Mackey Moana: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Mackey Moana: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:651;Page:312] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand to take a call in this debate and say that Labour will be opposing the motion. I want to go a little step further than my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson who said that the motion was an outrage. I say that it is an embarrassment for our country internationally that we are taking this huge backward step at a time when the rest of the world is moving forward. 
There is no need to move this motion under urgency. There is no need to stop the current legislation in its tracks. The only urgency we should be having is over the impact of climate change on our planet. We need only look down the east coast of both islands to see changes and to see the irrevocable damage that climate change can do. We need only look in our backyard of the Pacific to see that in countries that we as a member of the Pacific community have a responsibility to help island homes are disappearing. While those island homes are disappearing the National - ACT - Maori Party Government says: “Hang on! We’re not sure anything is actually happening. Why don’t we sit down and do a bit of navel gazing.” In the meantime climate change marches on. 
I have to say I am surprised that they got to Dr Paul Hutchison. He stood up and said straight-faced that the science on this matter was not settled simply because not every single scientist in the world agrees that human activity has caused climate change. Well we could probably go back 20 30 or 40 years and find many scientific studies that said thalidomide was absolutely no problem for women who were pregnant. As Dr Hutchison knows one needs to look at who is commissioning a lot of the work and a lot of the studies that are being done. One needs to take that into consideration. A lot of money is to be made out there discrediting climate change right now. If the members of this select committee are not aware of that if Dr Paul Hutchison who is a member of this committee is telling me that it is not something he is aware of then I am afraid that the work of this committee will not be particularly productive. 
I say that advisedly because although I completely disagree that a group of politicians here in New Zealand will somehow be able to overturn the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change I do believe that all the members on this committee are honourable members and I do believe that they intend to work hard. Although I think we disagree on whether the terms of reference are appropriate and although I think we disagree on what needs to be done I am sure that all members will work hard to improve the current legislation. 
However during the election campaign we were told by the National Party that it had a plan that it knew what changes needed to be made and that it knew what it was going to do. It gave us its six-point plan but as we come past the election we realise that National had no idea. Where are the amendments to the current legislation that National talked about before the election campaign? The members of this committee the members of the House the media and New Zealand need to see them. Why is the committee not discussing the specific changes to the emissions trading scheme that the current Government—which is perfectly within its rights to review the scheme—wants? Labour members have no problem with a select committee looking at the emissions trading scheme asking whether we got it right and saying what needs to be changed. But that is not what these terms of reference do. These terms of reference bog down this Parliament in a select committee process that I am absolutely sure is intended to take us past the next election while we do nothing on climate change. It is a delay tactic and that is absolutely all it is. This House should be ashamed that this motion has come before us at all let alone under urgency. 
As I have said the fact that we are in urgency is ironic given that the only urgency is for our agricultural sector to ensure that farmers are still able to farm in the future; for future generations of New Zealanders; and for our Pacific neighbours. Apparently what the National - ACT - Maori Party Government thinks is urgent is that we stop this debate in its tracks we stop the legislation in its tracks and we go backwards while the rest of the world is going forward. 
Mr Rodney Hide gave an interesting contribution. He talked about what a great Government this is and what a great Prime Minister John Key is because it was easy for him to negotiate with him. Of course it was. That was what John Key wanted to do all along. He wanted ACT to be there demanding that the emissions trading scheme be slowed down and stopped because that is what he wants to happen. We had all the nice fancy words in the campaign. He went from saying in 2005 that he was suspicious of climate change and that the Kyoto Protocol was a hoax to telling us once he became the Leader of the Opposition that he had always believed in climate change. The only thing we can draw from Mr Hide’s admission that it was easy to get this concession out of the National Government is that it was what Mr Key wanted to do all along. And he got what he wanted. 
The other thing Mr Hide made clear is that a potential outcome of this committee will be our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. He said that. He said that we may find that we do not want to be in it. I will be interested to hear what Dr Paul Hutchison thinks about that. He can sit there and mouth my name to me quietly but that is what Mr Hide said. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Very mischievous. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh very misleading? Well Mr Rodney Hide clearly articulated that one of the outcomes of this select committee might be that we do not feel the need to be in the Kyoto Protocol. Is that not interesting? That is a dangerous dangerous position for us to be taking for many many reasons. 
We do not need to be rushing this measure through in urgency. We have all of next year before any other sector comes into the emissions trading scheme. We could keep the current legislation in place and clearly signal what changes might happen and what shape they might take—they do not need to be specific. We could give some security to our foresters and to those who are already engaging in carbon trading. We could let them feel that the investments they have already made in their businesses are secure without completely undermining everything they have done. Jobs and investment are going offshore to other countries and it does not need to happen; $400 million worth of forestry investment has gone and some of it will never come back even if the outcome of the committee’s consideration is a decision that the status quo should prevail. This motion comes on the back of the axing of the research and development tax credit this morning which will see even more jobs and innovation go overseas. One has to wonder what this Government is trying to do to this country. Is it trying to get our emissions down by stifling economic growth to such a level that our emissions reduce because of it? The only thing I can take out of this is that that is its overall plan. 
This move has huge implications for trade—huge implications. We rely on our clean green image for tourism for trade and for many things. Does anyone think it is a coincidence that right after National does a huge environmental flip-flop a complete backtracking we see an impost being put on us in the United Kingdom? Does anyone think that was a coincidence of timing? This committee is opening us up to huge criticism. We have to be far purer on these issues than most other countries because of where we are and because of who we are. This kind of backtracking is damaging to trade and damaging to our businesses at the very time when we need to be extra careful because of the global financial crisis. 
We should not be surprised. National in Opposition voted against every single environmental issue that came before this House. It always managed to find an excuse. But this motion is an international embarrassment. It is embarrassing for our country because this select committee will review the science of climate change; the Government may have changed the words but it will do that. Rodney Hide acknowledged that by nodding when we put it to him. He got everything he wanted. This committee will review whether climate change is actually happening. New Zealand will be seen as a country that is in denial on this issue and that will be to the detriment of our economy at a time when our climate cannot afford it at a time when our economy cannot afford it and at a time when our businesses cannot afford it. This motion is an absolute outrage and Labour will be opposing it.