Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18609] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This afternoon we are being asked to continue the reckless and irresponsible fast-track process being made by this Clark-Peters Government on this very complex emissions trading legislation. I want the Committee to note that last Tuesday the Government tabled 785 amendments to this bill and passed them on the same day. I would bet that not a single member of this Committee would understand the implications of those 785 changes. The Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues has said: “Trust me. Trust me and my officials. This is all OK.” The problem is that only the week before in this Parliament in response to questions the Minister said that the bill did not need any further amendment and that the Government had it all right. We knew after the 1000 changes the Government tabled only 3 days before we deliberated on the bill that the bill had many errors and now we know it again. 
I will just give a couple of examples of where there are serious mistakes in this bill. The first is in respect of cogeneration. One of the good things that has happened over the last decade is that as people look to a more intelligent use of energy there has been a real growth of cogeneration—more growth in cogeneration than in any other area of the energy equation. Yet when we look further through the bill at the detailed clauses of clause 37 and other clauses cogeneration has been left out. If we go back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee report we see that when it comes to the determination of allocations for industry the clear intent of the select committee was to include cogeneration. Members opposite say that this is a minor technical issue and that it is only a word and they ask why we would be bothered with a single word. Well that single word will cost New Zealand’s single biggest company Fonterra $13.5 million—$13.5 million every year. That is just the cost for Fonterra let alone the cost for the other industries. So I ask members opposite why we are picking on cogeneration and why we are discriminating against that particular form of energy. 
Let me give another example. When industries are meeting their obligations in this emissions trading scheme they are able to opt in and take responsibility for their emissions. But the bill again because of a drafting error does not allow gas or coal that has gone through a wholesaler to be included. Again people may say that that is all a bit complicated and ask what it means. For five of New Zealand’s major companies it means that they are not able to manage all of their emissions which is the very purpose of being able to opt in. Again we have a serious mistake that will cost industry millions of dollars. 
So I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Pete Hodgson and to the Government that this is reckless and irresponsible lawmaking. As the  
Dominion Post  
editorial asked so well yesterday: why is the Government wanting to ram through this legislation when it is absolutely obvious that it has significant and serious errors that need to be worked through? There is only one reason. The Government has been in office for 9 years. Its climate change record is awful. We have the biggest growth in emissions of almost any country in the OECD. Every single element of climate change policy has turned to pickle. I would have hoped the Government might learn from the experience—that this stuff is difficult and complicated. And what we are doing is exactly the same as we did on the matter of electoral finance and I fear that Parliament is again making serious errors—errors for which New Zealand will pay dearly.