Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7972. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I am really enjoying the Committee stage of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill. Out there members opposite can get their sound bytes and their cheap shots away but under the blowtorch treatment of the scrutiny of this Parliament we are finding that Labour’s views do not stand up to scrutiny. 
Let me go through three areas where I think Labour is making a big strategic mistake. The first is that we have repeatedly heard Labour members use the figure of $110 billion as the cost of the bill. The truth is that it depends on the way the question is asked about those costings. I will tell the Committee where Labour members are tying a noose for their own necks. If they want to apply that sort of approach to the pricing of policies it will work as follows: for instance Labour has said that part of its policy is to restore a research and development tax credit worth $400 million per year. But if we apply the $110 billion rule—that is if we compound the figure over 42 years the cost of the policy would be $20 billion. I say to Labour members that if that is the approach they want to use for costing then for every single promise they make up to election day in 2011 I want them to price it on the same rules—that is the figure should be added up for every single year all the way up to 2050 and compounded at 6 percent each year. That is how the figure of $110 billion is arrived at. I say to members opposite that if those are the terms of their approach they will blow any credibility they have. There is not a day in this House when they are not making commitments to spend money on this or that cause so we will now apply that funding approach to their promises and that will come to bite them very hard in the behind. 
The second thing that is really interesting is the way the language changes. You see when Labour does a deal with the Green Party and New Zealand First to get its emissions trading legislation through that is MMP politics working well. But when we do an agreement with the Maori Party then that is a dirty secret deal. Let me give members another example. When the previous Labour Government made an allocation to industry the Green Party challenged them; the Green Party said that it was a subsidy for big industry. Mr Parker said that it was not a subsidy. So I say to hang on; I want members of the Labour benches to answer this question: why is it that when Labour makes an allocation to industry it is not a subsidy but when National makes an allocation in this bill it is? 
Then we come to some of the other areas around the bill. Let us remember and recite the history. There were 800 amendments tabled a year ago in this House and what was the reason that Labour wanted to pass that legislation? It was purely political. Labour wanted the legislation through before the election to try to save its skin. Why do we want this legislation through? I will tell members why. We want it through for very practical reasons. What is the biggest issue for New Zealand right now? I tell members that it is the recession and it is jobs. If we do not get this bill through on 1 January there will be a 10 percent increase in the price of electricity and there will be a $400 million cost on industry next year. 
Do we want to snuff out the recovery in the economy? This is not an ideal process but members on this side of the House will put the national interest of this country first. The national interest of this country is overwhelmingly in favour of fixing the mistakes in that legislation and getting a sensible and balanced emissions trading scheme in place for 1 July next year. That in my view is the absolutely responsible thing for the House to do. I am yet to hear any member set out a realistic and balanced view of an alternative approach. 
I will say one other thing. Members ask us just to leave this scheme where it is on 1 January. Well every member of this House knows that that would be a real shambles for industry. I was advised by officials that even if we rushed to implement the current scheme the allocation plan could not be done.