Wagner Nicky: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7967. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Today I will talk about Supplementary Order Paper 98 in the name of the Minister for Climate Change Issues but before I do so I need to clarify some important issues. Yesterday I spoke about the complexity of the emissions trading scheme legislation and about the problems that people have in interpreting the issue. I spoke about the lack of information partial information and misinformation. This morning after watching Phil Goff on the  
Breakfast 
 television programme I want to bust a few myths that have been swirling around this legislation and I will expose some of the misinformation. 
Myth No. 1 is that this measure is a limp-wristed pathetic response to climate change. It is a bill. like Labour’s that covers “all gases all sectors” and we are the first country in the world to include agriculture. The Rio Tinto smelter in Bluff will be the first aluminium smelter in the world to be under an emissions trading scheme. It is a reasonable rational response to a difficult issue. 
Myth No. 2 is that the public will be subsidising big business. In fact with the exception of the first 2½ years and the half-priced transition to the system under National to protect our fragile economy post-recession until 2018 the Labour and the National schemes are very similar. Until 2018 the costs are about the same. After 2018 the schemes diverge. National’s scheme has a much more gentle phase-out than Labour’s scheme. 
But the difference between Labour’s and National’s schemes is how they deal with the free international carbon credits allocated to New Zealand. They are allocated to New Zealand because we have committed to a carbon price and we have committed to making changes to our economy. Under National they will continue to be passed on to our trade-exposed and emissions-intensive companies to ensure that they and their jobs survive. That is the reason those credits are allocated to us and that is what this Government will do. In contrast under Labour’s scheme they would be seized and the money would be put into the Government’s coffers. So there is no subsidisation; there is only a passing on of allocated carbon credits and Labour knows that. David Parker himself when talking about the allocation of international carbon credits in relation to Labour’s emissions trading scheme refuted the concept but all the Labour members are talking subsidisation now. The Minister has also made it very clear that the National Government will not be purchasing credits to allocate. Our scheme will be fiscally neutral. 
Myth No. 3 is that there is a $110 billion debt for the people of New Zealand. I repeat: there is no $110 billion debt for the people of New Zealand. I thought we had sorted this out. I thought even the most illiterate financial manager could understand this issue but I saw Phil Goff on  
Breakfast 
 this morning trotting out the same old misinformation. It is scaremongering at its very worst. Let me explain. The $110 billion figure was obtained by crystal-gazing to 2050. It would apply only if firstly Labour’s emissions trading scheme went ahead and secondly if Labour seized the free carbon credits and did not pass them on. That would have produced maybe a $23 billion profit at the expense of the people of New Zealand. Thirdly it would apply only if Labour did not spend the seized credits. We must remember that once the public realised that Labour was making a profit at their expense it promised to spend them; it said it would spend them on low-carbon initiatives. So they would have been gone. It would apply only if fourthly Labour invested the money it had already spent and had compounded the interest. That is a whole lot of ifs and a whole lot of impossible buts and this members should remember is in the year 2050. People can be assured that there never was and there never will be a $110 billion debt. It was a computer-generated what-if scenario that cannot happen. Besides there will be regular reviews starting in 2011 to monitor the process and to make sure that any decisions are for the good of New Zealand. 
Now that I have explained that misinformation I want to talk about the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 98 and the two policy changes within it. The changes have come out of the submissions process of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which dispels the myth that the process was so rushed that we did not learn anything from it. The first change concerns tree weeds. Tree weeds and the managing of tree weeds—for example wilding pines—were of significant concern to submitters. We heard from a large number of organisations including local government that wanted to see changes in this area. The amended emissions trading scheme had fixed the problems that had arisen under Labour’s emissions trading legislation which had meant that organisations and councils that were removing wilding pines were liable for deforestation payments. However there was a further problem and after hearing the latest submissions National has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to deal with one further aspect of the situation. The problem occurs when trees have been deliberately planted often by the Government as in some parts of Southland and the Marlborough Sounds and it is from these plantations that wilding pines are being seeded. The changes in the Supplementary Order Paper will deal with this issue. 
The second issue I want to talk about is the burning of waste wood. Over the last few years some industries have moved away from fossil fuels to renewable biofuels.