Mackey Moana: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7660] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to make a few things clear to Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga the member who has just resumed his seat. First this legislation was brought into the House by the previous Labour Government. He can stand up and lecture members about how wonderful it is and say that we should be so grateful to be here debating it but he might also like to acknowledge the fact that the Labour Party in Government brought this legislation into the House. Secondly the member may not like the fact that we are discussing the implications of this legislation in conjunction with the emissions trading scheme amendments but members on this side of the Chamber will not stop talking about the huge liability being forced on to the next generation of New Zealanders just because the National Government does not like hearing about it. Thirdly I would also tell him that it is very worrying for the public of New Zealand that Government members are talking about the kind of fantasy situation that was outlined by the member in terms of the economic position that National inherited from the previous Government. It should be very concerning to New Zealanders that the National Government is trying to rewrite history and is not acknowledging the fact that it actually inherited the lowest levels of debt as a proportion of GDP in the world the lowest unemployment in the world and zero net debt. I find it very concerning that a member of the Government would stand up and attempt to rewrite history in that way. It does not bode well for the future. 
Labour is very happy to support this legislation and to take a call in the Committee stage. As we said in the bill’s second reading we thank the Commerce Committee for its work. It was ably chaired by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. We acknowledge the work of the officials in bringing it to this House. We will be supporting this bill because it is important legislation. I concur with my colleague Charles Chauvel who said that it is a shame it has taken as long as this to bring it before the House. Many pieces of legislation that are not as important as this bill have been pushed forward. 
I believe that the select committee made its report back on this bill in June. I acknowledge that at least this bill has had a proper select committee process unlike so much other legislation that we discuss in this House. The bill was fulsomely considered by the Commerce Committee and I think we can see that in the quality of this legislation. When we take the processes of this Parliament seriously and allow bills to have a proper amount of time at select committees for proper consideration and the proper interaction with the members of the public who want to come along and submit then we can see that in the quality of the legislation that comes out the other end of the process. This bill is of far greater quality than much of the legislation that we have seen forced through this House under urgency without a proper select committee process. But it is a shame that this bill has taken so long to come back before the House. 
I think we must reflect on why this legislation is so important when we are looking at carbon trading both domestically and internationally. The reason it is so important particularly when we look at the process for purchasing international emissions units—and I do not think that people realise this and it has not been said in public often enough—is that when we see for example the Government’s target of a 10 to 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 a target that has been heavily criticised in public because it will not do enough to address the issue of climate change most people do not realise that the Government has no intention of trying to reduce our emissions by 10 to 20 percent. Saying that it is an emissions reduction target is very misleading. 
What the Government intends to do is to purchase emissions units internationally to pay for that difference. Instead of the Government saying that it will try very hard to get our emissions down by 10 to 20 percent it is saying that it will go overseas and buy emissions units for the 10 to 20 percent reduction which is the target. Those are two very very different things and they are core to this legislation. Purchasing emissions units overseas costs a lot of money. This Government has decided that its preferred method for dealing with climate change is to buy our way out of it and not actually reduce our emissions at all. 
Some people might ask what the point is. If the intention of the emissions trading scheme amendments or legislation—as it currently exists and as it will exist once the amendments have been passed with the support of the Maori Party which I am sure will just support it all the way right through to the end regardless of who has to pay for it— 
Hone Harawira 
: Kia ora Moana. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Welcome back I say to Mr Harawira. It is nice to see the member again. 
Hone Harawira 
: You are voting for this I take it? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am voting for this bill because it sets up a carbon trading market but I am talking about the emissions trading scheme legislation amendments which is something quite different. I am a little concerned that Mr Harawira does not seem to realise that this bill is not the emissions trading scheme legislation. I find that more than a little concerning. I know that he has been out of the country for a little while— 
Stuart Nash 
: We’ve got your interest now Mr Harawira. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —that is right—but he might like to know that that legislation is coming up later. He might like to talk to his colleague Rahui Katene who is having to carry the can at the select committee on that legislation. She is doing so I have to say with great dignity given the pressure that she has been put under. He might like to talk to her about that. 
But what this comes back to and why this is so important is the fact that we will be purchasing all these emissions units from offshore no matter what the cost. If the carbon price goes up then that is billions of dollars’ worth of liability being placed on the New Zealand taxpayer because this Government has decided that a reduction in our emissions target of 10 to 20 percent is not about reducing emissions. That is a really important point to make because I do not think the general public understands that. 
Simon Bridges 
: How cynical! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Ha ha! Mr Bridges should wait until the report comes back from the select committee where it has been confirmed by officials and then see whether it is still cynical. Alternatively he could stand up in this Chamber and take a call and say that the Government will reduce emissions by 10 to 20 percent—but the Government will not do that. 
It is very important that we set up international carbon trading because we need to buy ourselves out of a big problem according to this Government given that the companion emissions trading scheme legislation is currently being rammed through the select committee process. We finished hearing submissions this week and in 2 weeks’ time the legislation has to be reported back. It cannot be done. It is impossible. [ 
Interruption 
] This is the third select committee I have sat on I say to Mr Lotu-Iiga on this legislation. Last year National criticised Labour for the fact that we considered the legislation in 6 months. Now we have 2 weeks to get this legislation back before the House. It cannot physically be done. 
When we are being asked to truncate parliamentary process to do it because we cannot get a departmental report and we cannot get a revision track bill in time that is a serious problem. Why are we being asked to do this? It is so Nick Smith can go to Copenhagen and brag that he has passed a scheme that will not do anything. That is why. Why not let the select committee go through its proper process and then go to Copenhagen and say that the legislation is still in the process? Why would the Government not do that? Mr Tremain thinks this is funny. Why would the Government not do that? Why can select committees not do their work? 
Simon Bridges 
: You’re confusing me! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: This is very difficult. I will have to explain it like explaining literacy and numeracy standards to someone who thinks they will actually improve education. 
Simon Bridges 
: The process was good. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: This process was good for this legislation but the companion legislation relating to the emissions trading scheme has had a very very bad process. They are actually linked to each other I say to Mr Bridges. It is very worrying that the Government is so ignorant on the basics of legislation that it is passing. It is very worrying to the Opposition. If Mr Harawira does not realise that this is not the emissions trading scheme legislation and Mr Bridges thinks that as well and is getting very confused then I am worried about how we can seriously think that this Government will be able to pass any kind of climate change legislation of any meaning. This is very very concerning. This bill— 
Simon Bridges 
: What is this bill about? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: “Come on!” I say to Mr Bridges. Seriously! This bill will help us to facilitate trading in the emissions market. It is important for that reason and Labour supports it. It is also very good that the select committee has allowed the definition of an emissions unit to be more flexible to allow for innovation. That is good as well. But the fact is that there is no point doing all this when the opportunities in the carbon market have been missed. 
We had an opportunity to be one of the very first countries to set up carbon trading in conjunction with a European company. That company looked across and saw great opportunities in New Zealand on the other side of the world and in a different time zone but pulled out because of this Government’s moves in stalling on the emissions trading scheme. That is the reality of the situation we face. That is why this has been delayed. 
This Government has no sense of urgency around carbon trading. It has no sense of urgency at all. We are setting up a flawed “cap and trade” scheme that has no cap. We will be purchasing an awful lot of emissions from overseas so we had better get this right because it will be a big part of this Government’s target. We will not be reducing emissions; we will be paying for them. When I say “we” I mean the taxpayers of New Zealand who will be subsidising big polluters to the tune of billions of dollars for 90 years or more. That is an outrage.