Hague Kevin: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — Second Reading 
Hague Kevin: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7603] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a short call to outline a few points behind the Green Party’s decision to support the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill at its second reading as we did at its first reading. 
First of all I state that the Green Party shares absolutely Labour’s critique of the Government’s climate change policies but we note that the regulatory framework that this bill sets up will be necessary for the development of a viable emissions trading scheme and carbon trading market in the future. Who knows? Possibly even the groundswell of public opinion and indeed the international opprobrium that the Government will encounter in Copenhagen may be sufficient to change this Government’s policies on climate change and we may find the regulatory framework to be of use sooner than we thought. 
In general I will make about four points. The first is that it is important that New Zealand’s regulation of settlements is brought up to date and is in line with world best practice. The Green Party supports the bill from that perspective. Secondly the bill goes a long way towards clarifying how settlements are made and the mechanisms for resolving issues when disputes arise. That is very important in order to avoid unnecessary litigation and it will give participants a lot more certainty on how they manage their risk. Thirdly clarifying who carries the risk at what stage of a transaction is vital if our stock market is to function competitively. We support the bill for that reason also. There is inherent risk in the Reserve Bank being both a regulator and a participant. The Commerce Committee has made some adjustments and it has retained the Commerce Commission as a co-regulator. That may well address the issue adequately but we must remain vigilant and monitor that particular aspect. 
In finishing—I did say that this would be a short call—I am struck by the contrast between the debate we are having on this bill and the speech the House heard from my friend and colleague Sue Bradford immediately prior to the dinner break. I remind the House that Sue spoke about the warning we have been given over I guess the last 18 months of a collapse in the global economy that is inherent in the way it is structured. That economy has acted as a huge imposition on the real economy. When we examine the factors that have been implicated in the warning that we have been given by the crisis that we have faced over the last 18 months we see that the speculative economy has played a very great role. It is clear from most of the world’s Governments and international organisations that part of the formula for remedying that problem is to have greater regulation of the speculative economy. Members of this House would be familiar with the Green Party’s policy of trying to redirect investment away from the speculative economy and into the real economy and aware of our proposals for various measures to achieve that: transaction taxes a capital gains tax and limitations on losses that could be attributed to loss attributing qualifying companies. All of those measures will be important. Fundamental regulatory change to the way that we handle the speculative economy will be necessary. 
In some ways the adjustments that we are making to the regulatory framework today seem like tidying up rather than rearranging the deckchairs on the  
Titanic 
. A much greater reform of that framework will be required and the Green Party remains committed to holding the House to that obligation. But that said the changes the bill makes to the regulatory framework are necessary and the Green Party will continue to support this bill.