Dunne Peter: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18138] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 When the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill was introduced to the House last December United Future gave it conditional support because we recognised that it was important for New Zealand to start to develop a comprehensive approach in its response to the problems caused by global climate change issues. But I recall making the point to the House on that day last December that it was important that this bill attain not only political acceptability but public acceptability—it had to be environmentally sustainable but it also had to be publicly sustainable—and that the measure of that sustainability in the public mind would come with the question of how the impact on households was going to be addressed. 
At the time there was a lot of to-do from the Government about how an adequate system of compensation would be put in place. Originally it was going to be for everybody then it seemed to be softened to “vulnerable households” that awful phrase then it came down to the elderly and then to various other groups. Now we know that $112.50 is a one-off payment in 2010—about $2.15 a week—to cover the cost of perceived electricity increases. That is not enough. It will not get the support of the New Zealand public that this measure deserves. All that means is that we are going to be back here next year and the year after amending these provisions to try to make what is now looking like a very hotchpotch emissions trading regime work effectively. That is not good enough and that is why we have decided not to support the passage of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill at this time. 
There is no need to pass this bill in the dying days of this Parliament simply to satisfy the Government’s political agenda. This is actually an agenda that is bigger than any party in this Parliament. This is an agenda that addresses the future of this country. I cannot for the life of me see what huge environmental and economic damage we would do to our country let alone to the world if we were to defer the passage of this bill for 6 months to ensure that these issues of compensation the issues my colleague from the Maori Party referred to a moment or two ago and some of the other issues that have come up in this debate already could be addressed in a way that was not just a quick fix for today but a sustainable position for the future. [ 
Interruption 
]. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: It is all right. The member should keep going. Some people are just getting enthusiastic and leaping to their feet. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Yes I am obviously generating a measure of excitement from those who agree with me. 
Hon David Carter 
: And agreement. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: And agreement yes and I appreciate that. Members are welcome to agree with me all the time. But I come back to what I was saying—that this is a measure that has been described as one of the most important to come before Parliament in years. Indeed it is and that is why it deserves far greater attention than it has received to date. 
The large number of submitters to the bill who all made constructive suggestions and the many groups that are out there lobbying on various aspects of this bill deserve better than to see it rushed through at this stage simply because an election is looming. The funny thing is that there is broad agreement amongst everybody here with the possible exception of ACT that there is an issue that needs to be resolved. Yet we are determined to polarise this Parliament because in trying to come to an agreement it is a case of “my agreement has to be bigger than your agreement.” Frankly that is silly. It is no way to make sustainable policy in terms of an issue that we all acknowledge goes beyond us and our generation. 
I implore the House to consider this measure in a more calm and rational manner. We have the prospect of our major trading partner Australia implementing an emissions trading regime in a slightly slower time frame but one that is not inconsistent with the time frame of this bill and would not be inconsistent with where we want to go. We talk about a single economic market and we talk about our trans-Tasman relationship—I cannot for the life of me see why we need to be first out of the blocks in terms of getting an emissions trading regime in place when we are going to have to work with whatever it is the Australians subsequently put in place. Surely given the close contacts between our Governments and the frequent visits between Ministers it is possible to work out a scheme that is consistent to the largest possible extent and that we can proceed to implement at a similar time. Our economies and our nations are becoming more intertwined; it makes no sense to have this puerile competition maintained simply because we want to score some political advantage. The New Zealand households that are going to benefit by $2.15 a week will simply laugh. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call Colin King I again remind members that we are debating Part 1—this is not a general debate—new clause 2A and the amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Papers.