Parker David: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4553] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. I think it behoves me to record a little bit of the history of why we have got to where we are. You know there has been ongoing debate round the world for a couple of decades now as to whether climate change is real. We in the Labour Government supported by the Greens made up our minds some time ago that there was enough compelling evidence to require us as policymakers to no longer sit on the fence but to actually do something to reduce emissions. Scientists are telling us that unless we do something to reduce emissions the future of our world is pretty dire. The consequences are not just modest changes to the way we live; they are dramatic and catastrophic changes for many species. They include the mass extinction of plants of animals and of aquatic communities as a consequence of the changing acidification of the oceans; changes in the places where food can be grown; and the increasing desertification of parts of Africa Asia including food-producing parts of China and of course closer to home Australia. 
In addition a number of people will be made homeless by rising sea levels. I do not know whether members have ever seen photos of the capital of the Maldives which sits on an island just 1 metre above sea level. The whole capital city of high-rise buildings would be wiped out by a 1 metre rise in the sea level. Thirty million people in Bangladesh would have to move if the sea level rose by 1 metre. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: I was there 20 years ago and it was like that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I say to Sir Roger that since World War II more people have died as a consequence of flooding of Bangladesh at current sea levels than as a consequence of the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan. Thirty million people on the move in Bangladesh would have very real consequences. It could cause war it could cause civil conflict throughout Asia and it could well have knock-on effects through our own region. These are very very serious consequences. 
It is easy to talk about these issues then do nothing about them. In this country we have had a long debate on how we should get the right economic signals into our economy in order to reduce emissions. We have to encourage businesses to go in the right direction rather than increase their emissions. New Zealand has an obligation under the UN agreement the Kyoto Protocol to take financial responsibility for emissions above 1990 levels. That already costs our country. How do we improve the environment by reducing emissions and also minimise the costs of the bill under that international treaty? Well a central part of doing that is the pricing of emissions. 
There are three ways that we can price emissions. We can force a cost upon people through regulatory action—try to regulate every little area where emissions occur. That is quite an inefficient way to do it but it is better than doing nothing. Alternatively we can price emissions in one of two ways: we can have a carbon tax which is what the Labour Government supported by the Greens originally proposed or we can proceed with an emissions trading scheme. In reality those instruments are not very different; they both cause industry to pay for the cost of increases in emissions and they both reward it for any conduct that reduces its emissions. They change behaviour by changing prices. Sir Roger Douglas is always saying to Parliament that we should price things in order for people to value them not to waste them and not to do the wrong thing. There is something in that argument especially around the environment. If we do not price environmental externalities into the commercial contract they are largely ignored by those who are making the commercial decision. Therefore they build another gas-fired power station rather than a renewable power station and they increase emissions. 
What happens with emissions pricing is that throughout the economy we are changing the relative price of goods and services to make low emissions goods cheaper and higher emissions goods more expensive. It is as simple as that; it really is that simple. At the margin someone buys a wooden ladder because it is relatively cheaper than an aluminium ladder. Conversely somewhere else in the economy it becomes cheaper to run an aluminium car because it is lighter than a steel car which is heavier and uses more fuel. All of those little changes of behaviour make a difference and the world’s emissions go down instead of up. It is not the only thing that needs to be done but it is a very important thing to do. 
We already have legislation in New Zealand to that effect. We have the emissions trading Act which is already in law. After a number of false starts on the carbon tax and very very difficult politics around the emissions trading scheme Parliament finally passed legislation last year that is essentially sound. No doubt there are line calls in it where the National Government might have a different view from the Green Party which might have a different view from the Labour Party but essentially it is sound legislation. 
The National Government came to power with a promise to change it. It said it was not going to delay things; it was going to be a quick change. Well history already shows that that was wrong; the select committee process continues and here we are now with legislation delaying the implementation of the emissions trading scheme in the forestry sector. We in Labour want to if possible reach consensus with National on this without sacrificing our bottom line principles as to what is needed for an effective scheme but it saddens us that we have to delay some of these dates and that cannot go without comment. On the positive side I thank the Minister for Climate Change Issues for agreeing to the amendments suggested by Charles Chauvel. Rather than leaving open what the future dates are he is specifying an end date. With that amendment we can support this legislation as we try to find common ground—if we are able to—with National on amendments to the scheme that will not change its fundamental efficacy but might make it more durable for the future. No doubt there are some things that can be done better; everything can be second-guessed. 
One point I would also make is that during the debate on the primary legislation—the emissions trading scheme legislation—we had National members saying it was rushed legislation it was shonky legislation and lots of technical amendments were required. Well I have the original Act here. It is 224 pages long; it is long and technical legislation on which the select committee officials the Government and support parties laboured long and hard. The technical amendments to the existing legislation—the 224 pages of the original legislation—that the Government has so far identified are in Part 2 of this bill under the title “Miscellaneous technical amendments”. How long do members think those amendments are? They are less than a page long; they comprise clauses 8 9 10 and 11. The legislation is already in good shape. It was not fundamentally flawed as the Opposition in the last Parliament pretended it was and it remains a very good starting point for the debate that we are now having. 
I cannot say it is with pleasure that Labour members consider this amendment bill but I do think that some progress has been made towards finding consensus. I think it is nonsense when people say New Zealand is leading the world in its response to emissions management. We are not. A lot of countries are doing better than us. We have turned the corner on renewable electricity. Last quarter we had 74 percent renewable electricity. That is the highest percentage of renewables that we have had for about a decade. We have turned the corner with more wind and geothermal generation being built. We do not need much more hydro generation but wind and geothermal generation will push the percentage climb towards the target set by the previous Government of 90 percent renewable energy by 2025. 
We have also made progress on public transport. It saddens me to see that under the current Government we are starting to go back with the reprioritisation of roads away from public transport. None the less we are still in a better position than we were previously. There is some unfinished business with complementary measures and I urge the Minister to look at the issue of efficiency rules for cars coming into the country. Once a car comes into the country it is used till the end of its useful life. It is a valuable commodity and someone will run it. If an inefficient vehicle is brought into the country it not only costs the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions but it causes the country a cost in respect of wasted energy. It is an area where I think the Treasury modelling is flawed. It focuses only on the cost of emissions and does not look at the efficiency benefits for the economy of an improved more efficient fleet. It is an area where New Zealand could improve its own wealth by reducing waste on its roads whilst at the same times reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. 
In agriculture some good work is being done but there needs to be more work. Most members on both sides of the House agree that science will play an important part but a change in mindset amongst many in the agricultural community is needed to implement change in their practices in order to minimise their emissions. The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008 is a good foundation.