Dunne Peter: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6876] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 The most significant events with regard to global climate change are not occurring in this Chamber despite the hot air that is being emitted this afternoon. The most significant events are actually taking place in New York with the acknowledgment from China and the United States about the commitment they have to make to resolve the consequences of human-induced climate change. It is in that context that we need to look at the adequacy of New Zealand’s response.  
We are responsible for some 0.2 percent of global emissions. We do need to play our part and we do need to respond but in my view we need to respond in proportion to our contribution to the overall problem. Around this Chamber there is a consensus that an emissions trading scheme— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: How inspiring—to sit in the middle! How inspiring! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Oh dear! There is geyser from Rotorua that is petering out still trying to erupt. Around this Chamber there is a consensus that an emissions trading scheme is the most effective way for New Zealand to respond to the challenge of human-induced climate change. There is a consensus that the science is overwhelming in respect of the problem that we need to address. When we look at the select committee’s report—and I acknowledge the members of the committee for the work they have done—we see that there was a remarkable consensus on 32 of the 34 recommendations from that committee. The points of difference are these: whether we have an intensity-based approach and the timing of the introduction of agriculture into an emissions trading scheme.  
The bill that was passed by the previous Government in 2008 provided that agriculture enter the scheme in 2013. This bill proposes 2015. Given the fact that we have had a review as part of post-election agreements I think that the very logical compromise solution which I hope the select committee will explore was that 2014 was a reasonable date for that transition to take effect. I acknowledge that the issue of intensity is a little more complicated and that the feelings around that will be more deep-seated. But I do get annoyed when I hear the argument that somehow a massive transfer of obligation and cost is taking place. That transfer is inherent in any emissions trading regime. The question is the extent and the timing.  
When we boil it down we are not talking about the most effective way for New Zealand to respond because the clear consensus in this House is for an emissions trading scheme. We are debating essentially some of the finer points of detail of that scheme. While the world is arguing about its response—and increasingly nations talk about emissions trading as the way to go—it seems somewhat banal that in this country where the broad basis of a scheme is largely accepted we are arguing on two particular points and that that argument somehow threatens to derail the whole process.  
One of the things that was clear to the select committee was that those who came before us promoting the view we might describe as akin to that of the sceptics were very much in a minority. The vast mass of the population would accept the proposition that we have to play our part and we have to make a response. The issue then is the nature of that response. The issue then is whether this bill is adequate in that sense. Given the fact that the essential differences between the two major parties are now so small and so specific I find it incredible that they have been unable to date to work out an effective compromise between them. 
Moana Mackey 
: It’s not our fault. It was Nick Smith. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It was not her fault the member says. I say to the country and to the House that if we are going to judge the success of climate change policy and New Zealand’s response by the political prejudices of particular parties we are adopting a very small-minded attitude indeed.  
The issue is actually bigger than the egos of anyone in this House and maybe the member opposite should realise that. When we are all gone the problem we have been part of causing will remain and the solutions we put in place today which may be altered from time to time will be those on which we are judged. We will not be judged on whether egos have been satisfied or whether prejudices have been met. We will be judged on the commitment that we as a Parliament are prepared to make. Given the lack of difference between parties this bill is a comprehensive and effective way forward and we should proceed to pass it.