Goodhew Jo: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18157] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to make my particular contribution to the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill and I do so first of all in a very very confused state. In the Committee stage of the bill one accepts that there should be debate and we are largely getting here today a very one-sided debate. Why is that? It is because National members want it on the record that we are not about not having an emissions trading scheme but we do have significant concerns about this bill. I wonder why just the Minister is defending the stance. Yes we have heard from the other smaller parties but it would be fair to say that we have not had vociferous debate or in fact defence from the parties that are pushing this bill through so hastily. 
The points I wish to make represent significant uneasiness on the part of the New Zealanders who live in the central South Island where I live. They are worried about this bill. I have heard their concerns in mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury and I have heard those concerns because those people rely on primary production for their economic prosperity and they are very worried. Why? Well as I have already said National has said since 1999 that an emissions trading scheme is the way to go so we are not saying that we are against it. But that confuses the people of mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury because they equate our willingness to go down this path with a willingness to perhaps go down the particular path that is drawn up in this bill. 
But then of course there are the amendments as well. I have had to reassure those constituents and I have asked them to read the 10-page minority report. Never before has a minority report been so long. Never before perhaps has it been so important for the Opposition to put down in writing exactly what is wrong with the bill. So I say to Labour New Zealand First and the Greens that my constituents are worried about the headlong rush to pass this bill before the looming election. The farcical number of amendments—some 1700-plus—that have come since the end of the select committee process will in fact cause them even greater concern. They wonder how democracy is served by passing the second reading Committee stage and third reading of a bill that is so vastly different from the bill that was submitted on in the Finance and Expenditure Committee by the people of New Zealand. 
The farmers and the business people for whom primary production is their future see New Zealand rushing headlong into a scheme that threatens their very future. Members should not forget the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report that indicated a potential loss of 22000 jobs and the Government’s own Infometrics report that said possibly up to 50000 jobs could be lost. Well my constituents worry about it being in their part of the world and about it affecting primary production and all of the support industries around them. They also worry about the losses to the economy—the predicted $900 million by 2012; the possible $5.9 billion by 2025. 
I challenge the Labour Green and New Zealand First MPs to have less haste and more speed but I am sure my challenge will fall on deaf ears. It would seem that they would rather see the primary production sector of this country—in fact our whole economy—go down the tubes. They have not thought through what this particular bill will mean. 
So what can farmers do to mitigate their emissions? Well they can destock. My colleague Jacqui Dean put it slightly differently—I think her destocking involved a bullet to the brain. The technologies for reducing emissions are not yet clear. They are limited; they are not yet here. But New Zealand’s reputation for getting technology knowledge and research and development around the primary production industry is renowned worldwide. We will get there but we need time so that we do not go down the economic tubes in the meantime. We are after all 0.2 percent of the problem. So why are we—this nation that is very different from other nations with 50 percent of our emissions coming from primary production—in such a headlong rush to affect our primary production industry? Well I will tell members why. It is so that on the world stage the current Prime Minister can say “Look what I achieved.” Well one day she may well be ashamed of what she will achieve with this.