Adams Amy: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Adams Amy: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8074. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 It falls to me to take the last call on this third reading debate on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill. I am very pleased to say that this bill gives us a good balance between environmental objectives and economic realities. That is what it does; it takes the two most important issues facing the world and facing New Zealand—the environment and the economy—and says that we need to come up with a solution that is responsible that does our part environmentally but that also protects our economy and our jobs. It is a balancing game; there is no question about that. We have deeply ingrained zealots on both sides of the debate who will not see any other position but their own. But the answer has to lie in the middle between balancing those two positions. I think the Minister and the officials as I said in my earlier contributions have done an excellent job of that. 
We are doing our part as a country in this debate. We should remember that New Zealand produces 0.2 percent of the world’s emissions; that is what we are talking about here. When we talk about the seas rising over Pacific Island countries 99.8 percent of that we cannot influence so let us get real about it. Do we really want to throw our businesses under the train so that they can beat the drums about what they are doing? The reality is that New Zealand can only play its part—and this bill does play its part. 
I find it really interesting that when we look at this bill in actual fact members across the House agree on more about the structure of this system than we disagree about. Labour wanted an emissions trading scheme; we are proposing an emissions trading scheme. Labour was going to give free allocation to business; we are giving free allocation to business. Labour was going to give 90 percent of its top level of free allocation; so are we. So when Labour members talk about subsiding business let us remember that Labour was going to give 90 percent allocation to industry. 
Interestingly enough it has come out in subsequent discussions that even Labour members conceded that there were problems with their bill and the 8 percent phase-out was not going to work—it was going to be too tough. They knew that. They were prepared to compromise on it. I tell members that they were even prepared to agree that industry should get an increased allocation. We were getting very close. 
Do members know why we do not have broad bipartisan support on this? Do members know why? I will tell members exactly why. It is because Labour hates farmers. It has a visceral deep abiding hatred for farmers. I cannot wait for 2011. I cannot wait to get up on the hustings versus a Labour candidate who will tell rural New Zealand that Labour will unwind the National bill and increase their costs from $3000 a year to $30000 a year. That is what the bill for the average farmer would be if Labour had its way. It would not be the $3000 a year that we are talking about—it would be $30000. And to any Labour candidate who wants to campaign in rural New Zealand on a platform of Labour putting farmers out of business because that is ideologically right I say good luck. If Labour candidates think they will go to rural New Zealand and tell people there that they will put up their costs tenfold and give them a $30000 bill and that Labour is prepared to give intensity allocations to industrial sectors but not to farmers I say good luck with that. 
This Government realises that farmers are the backbone of this economy. They are getting 80 percent of the $50 billion allocation that members talk about. When Labour talks about that money going to big industry I point out that it is not going to big industry; 80 percent is ensuring our farming sector can continue to survive and can continue to put food on the shelves to feed the world. I say “Come on 2011.” If Labour is going to honestly campaign on a platform of putting up the costs to farmers to $30000—a tenfold increase—good luck! 
This is an excellent bill. It is a very good balance between economic and environmental responsibilities. I am pleased to see that this Government is taking steps to halve the cost for Kiwi households. It is a good bill and I support it.