Fitzsimons Jeanette: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7952. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 In my first contribution on this bill the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill which will weaken—in fact largely destroy—New Zealand’s existing emissions trading scheme I begin by running through a little bit of the fundamental logic. 
The science tells us that climate change is accelerating at a rate so frightening that we need to take urgent action. The only thing that will prevent accelerated climate change is a reduction in emissions. The whole purpose of a price on carbon is to provide an economic incentive to reduce emissions; otherwise we would not do it. Therefore it follows surely without contest that if we reduce that price we will produce more emissions and that if we increase that price we will produce fewer emissions. 
This bill significantly reduces the price initially for 2½ years with the two-for-one and the price cap. For agriculture it removes it completely for a further 2 years and in the long term it abates free allocation so slowly that no one will face the full marginal cost of emissions within the lifetime of anybody who lives today. I am therefore very puzzled and deeply disappointed that the Maori Party which would not support last year’s emissions trading scheme because it was too weak—and that was a defensible position; we just about went there ourselves but in the end we did not—is now prepared to support a scheme that will raise New Zealand’s emissions. 
I am struggling to understand how that could come about. I will quote from some of the reports to this House and some of the statements made in this House by my colleagues in the Maori Party. First of all I will quote from their minority report on the review of the emissions trading scheme and related matters which was reported a short time ago: “At a fundamental level there was opposition to an ETS which allows sectors to pollute and trade up to the Kyoto target but which does not include incremental emissions reduction targets in its design.”. Well that is a description of this bill. 
The Maori Party’s minority view mentions “the subsidisation of the nation’s largest polluters at the cost of households and small-medium businesses.” But that describes this bill. The view goes on to state: “The Maori Party continues to oppose the introduction of an ETS on these grounds and would do so more strongly if a replacement scheme were to be less effective”. Well that describes this bill. It goes on: “We remain deeply concerned about protections in the form of intensity-based allocations and subsidies which again distort the market model by allowing protected businesses to increase their emissions without penalty and to be rewarded for it.” Well that is the distinguishing feature of this bill. It continues: “the nation urgently needs to grapple with the notion of sustainability and the increasing challenge posed by a changing climate system and pending peak oil to think and live differently; to live sustainably.” Kia ora. It states: “The resources of Papatuanuku are finite.” Kia ora. It also states: “we need to be focused on decreasing domestic emissions.” 
I now move on a few weeks to the first reading of this bill and to a speech made by a member of the Maori Party. It states: “The Maori Party has consistently raised our call for an emissions trading scheme to be effective fair and transparent.” and “no sectors will receive more free units than necessary”. It goes on: “We do not support subsidisation of the nation’s largest polluters at the cost of householders and small to medium businesses.” and “its purpose must be to transform the economy”. It also states: “The nation urgently needs to grapple with the notion of sustainability and the increasing challenge made by a changing climate system and pending peak oil to think and live differently.” The Green Party strongly endorses all those statements by the Maori Party and that is why we are puzzled and deeply saddened—we cannot figure out what changed their minds. 
There is not a single measure in this bill that improves environmental outcomes compared with the existing law or that leads to lower emissions. There are a number of ways—three principal ways—in which this bill will lead to higher emissions. The first and most serious way is the intensity-based allocations which means that no industry with any amount of free allocation will ever face the full marginal cost of carbon as it grows its business. The second reason is that the price cap for 2½ years and the two-for-one deal significantly reduces the cost and therefore will lead to higher emissions. The third reason is the much slower phase-out. We accept that it starts earlier which is a good thing but over the long term it is a very slow phase-out. We could argue a fourth reason—that agriculture is protected 100 percent for a further 2 years before it faces anything at all. 
There is nothing in the bill that compensates for this environmental harm. So I looked at the agreement between the parties to see whether there was anything there to compensate for this environmental harm. There are four matters but they are trivial compared with the harm that this bill does. There is another $24 million for the insulation of low-income houses and that is great but the existing insulation scheme has seen 75 percent of the money so far go into low-income community service - card houses and there is plenty more in the ring-fenced fund. So that $24 million will not make any difference to the number of the low-income houses insulated until year 4. In year 4 it will add to the total of $323 million but in year 4 there will be another Budget appropriation anyway. So I think the Maori Party got a bit duped over that one. 
The second thing is the partnership to plant forests. That is a great idea. The Green Party is working on a slightly expanded version of that idea which will be announced shortly. It is an excellent idea to plant more native forests on conservation land but we do not have to destroy the emissions trading scheme to do it surely—it is a good idea anyway. 
Thirdly there is a national policy statement on biodiversity. What was it that the Green Party negotiated—and it was gazetted—last year with Labour as part of the emissions trading scheme agreement? It was a finite date for a national policy statement on biodiversity to be in place by—I ask Mr Parker whether it was February 2010 or February 2011. Anyway I say to National that it is already gazetted. 
The current Minister has said that he does not intend to do that. Now he does; now he has a new agreement that he will do it. That is good but it is not progress. That is going back to the status quo—it is anti. Finally there is a 6-month delay in the abolition of the funding for environmental education. Well I do not think that will employ many teachers or train very many kids for very long. 
For some years Green Party members have believed that we have common ground with the Maori Party in our commitment to Papatuanuku. So I am deeply sad that all these goals all these fine words in the House and all these fine words in the reports of select committees have been traded away for 30 pieces of silver and many promises of consultation.