Ardern Jacinda: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7949. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am quite happy and pleased to follow on from the previous Government speaker Paul Hutchison and point out that he used two quite contradictory statements in his message to the Committee. On the one hand he had the audacity to refer to the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill and the idea of environmental responsibility in the same breath. On the other hand he said that the presence of Charles Chauvel at the talks in Copenhagen would undermine the Government’s position on its emissions trading scheme. That suggestion is ludicrous. If anything would undermine the Government’s position it is the bill itself and the attempt it makes to address our environmental responsibilities as set out under the Kyoto Protocol. 
In the same way Craig Foss tried to say that we would potentially expose New Zealand industry if we did not get this scheme right. To a certain extent I accept that that is true but I do not think that the Government in pulling together this legislation has taken seriously enough the other requirements that were put upon the Government to address our environmental obligations. In fact this shambles has left New Zealand exposed as a whole—in particular our reputation is exposed. That has been a cumulative process. I do not lay responsibility for our reputation solely at the feet of the Government or of the Minister for Climate Change Issues and I do not say that our reputation has been undermined solely by this legislation. In fact it began as soon as the Government was elected. In its first 100 days we saw not only its about-face on Labour’s emissions trading scheme but also the lifting of the moratorium on the production of any new coal-fired power stations and the removal of renewable preferences that the previous Labour Government had put in place. We saw the scrapping of Labour’s Biofuel Bill. That caused a loss of jobs that would have been generated in Waharoa yet this Government claims to be all about generating jobs. Finally we saw the removal of Labour’s emissions trading scheme. I hear Government members claiming their emissions trading scheme was the mandate that National was elected on. I would like to hear how many young people the National Party told that this bill was the one National would be presenting and that it would be the landmark legislation on New Zealand’s response to climate change. I suggest that the Government has no mandate for this legislation from the next generation of voters. 
But it does not stop there; it is not just about legislation. The next battle to come is the Government’s review of the Crown Minerals Act and its complete opening up of schedule 4. But that is a debate for another day. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: And the petroleum strategy. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: And there is the petroleum strategy as my colleague rightly points out. 
All of that would be fine and good if the impact was isolated to the Government alone and if this shambles reflected just on Cabinet but it is not. The impact of this bill which is primarily set out in Part 1 will affect two key areas. The first is New Zealand households and Kiwi families whom this Government claims to protect via this legislation. The second is ultimately the environment. In every point that I have looked at the legislation comes out on the negative on those two key areas. 
Let me break it down for members. We have heard a lot of debate about whether we trust the figure of $110 billion that we estimate this bill will cost. If we translate that into a percentage of GDP we are looking at 15 to 17 percent of GDP by 2050. This is a crucial point of differentiation between Labour’s scheme and National’s scheme. Ultimately Kiwis will pay. Kiwi households will pay and Kiwi families will pay and they will be subsidising heavy polluters because of a lack of a cap and because of the ongoing subsidisation of those heavy polluters. Those are key points of differentiation between the two schemes. Does any of that matter? If we are ticking the boxes that were apparently set out for us as part of our obligations does any of that matter? I think it is a very cynical view that says that the idea of our overall emissions and our overall contribution to climate change does not matter. Well it does. This is not just about ticking boxes. 
We have had clear indications not only from the New Zealand Labour Party but also from the Greens that this scheme creates no incentive for polluters to reduce their emissions. In fact the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development stated: “Overall this proposed policy appears to greatly reduce incentives to heavy emitters to reduce emissions increase costs of subsidies to them slows down the timetable for reducing emissions and allows them to be increased in the meantime by allowing production to rise (at a set carbon content per unit) without any clear cap on this.” Again that is a key point of difference. “The more production rises the more the taxpayer must step in to pay for the additional emissions.” Where is the incentive? Not only that but where is the signal that New Zealand is taking its obligations seriously and not merely ticking the boxes? Those boxes are expensive and ultimately they will come back to haunt us. 
Who exactly will they come back to haunt? This point has been mentioned briefly. Who exactly will the 15 to 17 percent of GDP that we are talking about by 2050 fall on? In 2050 who exactly will pay the 55 percent of emissions from high-emissions-intensive industries that the Government will be subsiding and the 37 percent from medium-emissions-intensive industries that the Government will be subsiding? Ultimately it will not be Mr Foss and it will not be Dr Nick Smith. In fact it will not be any of us in this House. I am the youngest member of this Parliament and in 2050 I will be 70 years of age. I most certainly will not be here. I will not be here but our country will still be paying the bill. The tab will be picked up not by us but by our children and our grandchildren. 
Amy Adams 
: You’ve got children have you? How old are your children? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I am quite willing to make a hypothetical point because to me the fact that I am not a parent does not mean that I will neglect the responsibility that this House has to the generations who are not here yet. Members on the other side of the Chamber may trivialise that point but I challenge them to go out and talk to the younger people who will come through and who will one day be their constituents. They will surpass them one day but they will ultimately pick up the tab that those members are leaving. This system is not a user-pays system; it is a vote now pay later system. It is cynical. The fact that I am willing to take into account those who are not voting yet does not mean that the argument is any less valid.