Tremain Chris: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — Second Reading 
Tremain Chris: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18094] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Two facts: firstly our planet has a finite level of natural resources; the second fact is that we have an exploding global population especially in Third World countries. I doubt that few people would now argue that unless we move towards a sustainable future then our Earth’s ecosystem will not be able to cope with the increasing pressures exerted by human endeavour and human progress. The arguments about how we do this will centre around how quickly we change what impact we are prepared to accept on our current standard of living and what role technology will play in that transition. There is little debate I think that we as human beings continue to take more from the environment than we replenish and that we have done so now for many many years. I am just in the middle of reading a book called  
Plan B 
 third edition written by Lester Brown. It is a fascinating take on what human activity has managed to achieve in terms of environmental degradation. 
Let me firstly focus on water because it is one of the things that we can easily compare from country to country. Africa’s Lake Chad which was once a landmark for astronauts circling the Earth is now difficult for them to locate. It is surrounded by Cameroon Chad Niger and Nigeria—all countries with fast-growing populations that are dependent on this water supply. The lake has shrunk by 96 percent in the last 40 years. The Nile now barely makes it to the sea. Before the Aswan dam was built some 32 billion cubic metres of water made it to the Mediterranean Sea each year. After the dam was completed however increasing irrigation evaporation and other demands reduced its discharge to less than 2 billion cubic metres. It went from 32 billion to 2 billion in 50 years. And it is not just a problem for Asian and African countries. The Colorado now rarely makes it to the sea and in Australia the Murray River is not much better. It is not just water that is of concern. Soils forests fisheries plants and animals air quality and the world’s fossil fuels are under pressure from human activity. 
Make no mistake New Zealand is somewhat fortunate in this respect. We have not moved to a point that is nearly as severe as many of the instances that I have quoted above. However we are no shining light. At home we now regularly hear of water shortages on the Canterbury Plains or of the degradation of Lake Ellesmere and Lake Rotorua. And in my home province of Hawke’s Bay Lake Tutira the Tukituki River and the Mohaka are regularly in the news for the wrong reasons. Algal blooms in Lake Tutira make it unswimmable partially treated sewage pumped into the Tukituki River increases the phosphorous levels beyond acceptable levels and dairy farming in the upper reaches of the Mohaka is starting to have a small impact on the water quality of that river. Despite these problems global population continues to grow thereby putting more pressure on these finite resources. Quite clearly we are living in difficult unsustainable times. 
Right at the centre of the debate around the sustainability of natural resources is the sustainability of fossil fuels and the emissions that accompany the use of them. There is an undoubted need to transition to more sustainable forms of energy. I am ever the optimist about human endeavour being able to solve many of our problems and just a few weeks ago presidential candidate John McCain announced a $300 million prize to the inventor of the next generation of battery-powered vehicles. I am extremely conscious still of the global trends that currently threaten the globe. 
I believe New Zealand is uniquely placed to transition our economy our businesses and our people into a much more sustainable position. But we must achieve this in a sustainable way where we do not drive our businesses and our people to the wall in the process. This means being extremely diligent in terms of the tools we put in place to achieve these changes. Change toward a truly sustainable environment must start locally. In my humble opinion we should first get our own house in order—our own rivers our own lakes our own fisheries—before we go preaching to the world about sustainability. For instance right now we have spent more years than are necessary to consent to a $12 million project investing in the Waipukurau sewerage scheme to provide an alternative way of treating its sewage and to look after the Tukituki River. But on the other hand we are trying to lead the world with the only all-sectors all-gases emissions trading system. 
From my point of view the Labour Government has got its priorities wrong and this is highlighted by its record on sustainability. Despite a lot of impressive-sounding rhetoric—which we have heard particularly in the last 9 months—about sustainability and carbon neutrality the current Government’s record on environmental issues is poor. Labour has presided over a chainsaw massacre of New Zealand forests—the past 4 years have seen 46000 hectares of trees being felled. For the first time since 1952 New Zealand is actually undergoing deforestation. If there is anything that would make a difference to our Kyoto Protocol obligations it is our ability to sequester carbon from the atmosphere but in this regard the current Government has totally failed. We have also seen a decrease in the proportion of renewable energy generated in New Zealand from 72 percent of total energy generated in 1999 to 66 percent in 2007. This is an abysmal result. 
Labour is also supposedly leading the way in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions. Under Labour we have seen emissions grow faster than ever before. Carbon emissions under this Government have risen by 14 percent since it has been in power—this is the 38th-worst figure out of 43 developed countries. Let me repeat that: this is the 38th-worst figure out of 43 developed countries. This result has contributed significantly to the blowout in the net emissions deficit we now face for the first Kyoto period of 2008 to 2012. 
National appreciates that carbon emissions are one of the most important environmental issues of our time. National advocates a well-designed and carefully balanced emissions trading scheme as the best tool for reducing net carbon emissions and reducing the globe’s reliance on fossil fuels. In saying this National is not supporting the current emissions trading scheme bill that is proposed here today. It is our opinion that this bill has been through a reckless and rushed select committee process. We believe that there has not been enough consultation and that the Government has refused to take the necessary time to fully consider such important legislation. 
Today with one of the most important pieces of economic legislation in the House—the highlight of the Government’s sustainability transformation policy—we have just three Ministers and very few members of the Labour Party in the Chamber. In our opinion the public— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a longstanding tradition—and it is in the Standing Orders—that members do not refer to the absences of members otherwise we would get into the ridiculous situation of starting to name everybody who is not here. Members have a large number of responsibilities outside the Chamber. Parties are required to keep a certain number of people in the complex for their vote—that will be reflected in the party vote—and I think it is just cheap to undermine parliamentarians like that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Point taken. The member is not meant to refer to the absence of particular members. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: In our opinion the public was not given adequate time to examine and make submissions on the bill nor did the Government adequately consult with other parties. Concerns over the rushed submissions have been consistently disregarded important questions about critical details of the bill were ignored and major changes were made by the Government in the middle of the select committee process without any kind of consultation. As a clear example of this more than 1000 changes to the bill were presented to the committee in the last few sitting days. The result is botched legislation that will need major amendments if it is to fulfil the goal of reducing carbon emissions at the least possible cost. It is vital to get this scheme right. The emissions trading scheme represents a fundamental economic reform and the costs of a badly thought out scheme could be huge to New Zealanders. 
As my front-benchers have outlined this evening we have six major concerns around the current legislation. First we believe the current bill will bring a huge unnecessary cost to New Zealand families and businesses. Our Kyoto obligation for the period 2008 to 2012 is to be emitting carbon at the levels we were in 1990. National has set a goal similar to that of other nations of reducing our 1990 net emission levels by 50 percent by 2050. Labour has set a much bigger and unrealistic goal to be carbon neutral. We believe that this is unrealistic.