Mahuta Nanaia: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Mahuta Nanaia: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:651;Page:308] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I have listened to the debate this morning and I have considered the intent. As each member has spoken I have started to build a picture about what is really happening in the House today. It is a very interesting debate and for all the right reasons Labour will be voting against the establishment of the emissions trading scheme select committee.  
Jeanette Fitzsimons proposed a number of titles for the emissions trading scheme select committee; I agree that we could put many names to this particular committee. I thought of one myself: the “Emissions Trading Scheme (Reward ACT) Select Committee”. If the truth be known there are climate change deniers in this House; we saw that very clearly in the election campaign. In fact at a campaign meeting that I attended in Papakura one person stood in the room with a billboard that said: “Get rid of the emissions trading scheme”. We already know ACT’s position on this issue. The establishment of this select committee is a convoluted effort to placate political ideology rather than an attempt to consider the serious and important implications of climate change for our environment our economy and our people.  
One particular maiden speech yesterday put those implications at the forefront of our thinking as members of Parliament. But Rodney Hide got up and said that the select committee is about doing a lot of things; he said that the select committee can think about them and then we can move on. Well I say to Mr Hide that it is not as simple as that. Indeed the establishment of this select committee will delay the introduction of the emissions trading scheme and will risk New Zealand’s reputation as a clean green country at a time when young New Zealanders all over the country are very hopeful about the type of country they want to live in and continue to live in. They want to be good stewards of our environment in our communities at a very local level. They want to champion the cause of being responsible global citizens who care for our environment but now they hear the message from the Government that it will establish a select committee and think about a whole lot of other things before it actually gets on with the business. I think we are sending the wrong message to young New Zealanders.  
I have a question. Does the Government believe in climate change or does it think it is a hoax? Before the election National promised to proceed with an emissions trading scheme and that it would include agriculture—another promise broken. Before the election National’s environmental climate change policy said it would set up and legislate for an emissions reduction target for New Zealand it would honour New Zealand’s Kyoto Protocol obligations it would support international efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and it would support the emissions trading legislation because it “believes that a well-considered carefully balanced emissions trading scheme (ETS) is the best tool available to efficiently reduce greenhouse gas …” whilst also pledging to make amendments to the legislation within 9 months of being in office—9 months.  
The establishment of this select committee could well delay the implementation of the emissions trading scheme. I ask members to look at the terms of reference. Jeanette Fitzsimons made the point very clearly to members of this House that it will take a lot of time to get through those terms of reference. To think that the emissions trading scheme select committee can be advanced in 9 months! I think it is a delay tactic and one can come to only that conclusion on listening to the debate in this House today.  
More important when Hone Harawira spoke—and he raised a number of important issues—he proposed an addition to the terms of reference. Anyone who has served any length of time in this House would know that the decisions of the select committee can be overruled by this House. So I say to Mr Harawira—and I know he knows this—that although he might discuss and propose additions to the terms of reference at the select committee he could easily table those additions in the House as Gerry Brownlee did this morning so that the whole House can vote on the matter. But I suspect he does not have support from his coalition partner National. He will raise the issue in the select committee and not put it to a vote because he already knows that he does not have support from his National coalition partner.  
I know clearly that National has seated Tau Henare behind him in the Chamber to be a minder and to ensure that the process the Maori Party follows is stewarded very clearly along the lines of what National is really trying to achieve. That is fine but when people raise the issue of being respectful in the House I say that respect relies on a number of things. Firstly in response to Tau I ask Hone to say what he means to stick to it and to not say different things to different people in different forums. He knows that in marae protocol that is very clear. Although he has the opportunity right now to table that amendment to the terms of reference so that the whole House can vote on it—he already has the numbers with his partners ACT and National which could see it pass—he would prefer to raise the issue at the select committee without asserting the real influence that he has.  
At least with the honourable member for Te Tai Tokerau Hone Harawira people know that what he does say he says consistently everywhere. People know what he thinks. That deserves respect. I think that when we consider where the real weight of his mandate lies he has the influence and the leadership to pull his coalition partners together on issues his party believes are really important and to get them to move on them. I ask him to table his amendment in the House and to get his partners to support him. It will pass by a majority—I have no doubt about that if he has support for what he is saying.  
The establishment of the emissions trading scheme select committee is a matter we should all be concerned about. Forestry owners have invested heavily on the basis of the introduction of this scheme. I am informed that Peter Berg of the Forest Owners Association indicated on  
Morning Report 
 that one particular deal was worth more than $100 million on the basis of the proposed emissions trading scheme. Forestry owners would be very concerned that ACT National and the Maori Party have introduced a measure that potentially could delay the introduction of the emissions trading scheme. They should have done what they told everybody well before the election they would do: amend the scheme slightly but keep it on track.  
I pick up on the point the honourable Paul Hutchison raised when he said that we need people to— 
Hon Member 
: Honourable? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Maybe he is yet to be honourable; maybe I heard something that I should not have repeated.  
Paul Hutchison raised a point with regard to taking a considered approach to this issue. I know that the issues he raised with regard to BHP Steel are very real in our particular region. But let us not delay the emissions trading scheme because of those.  
I am sure another question will come up at some point. What consultation occurred between the Government and sector industries on the potential impact of delaying the introduction of the emissions trading scheme as a result of setting up this select committee? I suspect that the answer is none. There was a good degree of discussion about and working through of the emissions trading scheme with Maori representatives. The Maori reference group in particular sought heavily to put before David Parker the issues of the Maori community. So when challenged on whether it delivers to Maori I say that I am sure ample advice would have come from the people who were involved in that process.  
I end on the reputational issue of flip-flops on various aspects of climate change that National has put before New Zealanders. We need to ensure that our international profile builds on clear expectations that we hold at the core of our national identity. I for one love Aotearoa New Zealand and the value we place on our national heritage and the value we attribute to our cultural heritage but we need to walk the talk. Any indication of our pulling away from an emissions trading scheme at a time when inspirational leadership from Barack Obama aligns with Labour’s similar approach means that National is going in the reverse direction. Mr Key actually flip-flopped on this issue and we should be concerned about it. In May 2005 he said on the subject of Kyoto and climate change that it was “a complete … hoax.” In November 2006 he said: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.”  
If Mr Key needed a reminder that the rest of the world has accepted the singular importance of climate change he got it on his first international visit to the UK in November this year when he found himself being addressed by Gordon Brown on the issue of travel tax. We know that the introduction of a travel tax would hurt our tourism industry but in the first test of his leadership as a Prime Minister who walks the talk on promoting a great nation and its clean green image what did he do? He grinned and giggled like a newbie. What should he have done? He should have been clear and decisive.