Dean Jacqui: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6132] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I have been so keen for my turn to speak on the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill I have been popping up and down in a most unseemly fashion. I am disappointed that the Minister for Climate Change is not here tonight for the second reading of this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to withdraw and apologise for that; that is not acceptable. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I withdraw and apologise. I am disappointed that the Minister for Climate Change has not made a contribution to the second reading of this legislation. After all he would have us believe that unlike National the Labour Government not only recognises climate change but also is prepared to get in there and do something about it. Despite all the Minister’s endless talk all the endless conferences and press releases all the overseas travel to talk about it where—after 7 years in Government—is the Government’s policy on climate change? I fear that this legislation—the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill—is it and the Minister responsible for it is not even making a contribution to it through its second reading. 
This bill was reported back to the House by the Commerce Committee—when was it in July 2005? It was certainly before my time in Parliament. That makes it a bill that is so important to this Government this bill on climate change that it has sat around at the bottom of the Order Paper for—let me count the months—15 months. That is how important this bill on climate change is to this Government. 
So what has the Labour Government achieved in the past 7 years on climate change policy—a policy it is so concerned about? Well we signed up to the Kyoto Protocol which was meant to save the world. Actually it was meant to save 0.02 percent of the emissions that we contribute to the world. At the same time signing up to the Kyoto Protocol was going to make us an absolute bundle. It was going to be fantastic. It was going to make us around $500 million. The problem is that the Government made a slight miscalculation and it turns out that instead of New Zealand making an absolute bundle we owe an absolute bundle because of signing up to the Kyoto Protocol. And how much is that bundle that we owe? It is around $500 million. 
What else have we had? We have had the carbon tax which they figured out eventually was not going to work. So that was another Government policy on climate change that was a resounding failure. We had the “fart tax”—the famous “fart tax” which they figured out was not going to work. That for the Government was another resounding failure. We have had an energy efficiency strategy. We have had an energy efficiency strategy—I love saying those words. I have to look every time I read them out because—[ 
Interruption 
] That is the problem—it took $100 million of taxpayer money to tell the Government that it was not going to work. 
So let me recap the Government’s climate change policy initiatives so far: we have the “fart tax” we have the carbon tax and we have the energy efficiency strategy. Have any of them worked? No none of them have worked. We have had the Kyoto Protocol which not only has not worked but also we signed up for it until 2013 I think and it is costing us half a billion dollars. [ 
Interruption 
] It is not very successful; one could only call it a tiny little bit successful—one would almost call it unsuccessful. 
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has described the Government as operating in a climate change vacuum. As soon as I sit down next to someone on a plane who is in the energy industry or the climate change industry—anybody involved in the environment—and he or she knows I am a minor back-bencher from the National Party the first thing anybody says is: “Hi Jacqui would you please do something about the climate change and the energy policy?”. That is all I ever hear from anybody in the electricity industry. We are operating in a policy vacuum. 
What is the response from the Government? Well earlier this evening MP Steve Chadwick said in this debate when she was challenged by Dr Nick Smith about a lack of climate change policy: “Just wait it is coming.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So is Christmas. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Thankfully so is Christmas and the next general election. So that I suspect will take care of itself in due course. In the meantime the National caucus have produced a policy and it is called  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
. It has been so well received it is embarrassing. Often when I sit in this Chamber I hear the cry “Where’s your policy?” coming from the Government benches when we are in the middle of a debate. Members opposite are very fond of shouting out: “Where’s your policy?”. It is a funny thing because in this instance that cry applies to the Government. It is the National Party that has produced a  
A 
Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
. What has the Government produced? Oh yes that is right; let me find it—it is somewhere here on my bench. The Government has produced a minor bill after it has sat for 15 months at the bottom of the Order Paper called the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill—big deal! What strikes me when I look at this Climate Change Response Amendment Bill—big deal—is that the select committee membership has changed in the time between the previous Parliament and this one. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Half of them are gone. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well it look to me as if we have only half of those members still in Parliament so we would have to question how very relevant this bill before the House is. I was looking around today and I found an interesting yet worrying report from the World Wildlife Fund for Nature. It shows that humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate—well there is nothing new in that—and it claims that by 2050 the human race will need two planets’ worth of natural resources to feed current consumption rates. That is very disturbing but do people know what is even more disturbing? It is that the World Wildlife Fund for Nature ranks New Zealand ninth on a list of 10 countries using up the natural resources of planet Earth. We are the ninth-worst out of 10. What is the Government’s response to this? It is a climate change policy that states: “Just wait it is coming.” and that is all we have seen from the Government. 
National knows where we should go with our climate change policy because we have put out a discussion document  
A 
Bluegreen 
 Vision for New Zealand 
 which as I have said has been so well received it is embarrassing. We have proposals for tradable emission permits in order to manage New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. Starting with the energy sector we will be capping electricity emissions by requiring all additional emissions from fossil fuel power stations to be offset by forestry planting. That is sensible and it gives a sense of direction for the energy and forestry industries. We propose a major boost into research for agricultural emissions. We will not clobber farmers with a “fart tax”. We will invest in making agriculture more efficient—that is sensible—and very important we will reform the Resource Management Act in order to facilitate the development of renewable energy. 
Darren Hughes 
: We’ve already done that. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Oh no this Government has not I say to the member. This Government after 7 years’ stewardship of our environment can say that our emissions are growing at three times the rate of Australia’s and four times the rate of the United States—and those are our trading partners that are not hobbled by the Kyoto Protocol. This is a Government on whose watch we have seen a threefold increase in power produced from coal and it is a Government that has sat firmly on the picket fence over Project Aqua and will not or cannot recognise the impediment that the Resource Management Act provides to future energy project investments. 
We will support this bill and we view sensible climate change policy more seriously than clearly the Minister responsible for Climate Change does as he has not made a contribution to tonight’s debate. We will support this bill because we support tradable emissions permits and we look forward to moving amendments during the Committee stage.