Tremain Chris: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18610] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 National has consistently advocated a well-designed carefully balanced emissions trading scheme as being the best tool to efficiently reduce emissions. In 1999 the National Cabinet decided that an emissions trading scheme was the right way forward on climate change policy and the National Party expressed concern when the emissions trading scheme was dropped in favour of a carbon tax after the current Government initially took office. Nick Smith promoted an emissions trading scheme in National’s  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 document in 2006. Last year we supported the Government’s decision in principle in favour of an emissions trading scheme and voted for the first reading of the bill. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Oh that’s a load of rubbish. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Mr Woolerton may remember that vote although it would be one of the few parts of the bill he does remember. 
However the rushed legislative process has resulted in a bill that has major deficiencies. The Finance and Expenditure Committee’s consideration and deliberation process has been rushed and reckless driven to meet a political agenda and not the concerns of New Zealand as my colleague Nick Smith has canvassed here today. Only approximately 12 hours of the committee’s time was allocated to considering the 483-page departmental report and 60 supplementary departmental reports on specific issues. Committee members received over 1000 amendments to this 237-page bill only 3 days prior to the committee’s final deliberation. 
With the exception of the Minister and perhaps the chair of the select committee there has been no serious engagement by Government members in respect of the critical issues to New Zealand in this bill as is evidenced by there having been no fewer than 24 different Government members subbed on to that committee throughout the process. I raise the question: how many of those Government members who were subbed on to that committee had any idea whatsoever about what was in the bill? 
National members who were far more consistently present on the committee and who queried the important issues have repeatedly been told that things are a certain way because they are Government policy not because they are in the best interests of Kiwis. If that is not bad enough 785 amendments were dropped on the House at the commencement of the Committee stage and are now to be rushed through the process. 
Over the weekend some embarrassing new errors have been found in the emissions trading scheme. New errors that have been identified in respect of cogeneration and emissions from gas and coal bought through wholesalers expose the Government’s reckless process— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: For heaven’s sake! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Does the member think it is a good thing that over the weekend $13 million in additional costs were found in the bill—costs that were not covered by those 785 amendments? Just a small $13 million in extra costs! That is absolutely unacceptable. These significant errors entirely the result of a rushed process are coming home to roost for businesses throughout this country. Costs that amount to $13 million are significant and should not be overlooked. 
These problems could have been overcome if the process had not focused solely on a political agenda and on putting a trophy in the cabinet of the Prime Minister’s office in terms of getting this legislation through according to her agenda. This bill represents one of this country’s biggest economic reforms. It is grossly irresponsible to be ramming it through with hundreds of new amendments at the ninth hour. The public has had little opportunity to comment and not a single MP—or very few MPs certainly on that side of the Chamber—has any idea of what is in the bill. 
The rush as I have said is about Helen Clark’s desire to have something to show on climate change after 9 years of Government and her record in that area has been abysmal. Whether it be in forestry or in greenhouse gas emissions this Government over its 9-year period in office has not delivered on its rhetoric. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Come on! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: It is a fact I say to Mr Horomia—in greenhouse gases in forestry. There has been deforestation and increases in greenhouse gases over the last 9 years. Is that an acceptable record? 
Sue Moroney 
: Does John Key believe that? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: We are talking about the Labour Government’s record on this I say to Ms Moroney. It has been appalling—absolutely appalling. 
This legislation is as I say a rush to get a trophy on Helen Clark’s wall so that she can go out on the international stage and claim that she has such a trophy—as opposed to actually looking at the appalling record of this Government on climate change. Like I say this bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation to hit this country in two decades.