Mackey Moana: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mackey Moana: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4561] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to stand and take a call on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. First of all I thank the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Dr Nick Smith for his engagement with other parties on this legislation. Certainly all members of this House see some benefit in as many parties as possible coming together to find a solution to climate change and ultimately to support an emissions trading scheme that is environmentally credible and has the support of as many parties as possible. That is needed to ensure its longevity and provide certainty for those sectors that at the moment are finding themselves in a very uncertain position. It is from that perspective that Labour will support this bill’s referral to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee this week. Of course we have indicated that we will seek to make changes to the bill and the Minister has already indicated that he is happy to accept them and we appreciate that engagement with him as well. 
It has been really interesting to listen to the debate on a number of issues raised in speeches on this bill tonight because many of them do not have anything to do with this particular bill. This is a relatively technical bill that extends deadlines ensures the Crown is not deemed to be liable and ensures the forestry sector knows where it stands. In that regard it is technical legislation but it has been interesting to listen to the speeches and hear about the issues that are coming up. Members wish to raise those issues even though they are not covered by this bill. We assume they will be covered by a much larger and more substantial bill to amend the emissions trading scheme. As a member of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee I can assure members that in respect of the issues that have been raised in speeches—with the exception of Mr Hide’s perhaps although not entirely—the committee has not really been interested in reviewing the science of climate change at all. We decided that that issue should be put aside that the debate has been had on it and that we need to get on with designing the best scheme possible. 
I want to talk about the delay in the emissions trading scheme because that is really why we are here to pass this bill. It is a technical bill and we accept it provided that we have the changes we want to see in it. This bill has come about because of a delay in the emissions trading scheme and Labour has been very critical of that delay in the process. Although I think it would be fair to say the Labour members have been engaging really constructively with other members at the select committee and working very hard to try to tease out some of the issues that has not been easy. A lot of the submissions that we heard were the same submissions we heard last year; they concentrated more on the legislation rather than the terms of reference that were before the select committee. It is not always easy to guide submitters towards the terms of reference when they want to talk about the legislation that they know and that they spoke about the year before. It has been interesting to try to get broad overview opinions on all the issues when people wanted to talk about this section and that section about taking a bit out of the legislation and about their wish to be exempted because they say they are completely different cases from those intended to be included and can make arguments for that. The committee has worked in very good faith to do that work because we decided that rather than play politics on an issue that is so important to our country our economy and our environment we want to be part of finding the solution. Although some element of politics is always inevitable in such situations we certainly do not want to be obstructive during that process. 
It is interesting to note some of the reasons that we have been going through the delay. One of the reasons is that we have been looking at harmonisation with Australia. The Australians are going through their own process now with their own version of an emissions trading scheme. But tonight we have heard that whereas on 4 June the House of Representatives passed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme which is the Australian version of our emissions trading scheme within the last few hours the Upper House in Australia has voted to suspend all further consideration of that scheme until 11 August. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Great! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I thought Mr Hide would be very happy about that. The Upper House has demanded that the Australian Government remodel the scheme and the Minister for Climate Change and Water in Australia has come out and said that will not happen. We are seeing an impasse on the Australian scheme and it will be interesting to see who blinks first or whether we are looking at some kind of double dissolution of the Australian Parliament. I am sure the Minister for Climate Change Issues will be watching the situation very carefully. 
The situation in Australia shows the reason why we need to set our own timetable for our emissions trading scheme. Although a level of harmonisation will always be desirable where it is possible New Zealand really cannot wait for the Parliaments of other countries to decide on their path before we move ahead on ours. It has to be in our best interest and Labour does not believe that it is in our best interest to delay the emissions trading scheme further and further. We want to see changes happen and we want to see them happen as soon as is practicable. Although we did not vote for the special select committee process we wanted to engage with it at that level and be constructive. I think we feel we would like to get on and do something. 
Part of the reason why we have to change the time frames today is that the Government did not suspend the existing emissions trading scheme passed by the previous Labour Government. That scheme is still in place; it is still active. I am sure all parties in this House want to be able to give all the industries that are due to come into that scheme including forestry which is already in the scheme and is looking for sectors it can trade its credits with as much certainty as possible. We want to be able to tell industries as soon as possible the time frames they will have to work to. Already some of those time frames have shifted. I am sure the Minister will make a statement about what has happened in Australia. Labour and the members of the select committee will be interested in knowing exactly what it means for our emissions trading scheme in light of the Minister’s strong desire for as much harmonisation with Australia as possible. As I have said that is not undesirable but given what has happened tonight obviously we cannot control it. As much as I would like to be able to blame the Minister for what has happened in Australia tonight I am not going to do that—I cannot do that. But we need to know exactly what it means in terms of the process here in New Zealand. 
I want to pick up on a couple of things that the previous speaker said. We very much look forward to getting a bit more information about the greenhouse gas centre of research excellence—I think that is its name—and about what exactly it means and how it will work because at the moment we are not quite sure. I know it will be a virtual centre rather than an actual physical one in a building somewhere. But given that our Crown research institutes already work very well together and we are seeing that on this cause I think some more detail around whether it will be like one of the centres of research excellence that have already been set up would be extremely helpful. 
Nicky Wagner gave a really nice speech. It was a very nice speech but I say sometimes the rhetoric just does not live up to the reality. National MPs can give lots of really nice speeches that say really good things but at the end of the day they have to deliver. Although a lot of what she said was true the fact is that it is very difficult for her to get up and talk about the importance of innovation and of science and research in this area given what happened in the recent Budget. I do not say that in order to be deliberately negative; I just say I was astounded that she actually made those points given the canning of the research and development tax credits—the fact is that other countries around the world are bolstering their research and development tax credits but we entirely got rid of ours—and given the fact that despite all the spin around the replacement for the Fast Forward fund it is a poor poor cousin to what Labour had put in place. It is significantly less money for a start. 
But as I have said time and time again what is more important than the amount is that the Budget took away stable funding. The Minister of Research Science and Technology still does not get just how important that is. Researchers have to go cap in hand to the Government every year for an appropriation not knowing from year to year whether that money will continue. We were promised tax cuts and now they have gone. We had tax cuts in last year’s Budget and now they have gone. Who knows whether the money for phases two and three of the replacement for the Fast Forward fund will be there? Again that was going to be an important factor for our pastoral and food research areas. 
All I would say to the National members is that they should all get a copy of Nicky Wagner’s speech pin it up on their noticeboards and then try to live up to it. I think if the National members lived up to the rhetoric that was in that speech then our environment and economy would be in a much better state. But unfortunately at the moment we are not there. As I said the select committee is working very hard— 
Chris Tremain 
: Moana what about the rhetoric over the last 9 years? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I can tell Mr Tremain that we actually delivered a research and development tax credit and the Fast Forward fund. We put in place the emissions trading scheme—[ 
Interruption 
] I was going so well. I was being very nice and conciliatory then I got to about 9 minutes and 30 seconds and it all fell apart.