading scheme. 
This difficult issue of climate change is actually a balance between how much progress we wish to make as a nation in curbing our emissions down on that long-term challenge compared with what costs we are prepared to impose on our economy. I firstly would point out that a Ministry for the Environment report that was tabled in this Parliament last week showed that in contrast to the previous Government when emissions from New Zealand increased from 63 million tonnes a year up to 78 million tonnes per year in the 4 years of this Government emissions have come down. So my next challenge to Mr Graham is this: if the John Key - led Government in reducing emissions is guilty of ecocide with what would he charge the previous Helen Clark Government which the Green Party propped up and which did nothing in 8 years in this key area? 
But the further point I want to make is this. I have heard Labour and Green members repeatedly say—and not surprisingly with the job figures today of 7.3 percent unemployment—that this Government should be totally focused on jobs. Well can a member next say this: how will doubling the costs of the emissions trading scheme on every manufacturer in New Zealand on 1 January help protect jobs? How will doubling the costs of the emissions trading scheme for every manufacturer in New Zealand—and members opposite claim there is a crisis in manufacturing—help jobs? 
The second question I have got for them is this. Both the last Green member who spoke and Labour members repeatedly have said the biggest economic issue for New Zealand is its balance of payments. Well let us just ask what New Zealand’s biggest export industry is. It is primary industry. It is agriculture. Can I ask the question of how we increase exports by imposing additional costs on to that primary exporting industry? The answer is you do not. The answer is that this bill is balanced it is sensible and it is progressing our climate change policy consistent with the promises that National has made and that is why members on this side of the House are taking that sensible responsible view. W should progress this bill.