Wagner Nicky: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7920. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I support the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill. I support it because it is a moderate common-sense response to an enormously difficult problem. It has been really interesting to listen to David Cunliffe today. He spent a heap of time in the Finance and Expenditure Committee bleating that he did not understand the bill in order to make political points but his speech today proves the point: he truly does not understand it at all. His speech was full of emotive rhetoric and there was no intelligent comment. 
Everywhere around the world Governments and people are struggling with the concept of climate change. It is a fiendishly difficult problem. As the Australian professor Ross Garnaut said: “It is harder than any other issue of high importance that has come before our polity in living memory.” But around the world there is general agreement that this is a truly global issue and it has to be tackled. Every country has to deal with the problem every country needs to be involved and Governments around the world have accepted that fact. Indeed I cannot think of any country that has declared it will do nothing. It is a fiendishly difficult problem and it comes at the worst possible time: a time when the world is also struggling with a hugely challenging financial situation a time of great economic turmoil and international uncertainty. This bill is a first step a sensible pragmatic responsible response to both environmental and economic conditions. It includes a series of reviews starting in 2011 which will allow us to tweak the legislation as the global situation clarifies. 
The process of getting to this point has been agonising. There is general agreement that New Zealand needs to have an emissions trading scheme but little agreement about how it should be formulated. The devil is always in the detail. Way back in the late 1990s National began advocating for an emissions trading scheme but between then and now—and a Labour Government—we have had a failed tax proposal an unsuccessful industrial scheme and an unrealistic Act. Now finally we have a reasonable and rational scheme that allows New Zealand to do its fair share for global climate change without destroying our economy or the quality of life that it delivers. 
Over the last decade we have seen lots of energy angst and good intentions to tackle the issue of climate change but it has all come to nothing. It is very very unfortunate that politicians have not been able to work in concert to deal with an unprecedented important and difficult issue. National highlighted in its Bluegreens discussion document coming up to the last election that long-term environmental issues should be treated in a far more bipartisan way. We believe that the environment is too important to be squabbled over. Environmental decisions have long-term consequences and therefore need more than a 3-year a 6-year or even a 9-year focus. We will still be dealing with the issue of climate change in 2020 and 2050. If ever there was an issue on which parliamentarians should have worked well together to get the best possible outcome for this country this is it. I agree with Charles Chauvel who said Parliament has a golden opportunity to reach a broad consensus and take New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme design off the political battlefield once and for all. 
After two previous select committee processes to consider the issue including an in-depth and pretty intelligent review of the present emissions trading scheme and related matters we should have been able to deal with this new legislation efficiently and effectively. An enormous amount of research and information has been available in the public domain and the people of New Zealand want us to sort this issue out once and for all. It is therefore absolutely disappointing that although Opposition members continue to state how important this legislation is they were not prepared to knuckle down and get the best possible result for the country. Their uncooperative squabbling and childish behaviour reflects badly on them and it undermines any professed commitment to a better environmental future for New Zealand. Political grandstanding stupid party politicking and half-truths were the order of the day. The fact that we could get no agreement was an enormous waste of time and money and a waste of the best intentions of submitters who will be affected by this bill. On principle the Opposition would not even agree with uncontested technical amendments. So much for Labour’s claim that we cannot afford to delay our emissions trading scheme! 
After listening to Labour speakers I remind everyone that despite Labour’s rhetoric until 2018 there is very little difference between the allocations under this bill and those under the existing legislation. I also reflect that this is high-profile legislation that affects all of us. But it is a hugely complex process and most New Zealanders do not understand all the issues. Everyone is affected differently. Therefore many people are partly informed some are uninformed and some are misinformed. Opinion is polarised. Labour can quote plenty of criticism that suits its purposes; ACT can do the same—although I must say they make strange bedfellows. The Government’s job is to walk the knife-edge between conflicting opinions and produce rational sensible legislation. This bill is about implementing a workable and affordable emissions trading scheme. The legislation includes provision for regular reviews in order to give us enough flexibility to manage our responsibilities intelligently as the world grapples with the ongoing issue of climate change. I support this bill.