Woods Megan: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woods Megan: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4737. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on this Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We have been sitting here on this side of the House hearing the members opposite chanting generic National Party lines about the brighter future and making business easier to do and not a lot of substance on this bill particularly from their second speaker Simon Bridges. A lot of what we have heard today is frankly unbelievable as my colleague Grant Robertson said. We have just heard from the last speaker Nick Smith about how emissions grew under Labour but shrank under National and what a proud record National has in this area. 
Let us actually look at this. Let us unpack this and let us look at some reality. What we have is an emissions trading scheme that Labour introduced at the end of its term the bones of which National has been able to amend and reap the benefits of. But one of the real drivers of the drop in emissions under this Government is that this is a Government that has presided over a recession and with a recession comes a drop in emissions. The members opposite should look to Russia. I know they have a problem with this part of the world—Gerry Brownlee certainly does—but they should look at Russia and the staggering drop in emissions that Russia has experienced largely due to the fact that it is an economy in recession. 
But this is a piece of legislation that is absolutely critical to us as a nation. It is a piece of legislation that is absolutely critical to our future and I do not think it is being treated with the seriousness opposite that it deserves. This is a piece of legislation that is about New Zealand doing its bit as a global player and addressing one of the key issues of our time and of our generation. 
We have the member for Epsom opposite who tells us that New Zealand is but a tiny contributor to this world problem and challenges other nations to do it. Well I am proud to stand in this House as an heir to the tradition of a party that has seen itself as internationalist—as a party that can make a difference. I look to forebears on this side of the House like Peter Fraser who certainly did not think that New Zealand was too small to make a difference. Again we saw our last Labour Government realise that New Zealand could actually lead the world in this area. 
What we have had is the Hon Nick Smith telling us that New Zealand has never had a greater reputation internationally than under the leadership of Tim Groser. Well actually we are falling behind other nations. We are not a world leader. We are falling behind Australia we are falling behind the Europeans and we are no longer seen as someone who is leading the world whereas we were proud of the legislation that we passed in 2008. That was legislation that was passed with the support of other parties in this House like the Green Party. 
But one of the other important things that we cannot decouple from our discussions around having an internationally regarded piece of legislation to reduce our emissions is its importance to our trade and to our reputation and to our ability to sell our products at a premium into global markets. Our environmental record and how we fit into the global environmental system is absolutely crucial to us as an exporting nation. 
We just need to look at the campaign that European supermarkets ran against New Zealand in terms of air miles to see what an impact that perceptions of New Zealand’s ability to be an environmental player and to produce environmentally sustainable goods actually have. New Zealand had to put a lot of thinking and a lot of resource into countering this argument that a very cunning group of European supermarkets put together and came up with the idea of carbon miles. It actually was only because of our sustainable food production methods in this country that we could counter the air miles argument and we could protect our access into a number of key markets. We will continue to have access we will continue to get premium and we will be able to move beyond being a commodity producer only if we protect our reputation globally as a producer of clean and sustainably produced food. 
Labour opposes this legislation for many reasons. One that we would like very much to address today and my colleagues Moana Mackey and Grant Robertson have touched on it before me is that this is rushed legislation. This was rushed to meet a December deadline and again to quote Grant Robertson that is unbelievable. There are significant changes that should be subject to proper scrutiny in this House. This is serious legislation and those changes should not be rushed through. 
Labour also opposes this legislation because it simply will not work. We were told ad infinitum by the Hon John Banks that this was common-sense legislation. Well I prefer not to take my scientific advice from a man who is pushing the teaching of creationism in our charter schools. But what I am also told and what I would like to remind that member is that his colleague John Boscawen and ACT actually voted against the National legislation putting paid to a lot of what was contained in that member’s speech. It was incomprehensible to us because it just did not gel. But actually it fits with what we are seeing before this House which is a whole lot of revisionist history from that side of the House. My colleague Moana Mackey would just like to assure the honourable member opposite that John Boscawen was actually a pleasure to work with in the last term when they worked on this legislation. 
All this piece of legislation does is chip away at legislation that was put in place. You know it is kind of the back-door way of throwing the whole thing out because it is going to be so meaningless. This is the obsession with tinkering that this Government has. Rather than fix something it just tinkers a little bit around the edges and does not actually confront any of the fundamental problems that are facing us as a nation. This achieves absolutely nothing. 
But what it does achieve and what I am not looking forward to going back and telling the good people of Wigram—and I am sure my colleagues whether they be list or constituency MPs are not looking forward to going back and telling the people who elected them—is that actually they are going to be subsidising the polluters in this country. Taxpayers in this country are going to be shouldering the burden for reducing the cost of emissions from our polluters. That is not something that I am particularly comfortable about telling people with already stretched budgets in my electorate and I look forward to a progress report from members opposite on how the people who elected them feel about that. 
Another key thing that this bill does that is in fact dangerous is to reduce regulatory certainty. The flexible review positions that are contained in this bill do nothing to help business. It just creates a climate of uncertainty. Labour recognises that businesses need stability and certainty around their costs and that they need to know what they are going to be facing as a cost of the emissions trading scheme. The ability contained within this bill to allow for not only a 5-yearly review but also an at-a-whim review does nothing to create that certainty. The Government really should have worked to find a bipartisan or a multipartisan agreement around this legislation and these changes. This is too important. This is something that we all need certainty on. 
What we have talked about and what I am going to address for the remainder of my speech is the exclusion of agriculture and the fact that it should have an entry date. It is just ridiculous. It is just unfair to other industries that agriculture is getting the treatment within this bill that it does. What it does is leave other parts of our economy shouldering agriculture’s share of the cost. We have a manufacturing sector at the moment that is bleeding jobs but a Government that has no idea of the drivers of this. It has shown us in recent weeks in this House that it has absolutely no idea what is driving it and this piece of legislation is only going to make it worse. 
It is going to be damaging to the forestry industry and the jobs that are contained there. Forestry will be worse off as a result of this bill. There is a clawing back of the second tranche of compensation within— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.