Tremain Chris: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18133] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 1 of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill and specifically to the purpose clause. I will stay pretty close to that part of the bill. The purpose of the legislation as stated in clause 5(1) is to “enable New Zealand to meet its international obligations under the Convention and the Protocol”—being the Kyoto Protocol. The fact that this is the purpose of the bill is interesting particularly given the context within which the Prime Minister has sold her agenda of sustainability which she has done with much rhetoric and much hyperbole over recent years. 
As we debate the purpose clause it is pretty important to highlight this Government’s record on sustainability over the last 9 years it has been in office as it has come towards delivering this purpose clause. I want to address three particular areas of the sustainability agenda and the Government’s record on those. Firstly I will talk about the Government’s record on greenhouse gas emissions; secondly I will talk about its record on forestry; and thirdly I will talk about its record on renewable energy. These are key issues in this debate and one would have thought that over the last 9 years we would see advances made towards the purpose of implementing this bill. But quite frankly we have not. 
I will start with greenhouse gas emissions. Labour came into office in 1999 criticising the Kyoto target as being too modest and saying that a 20 percent reduction in emissions was required by 2005. Helen Clark upped the ante still further last year by saying that New Zealand would be the first country in the world to be carbon neutral. The huge credibility problem she has is Labour’s record over the past 8 years in this regard. Emissions have ballooned like there is no tomorrow and New Zealand does not now have a hope in hell of reaching its Kyoto obligations within the set time frame. Labour’s record in reaching towards this purpose clause has been simply terrible. Official United Nations figures were published in November of last year and they showed an increase in emissions in this country from 69 million tonnes in 1999 to 77 million tonnes in 2005. 
If this Government with its rhetoric were serious about addressing this issue one would have thought we would see a reduction in emissions through clear policies in this area. But we have not. We have seen significant increases over that 9-year period and a complete failure by the Labour-led Government in this area. We have seen a 12 percent increase compared with Labour’s promise of a 20 percent reduction. I will repeat that. Labour set out to have a 20 percent reduction in emissions by 2005 but we have had a 12 percent increase. That is hard to believe but it is a fact. That compares internationally with an average increase across the OECD over the same years of just 3 percent—an increase of 8 percent in Australia 5 percent in the US and 2 percent in Japan. Here we are consistently criticising the United States of America for being an economic powerhouse yet its greenhouse gas emissions have gone up by only 5 percent. Clearly that nation has a much better policy platform and has achieved better emissions reductions over the last 9 years than this Labour-led Government has. Growth rates also compare poorly with the record of the 1990s when annual growth was half the rate that it is today. 
The part that will hurt most is the degree to which New Zealand will fail to hit its Kyoto target. In 2002 the Government told New Zealanders that we stood to make half a billion dollars from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol—that we were going to make money out of this exercise. The Labour-led Government rubbished those who dared to question those numbers and it accused as being irresponsible those who suggested New Zealanders might have to pay. Thank you Madam Chairperson.