Parker David: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7983. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I would note for listeners that I have been seeking a call for 4 hours. The Minister in the chair the Minister for Climate Change Issues has been making accusations that I will not explain the difference between subsidy and transitional assistance. I am grateful for the call in order to be able to respond to some of the issues that have been raised. 
For a start I shall respond to something that Dr Paul Hutchison said last night. He used the example of Hunua and said there are two major sources of employment up there that are affected by emissions pricing: greenhouses that use fossil fuels for heating and the steelworks. There are two points to be made there. Firstly in respect of greenhouses the conversion of their fuel source for heat from coal to renewables is happening. I have had reports recently that woodchip boilers are now close to economic and they are made economic in comparison with coal by this legislation as it stands. Secondly in respect of the steelworks it is interesting that in terms of the ridiculous rate of free allocation the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union which represents most of those steelworkers told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that it was not impressed by the huge subsidy extending out for many years in respect of free allocation for industry because the union knew that it would be to the cost of other members it represents in other parts of the economy. 
While Dr Nick Smith is temporarily engaged elsewhere I will flick quickly to the Treaty of Waitangi issues. Firstly the process around the Treaty of Waitangi clause was terrible. It did not go before the select committee. We have not had enough time to consider it properly. So far as I have been able to gauge from reading it now it looks quite a well-drafted clause. It is likely that Labour will support that amendment. I feel a little bit at risk in doing that because I have not had the benefit of the normal checks and balances of the select committee process in order to ensure that my understanding of it is correct and that I am not making a mistake. None the less we will probably take that risk. 
What we do not approve of is the special deal for some landowners of pre-1990 forests. That is an unprincipled decision. There was no withholding of information by the Crown and there is no justification for the special deal that has been done in respect of those assets. It breaches the full and final settlement Treaty principle. 
Paul Quinn 
: You did the same deal. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We did not I say to Mr Quinn. That is just nonsense. That is not correct. 
I refer members to an amendment that I have prepared on the Treaty issue. It inserts a new section 226 which states: “No additional compensation will be accorded to any pre-1990 forest landowner on the basis that the land was transferred to the owner under a Treaty settlement unless it is proven that the Crown made misrepresentations or withheld material information about emissions pricing at the time of settlement.” So if there was misrepresentation or withholding of material information then yes there should be recompense but if there was not there should not be. I encourage all members of the Committee to vote for that amendment because if as Dr Smith says there was misrepresentation or withholding of information then those landowners can get additional compensation; if they cannot get it then they are in the same position as any other landowner in just the same way as everyone is subject to the Income Tax Act the Resource Management Act and now the emissions trading legislation. That is as it should be. We have not for example taken back the windfall gains that come from advantages that were not thought of at the time when the settlement was agreed such as the advantages that accrue from the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement. 
I will just respond briefly on the issue of electricity emissions. We heard Dr Smith saying that giving a discount to major emitters in the electricity field saves consumers money. Well that is a moot point. That is not clear. The reality is that electricity is heavily influenced by the cost of new generation and the cost of new generation does not change with that sweetheart deal for the electricity emitters. So I have an amendment to deal with that. It inserts a new section 222C(4) which states: “That before the 2 for 1 emissions discount for electricity emissions is allowed the emitter must prove”— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I call the next speaker. 
Hon David Parker 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No the member has had two consecutive calls. 
Hon David Parker 
: No I have not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have very exact records.