Hutchison Paul: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18618] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak on the very important Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. National was pleased to support this bill in the first reading in good faith in the belief that the Government would make every effort possible to ensure this extremely important bill was thoroughly and properly considered because of its long-term effects. Indeed it would have been ideal to work towards a consensus between the parties because such a consensus would have been enduring. 
Of course as it has transpired the select committee process in the Finance and Expenditure Committee was rushed. The process was flagrantly abused by the Labour Government with little hearing time given to some of the most important submitters and now the Labour Government is literally ramming through some of the most important legislation of this century. At the last minute just prior to the select committee’s deliberation there were a thousand extra unconsidered amendments. To make matters worse at the beginning of this Committee stage there were 785 further new unconsidered amendments—amendments that the people out there in the sector have simply not had time to consider. This was as the Hon Dr Nick Smith labelled it an example of absolutely reckless irresponsibility by the Labour Government. 
This afternoon I looked at the 2002 Climate Change Response Bill. I noted that the Labour Government has consistently been wrong over many of the issues around climate change. In the first reading version of that bill the Labour Government had planned to send carbon police into the farms and businesses of New Zealand with the right to arrest people if they considered it appropriate. That is how ill-considered and zealous the Labour Government was just a few years ago. That was described by Professor Joseph of Canterbury University as State-sanctioned trespass. 
I will come back to the bill—it is absolutely appropriate that I do so. Last week I also spoke to the chief executive officer of New Zealand Steel. He said that by rushing through this bill a $1 billion investment in that very strategically important plant for New Zealand would be put at risk. Part of that investment is a $200 million investment in a vanadium extraction plant and already $12 million has been spent on it. But as we sit here this afternoon that development is being wound down. That has to be a huge tragedy. The chief executive officer reminded me that New Zealand Steel cogenerates 60 percent of its energy needs through its own processing plant and that many plants around the world do not have cogeneration. But here in New Zealand we have a steel mill that has been verified by benchmark studies as being one of the most efficient in the world. 
The Labour Government in its last set of amendments which it did not consult widely with the sector over has changed the rules again. That will significantly affect the trade-exposed industries whereby credits are given only for the part of trade that is overseas. European mills of course are exempt. If Labour were to run the New Zealand Steel mill out of the country two things are likely to happen. Firstly New Zealand would have to import our steel and with that would be all the carbon miles implied because of the huge distances that steel would have to be imported over. Secondly an offshore replacement mill is highly likely to be much less efficient than one in New Zealand and it would gush out far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than our mill does. It is almost as though this Labour Government wants there to be a loss for New Zealand and a perverse increase in emissions by passing this legislation so inappropriately.