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:18163] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Earlier this afternoon the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues took umbrage at some comments that I had made about the reasons why United Future was not supporting the emissions trading scheme. He suggested to the Committee that we had made our call not to support the bill without ever seeking to become involved in any of the discussions on the question of household compensation which we are very concerned about. I want to correct the record this evening. I have checked the number of occasions since the bill was introduced on 11 December last year that I raised this matter in the House. I raised it during my first reading speech on 11 December. I raised it again during my speech on the Budget Policy Statement on 12 March I raised it in questions on 13 May 17 June and 26 June. And I spoke about it in my Budget speech on 22 May. 
The thing that really annoys me is that my having raised this matter in the House on six occasions at no point did the Minister or any of his officials—and I ask members to bear in mind that the questions were posed to him—come to us to say: “We understand you have an issue here. Can we sit down and talk about it? Given the fact that we have given a commitment we are going to make some changes in order to compensate households.” Yet the Minister gets up in the House and says we were not even interested. We were interested. We raised the issue on a number of occasions and when it became clear to us that we were talking to a brick wall we decided to withdraw our support. We are confidence and supply partners of this Government yet at no stage once this bill was introduced has its Minister done us the courtesy of coming to us to talk about the bill and some of the steps going forward. That may well be the Government’s call; I respect that. But for the Minister to get up in the Chamber today and imply that our opposition is based on our not wanting to engage is simply wrong in every respect. 
I have a great deal of respect for the Minister. We have worked together on a number of issues. I am very disappointed that he chose to take that attitude on this matter. I would have thought that when a colleague on six separate occasions over a 6-month period raised a consistent pattern of concern the Minister would actually talk to him given that the Minister was touting for votes on a bill. I do not know why the Minister did not do that; that is his call. But the reality is that he has ended up with a flawed system and then he wonders why we are opposing it. 
This bill is an important bill for New Zealand. We have made it clear right from day one that we support the concept of emissions trading with adequate compensation. That second bit has got lost sight of. I go back to the point I made earlier—and I acknowledge Mr Groser’s comments earlier about it—that if this bill is passed but is not sustainable in the court of public opinion it will fail. All of the work that has been done—all of the work that has been done by officials on the development of not just this bill but earlier measures that did not get off the ground—and all of the people who made submissions to the select committee will have been let down by this process. 
I say to the Minister that it is simply not good enough to be driven by some political agenda that says that the short-term interests of the Government of the day outweigh the long-term interests of New Zealand and therefore the Government will pass a piece of legislation. Already the Government has had to bring in 700 to 800 amendments. All that we are doing by hurrying is ensuring that we will have to amend this bill again and again. That is legislation that is not good it is legislation that is not credible and it is legislation that will not serve this country well. 
United Future’s experience is that when challenges are made the Government simply shuts down on talking to people. If that experience is any guide we are not going to make progress. None of us probably will be here in 20 years’ time; we owe it to those future generations to put in place now legislation that will pass the test of time. The way in which the Minister has behaved in respect of the issues I have raised over the last few months indicates that he has no great commitment to do that. 
That is the record and I wanted to put it on the record of the Committee tonight because the Minister’s interpretation earlier on was simply wrong.