Hutchison Paul: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Hutchison Paul: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:651;Page:305] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important motion regarding the formation of the special select committee to review the emissions trading scheme set up by the previous Government and related matters around it. There is no doubt that this is a unique opportunity to be thoughtful balanced and wise over the world’s most important environmental issue. Indeed it was refreshing to hear the Maori Party and Hone Harawira point out in a measured insightful and forward-thinking way how Maori and New Zealand’s interests must be looked at in this manner. It is extraordinary to think that the losses to Ngai Tahu under the emissions trading scheme will exceed their Treaty settlements. Something must be fundamentally wrong with Labour’s emissions trading scheme legislation if that is the case.  
Whatever the evidence of the science the potential risks of climate change due to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are enormous and New Zealand must develop a best practice practical risk-management response based on the most up-to-date information available. Indeed the formation of this select committee is very important and a unique opportunity to do exactly that given the history of the formation of Labour’s emissions trading scheme over the last 10 years. 
I agree with David Parker. It was indeed a National Government that signed up to the Kyoto Protocol back in the 1990s. But it was extremely worrying that in 2001-02 a somewhat zealous Labour Government decided to become the white knights or crusaders of the climate change world and ask New Zealand to lead. But it did this in a very shrill and certainly not a practical way. In fact it was quite extraordinary when in its initial legislation the Government became so zealous that it had carbon police—I can think of no other term for it than that—who were going to go around New Zealand farms and other institutions checking up on New Zealanders to the extent that Professor Joseph from Canterbury University said this was nothing other than State-sanctioned trespass being encouraged by the then Labour Government.  
As Rodney Hide pointed out it was indeed extraordinary that the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues at the time predicted that New Zealand would have a windfall gain of over half a billion dollars; instead we have a debt of over half a billion dollars. This exemplifies just how out of touch the Labour Government was in the origins of its emissions trading scheme.  
But it was not until 2007-08 that the Government finally formed its response to this hugely important world situation. I think there is no doubt that it was not brought together with the sort of responsibility that is required from such a hugely important issue. People and submitters all over New Zealand were simply not given time to be heard appropriately. Labour rushed through its emissions trading scheme with reckless irresponsibility.  
I think it is important to say that National is absolutely committed to its Kyoto obligations and we have said quite clearly that we will base legislation on six very important principles that will balance our environmental responsibilities with the economic practicalities that face New Zealand. As the member of Parliament for Hunua I think there is probably no other electorate in the country that has these practical issues so personified. Firstly of course there are the large farming areas the producers and the vast glasshouses that are directly affected adversely by Labour’s emissions trading scheme. It puts them into a hugely uncompetitive situation with the rest of the world. There is no doubt that this must be revised because the primary producers of New Zealand are the backbone of our economy. This has been agreed on by every party in this Government yet the current emissions trading scheme adversely affects them to the extent that their competitiveness is deeply deeply affected. It is that sort of thing that the Labour Government has swept over and that is so important to the future of New Zealand.  
But another practical example in my electorate of Hunua is that of the New Zealand Steel mill. If indeed New Zealand Steel was to go under New Zealand would become totally dependent on imports from overseas. Already BlueScope Steel has put on hold a $1 billion investment into the New Zealand Steel mill including $200 million that will expand a vanadium extraction plant and allow New Zealand to become one of the leading exporters of vanadium a low-volume high-value high-technological export that is the very sort of thing that New Zealand should be doing. On the other hand if New Zealand Steel was to close down we would lose 1200 direct jobs and 5000 to 6000 jobs around the country and we would be dependent on the rest of the world for imports to New Zealand. Further New Zealand Steel operates under world best-practice with 66 percent cogeneration of electricity. Inevitably a much less efficient steel factory would replace it probably in India or China and the net effect would be more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is the sort of thing that Labour’s emissions trading scheme did not take into account. Therefore it is hugely important like the situation with Ngai Tahu where indeed the loss under the emissions trading scheme will exceed its Treaty settlement that it is right and appropriate that this Parliament in a careful calm and collected way review Labour’s emissions trading scheme and look at how indeed we can balance our environmental responsibilities with the economic practicalities.  
The terms of reference have been well-thought-out. There is no doubt there are uncertainties about the science but any scientist in this world would say there are some uncertainties. There is no doubt however that the responsible response is about practical risk-management. We must do exactly that because unfortunately the Labour Government failed to do it. This is a unique opportunity to look at it and I support this motion. I believe it is hugely important. I want to call upon all members of Parliament to support it in a thoughtful balanced and careful manner.