Mackey Moana: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — Second Reading 
Mackey Moana: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7602] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to stand and take a call on the second reading of the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. I acknowledge the work that was done by the Commerce Committee on this bill. 
Todd McClay 
: A very orange speech. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I thank Mr McClay. I also acknowledge the work of the Hon Lianne Dalziel who was the Minister who brought this legislation into Parliament. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has said this bill has a very complicated title and is technical in its substance but it is very important. It helps us to facilitate trading in emissions units through the development of carbon markets. As has been said it does so regardless of whether those units are issued by the New Zealand Government or issued internationally. 
I am also pleased to see the broadening of the definition of “emissions units” which allows for the innovation and development of what will inevitably happen in a carbon-trading market that is in its infancy. The bill provides the basis for establishing a legal title for emissions units which will be important as we move forward and as carbon markets become far more important both domestically and around the world. The system is voluntary and those who want to become part of it become designated and to maintain that status must ensure that they meet certain rules and standards. Although this bill is obviously very important to the emissions trading scheme that scheme does not rely on it for its implementation. 
I come back to some comments that were made by my colleague Charles Chauvel. This bill was introduced into the House last year. It was reported back from the Commerce Committee in June and has languished on the Order Paper while other legislation which in all honesty would be deemed to be far less important was progressed through the House. The fact that the Government has allowed this bill to languish is an indication of how seriously it takes emissions trading schemes. This is a very important bill for our international credibility and I think the Government did this while being well aware that it was going to dither and faff around on emissions trading so there really was no reason— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How do you spell that? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is f-a-f-f. It is a technical term. It is a word Mr Gilmore did not invent which is hard to believe! I come back to the bill. I endorse the comments my colleague Charles Chauvel made. I am currently a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which is looking at the legislation to amend Labour’s emissions trading scheme. That legislation is being pushed through with unnecessary haste after no action since this Government came into power. 
The committee members are in the position that we do not have time to do the work that we are meant to do as a service to this House and as elected members of Parliament. We do not have time to consider departmental reports and revision-tracked legislation. I have never been on a select committee that has been under such ridiculous time pressure—ridiculous. When that committee reports back and members of the public can see what went on at that committee and see what members may or may not have done to try to get more time I think it will be quite clear that this Government does not take emissions trading seriously at all. I say that with great regret because there are missed opportunities as a result of this legislation and the emissions trading scheme being delayed. 
One missed opportunity was the chance to have a world-leading carbon registry based here in New Zealand. It was from an organisation that wanted to look for a country that was in the time zone New Zealand is in. It wanted a country on the opposite side of the world so that when people in that organisation were asleep New Zealand was awake. It would have been a 24-hour service. That organisation looked and it found a country that was not the first in the world to have an emissions trading scheme but it was certainly taking it seriously and putting in place a scheme that had environmental and economic credibility. It was a country that would have been perfect for establishing a carbon—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Dr Mapp to wake up. OK clearly my speech is as enthralling as that. His colleague might like to wake him up. 
We had the opportunity to have a carbon registry in New Zealand that would be world leading. It would have provided jobs and wealth to New Zealand and we lost it. We lost it because of this Government’s actions on the emissions trading scheme. The Government should be ashamed of that. Labour supports this legislation. We brought this legislation into the House. We brought it in at the time when we had a functioning emissions trading scheme and the possibility of having an active carbon market in New Zealand. That has been shot to bits by this Government. People in the forestry sector do not know where they are. They do not know whether to get the credits and they do not know whether they can sell them or sit on them. They do not know what to do because no one knows. We do not have any certainty around this emissions trading scheme. 
The only certainty we have is that generations of New Zealand taxpayers will be paying billions of dollars—billions of dollars—to prop up the heaviest emitters in New Zealand. That is not fair and it should not be happening. 
Hon David Parker 
: What’s the subsidy per employee? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The subsidy per employee at Rio Tinto interestingly enough is about $200000 a year. It is $200000 per employee per year and subsidies are going to Rio Tinto. It might have been cheaper if that employer had— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: The member needs to get a calculator and learn some literacy and numeracy lessons so she can actually count. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That employer would probably just want the $200000 because I bet that the employees are not being paid $200000. Mr Gilmore is going very red in the face at the moment now. I realise that he was instrumental in setting up the Kyoto Protocol and we need to show him respect for doing that. In fact I think he defined the terms “global warming” and “climate change” and I bow before his greater knowledge. I look forward to his speech when he will regale us with the way that he has worked largely in this area and has developed a system around the world. 
But the fact is that the scheme we have now has no economic credibility and no environmental credibility. We are setting up a carbon registry system that we will not even be able to use properly because we have legislation that will not work.