Foss Craig: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Foss Craig: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18617] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 First let me acknowledge the officials. It has been hard work going through the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill with all its various changes. The officials have been sitting in the Chamber until late every day and I appreciate what they have been doing. 
Huge thanks must go to the members of the public who submitted on the first version of this bill. They did a very good job. The members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee travelled up and down the country to listen to them. There were very considered and in-depth analyses all over the place. But those people are due an apology from this Parliament because the bill that they submitted on is awfully different from the one we have before us now. They submitted on the bill before a thousand amendments were made to it just before it arrived in the House and as my colleague Shane Ardern who spoke earlier said there are 785 amendments before the Committee. 
Why is this legislation being rushed through the House right now? Why is it being rushed through before our competitors have introduced similar legislation? Why is New Zealand taking the bleeding edge on the emissions trading system? There is acknowledgment out there of climate change so why is this Government trying to push the bill through with a majority of fewer than two or three votes? The Green Party is not 100 percent happy with what we have here yet it is still voting for it. Many parties on the other side of the Chamber are very unsure about this emissions trading scheme yet they are still voting for it. Why put the issue at risk? If those who want to remedy the problem of climate change want the process to have any integrity whatsoever surely they want the bills that are passed by this Parliament to have integrity by way of cross-party support across this House rather than their being passed with a majority of just two or three votes and just before an election. To sneak such legislation through the House before an election is an incredible admission of defeat on the part of those who are pushing it through. It is an incredible admission that they do not expect to be here in a few months’ time to do further work on this legislation. The bill in its current form should go back to the select committee given that 1785 amendments are being made to it after people had submitted on it after they had spent so much time and resource on it. 
It was announced that one of the parties supporting the bill had received in return a one-off payment of $150 for each household to be delivered apparently via Working for Families to compensate for the increased energy charges. From the way that the bill is written yes every household will get a one-off payment but the increased charges will be there forever. The cost of being in New Zealand and the cost of doing business in New Zealand will be higher than the same kinds of costs of our competitors. Our costs will be higher than the same kinds of costs in the places where 80000 New Zealanders move every year. Our costs will be higher than the same kinds of costs are where 45000 New Zealanders move every year—Australia. Why are we taking the lead ahead of those countries? We cannot afford to do so. 
If this bill and what comes out of it do not have integrity they will fail. New Zealand will end up paying twice because the rest of the world is moving at a different pace from us and we will end up having to adopt what they design what they do and what their time frames are rather than our doing what the current administration thinks is gold-plated. It is not gold-plated. Nothing from this House can be gold-plated unless it has cross-party support. Climate change is bigger than one two or three parties in this Parliament. Sustainability is bigger than a few parties in this Parliament. It affects all of us. It affects our generation the next generation and the next generation after that. For what people say on the hustings about climate change and emissions trading to have any integrity this bill must go back to the select committee to have further work done to it. 
I challenge Labour members on the other side of the Chamber. I notice that the Minister in the chair the Hon Pete Hodgson was in Hawke’s Bay the other day. I challenge him to go to the processing plants in Hawke’s Bay where 2000 jobs are projected to be lost and tell those people where the replacement jobs are. You should front up and tell them. Where is the engineers union on this issue? It is forecast that 22000 to 50000 jobs across the country will be lost because of the bill being in the form that it is now in. You should front up to the door front up at smoko and tell those people where those jobs will come from. I challenge members on the other side of the Chamber who are voting for this bill to do that. 
I tell you what: at the very least it is—to put it kindly—misleading to not say upfront what the solutions are and where new jobs will be found to replace the jobs that will be lost. Those people’s livelihoods come from our agricultural-based economy and you are putting them at risk. You are putting Fonterra at risk. You get up and talk about Fonterra yet you are signing up to and voting for a bill that will cost it $30 million right now. The officials acknowledge that. How can you stand up and do that? The bill should be sent back to the select committee.