Mackey Moana: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8045. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the title and commencement clauses of this terrible Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill. 
That was an extraordinary contribution from Rahui Katene. I thought that the contribution from John Boscawen was very fair; indeed she did vote with Labour at the Finance and Expenditure Committee to ensure that all submitters could be heard. I really appreciated that support and I know that the submitters did and I think that comment was only fair. John Boscawen left out the Greens of course who also supported that motion. But suddenly Rahui Katene was pulled into line by the Government which realised that she might also allow us an extension of time so that we could consider the bill properly. She was told that she could not vote with the Labour Party any more. She even said to us that the Maori Party would be voting with National all the way through to the end before the committee had considered the rest of the bill. 
I have been thinking about what other names we could have for this legislation. I think we could call it the “Climate Change Response (Money-Go-Round Rob Peter to Pay Paul) Amendment Bill” because the Minister in the chair—the Minister for Climate Change Issues—and other National members are very fond of going on and on about how they will halve the cost to households of this legislation. What Dr Nick Smith does not say is that the reason they are doing that is to allow companies dealing with liquid fossil fuels—the petrol companies and the power companies—to retire only half the emissions units that they would otherwise have to retire in terms of the emissions that they put out. That means that the taxpayer picks up the rest. On the one hand the Minister is telling us that taxpayers should be grateful for the fact that they may not have to pay I think $165 a year but on the other hand who will have to pay for the difference? It is the taxpayer. Well I think that is what we would call Tory charity—take with one hand and give with the other. That is exactly what is happening. It is a money-go-round. 
Within that there is absolutely no mention of the $110 billion liability that is being put on future taxpayers. National members conveniently leave that bit out. When they talk about the cost to consumers they conveniently leave out the fact that New Zealand taxpayers under this amendment bill—which is supported by the Maori Party—will now have to come up with $110 billion so that our big polluters can keep on polluting. Grassroots Maori who have absolutely no influence on the way that Rio Tinto controls and handles its emissions will have to pay for those emissions and Rahui Katene says that is OK. Grassroots Maori families have absolutely no control over the way that all the big emitters in this country control their emissions—because they cannot make big companies like Rio Tinto reduce their emissions—but they will have to pay for it. The Minister thinks that is fair and Rahui Katene thinks that is fair. 
Labour has always accepted that there would be a transition period and has always accepted that there would be free allocation for many of the same reasons that the Minister has given. But for the Minister to try to claim that what Labour wanted to do and what National wants to do are the same is incredibly misleading. Labour wanted to transition New Zealand to a low-carbon economy and we were looking at complementary measures that would assist that. We wanted to have an emissions trading scheme that would reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to one that would give incentives to increase greenhouse gas emissions as long as the emission of greenhouse gases per unit of production remains the same. And the Maori Party says that is OK. 
The Minister also likes to go on about alignment with Australia. He gets really angry with my colleague Charles Chauvel whenever he tries to claim that there is no Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme law in Australia which there is not. There is no Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme law in Australia. Maybe we could call this legislation the “Climate Change Response (Alignment with Unicorns Leprechauns and Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Law) Amendment Bill” given that those three things do not exist. The Minister has been getting very tetchy whenever my colleague raises the possibility that we may be aligning our scheme with a scheme that may never happen. 
I thought this bill was a terrible bill but I did not think that it was so bad that the Hon Nick Smith could almost bring down the leader of the Liberal Party in Australia; it appears that this bill is as bad as that. It appears that Malcolm Turnbull the Liberal Party leader and Leader of the Opposition in Australia may be rolled at some point this week. 
Minister Nick Smith has been getting very upset with my colleague when he has said that there is no Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme law in Australia but the Minister has not explained why we are aligning our scheme with Australia’s. For example why are we insisting that agriculture face the same kind of regime as industrial processes in Australia? Why are we aligning with a scheme that does not include agriculture when our scheme does? Agriculture contributes 50 percent of our emissions and only 15 percent of Australia’s and agriculture will not be included in the Australian scheme. Why are we aligning our scheme with that scheme when we do not know when it will come in—if indeed it ever does come in? It is changing by the day. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because we promised we would. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: A lot has changed since the election I say to the Minister. The Minister has done many things and his Government has done many things since the election and they have claimed that is because things have changed. This week we have already seen the Labor Government in Australia making a lot of concessions and a lot of compromises trying to get cross-party support from the Liberal Party. It has been a changeable feast. Our Government will blindly align our scheme with that scheme when we do not even know what will be in it if it exists at all. I think the Minister would have done very well in the Committee stage of this debate to accept the amendment from my colleague Charles Chauvel that removed that requirement. The Minister still could have been working towards alignment and still could have been doing all the work that I know he is currently doing with the Australian Government over alignment. I ask why we are setting ourselves up like that or is the Government opposing the amendment just because the Labour Party put it forward? 
I will also respond to something else that the Minister said earlier when he spoke before the lunch break and question time. I think we could also call this bill the “Climate Change Response (Hon Dr Nick Smith Walked Away from Negotiating with Labour Because He Did Not Want Phil Goff to Get Any Credit) Amendment Bill”. Let us be quite clear: when we were in negotiations with the Minister he told the Labour members who were in that room that some people on the ninth floor of the Beehive thought that the negotiations with Labour were a mistake because they might give Phil Goff the boost that the section 59 negotiations had given John Key. He told us that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not true. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The Minister told us that. That was exactly what he told us. The fact is we knew that that was a reality for the National Government and we accepted that but we thought that cross-party agreement was very important in this area. Remember that just about every submitter from the business sector who came to the select committee said that what they wanted was certainty. What they did not want was a scheme that would go backwards and forwards between National and Labour with both parties putting forward their versions while in Government and creating enormous uncertainty. We agreed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Well stop playing politics. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh please! The Minister stood up in this House and misrepresented what Labour members said in those negotiations. He asked why we had agreed to things in our negotiations when we do not agree with them now. He does not understand that we were there to reach a compromise with the Government. We were there. We appreciated that we had not won the election that the Government has a mandate to make changes and that we would not be able to get our way on everything. That was why we were prepared to compromise even if it was on things that we would not do if we were in Government. We thought those negotiations were going very well we thought we had a real chance of getting a durable emissions trading scheme and the Hon Dr Nick Smith walked away from it. He walked away from it. He said that we should have just known that he was dealing with the Maori Party. Well that is fine. I ask the Minister to answer me this question: why did he not pick up the phone and tell Charles Chauvel— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because he would’ve leaked it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —no the Minister should listen—that he was walking into a room now to announce that National had done a deal with the Maori Party? He could have talked on the phone then walked straight into the room and made the announcement. Why did he not do that? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because he would’ve leaked it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The Minister says that Charles Chauvel would have leaked it in the 5 seconds between the Minister telling the Labour Party and the Minister making the announcement. Labour members believed that they were in a good position with the National Government and that they were making progress. We had had a great meeting the week before. We had sent through a document for the Minister to respond to with a proposed summary of the issues—where we should go from here what information we wanted from officials and what we wanted to see from officials before we were able to commit—and then we found out through the media that the Minister had done a deal with another party. And he says that we acted in bad faith. 
Paul Quinn 
: Yeah that’s what happens when you have a Dutch auction. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I know that Paul Quinn is the master of absolutely everything but he was not in that room. Mr Quinn was not in that negotiations room. [ 
Interruption 
] No he was not. 
Paul Quinn 
: I didn’t need to be. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: He did not need to be because the facts do not matter to Paul Quinn. But the fact is that we were very very close to getting a durable agreement and the Minister walked away.