Hutchison Paul: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18178] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It gives me considerable concern to speak on new Part 6A inserted by clause 67 of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill which has clearly been amended from its title of “Limitation on new fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generating capacity” to “Restriction on new fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generating capacity”. As my colleague the Hon Nick Smith pointed out just this afternoon in a motion to the House it would have been sensible and responsible of this Government to send this bill back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee to undergo in-depth analysis and then a final return to Parliament. 
I spoke on the first reading of this bill last year. I remember that it was the time prior to the Beijing Olympics. I totally remember something on the TV showing the spectre of Beijing immersed in smog fog and fossil fuel - generated particles causing the workers on the “Bird’s Nest” stadium to have to wear breathing apparatus and to be hardly able to go about their ordinary business. It was a spectre that demonstrated just how serious the whole issue of climate change and the response to it is. 
It was with considerable hope that the National Party supported in its first reading the legislation we have before us but it was with huge concern that I learnt that 1000 amendments were put before the select committee by the Government. That demonstrates just how wrong the Government had it to start with. This afternoon when the Government presented another 750 amendments it showed how pathetically badly it has managed the process of this bill so far. How can it expect anyone in this Parliament to treat it or this very important legislation seriously when it treats the parliamentary process so lightly recklessly and irresponsibly. 
New Part 6A refers to fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generating capacity. In my electorate of Port Waikato which I am proud to represent is the New Zealand Steel mill. It is directly responsible for about 1200 jobs in the area at an average of $90000 each; and around New Zealand about 5000 to 6000 jobs are highly dependent on that steel mill. The thing about it is that it is world best practice and in terms of its co-generation capacity it is also world best practice. Yet here we have a Labour Government trying to put every hurdle in the book in the way of the efficient effective continuation of one of the best steel mills in the world—a steel mill where there is commitment to investing a further $2 billion over the next 10 years including into a vanadium and titanium extraction component that will be very helpful for New Zealand. 
We look at what is going on around the rest of the world. For instance in Europe there is an exemption for steel mills. But this Labour Government’s hurried and pathetically poorly processed legislation may well mean that key strategic infrastructure for New Zealand like our steel mill will be forced to go offshore. What will that mean to emissions greenhouse gases on the world scene? It will only mean that they will go to places like China and India where they will be increased.