Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7978. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Having heard the contribution from both the Green Party and the ACT Party there are a couple of points to which I would like to respond. Firstly I respond to the claim by ACT MP John Boscawen that somehow the Government is being dishonest because I do take offence at that. Let me tell him why. The truth is that the ACT Party does not believe in climate change and does not want to take action. When we had a debate about a carbon tax the ACT Party said no we should have an emissions trading scheme. Then when we said we would have an emissions trading scheme it said we should have a carbon tax. Now I think the ACT Party needs to be honest with this Parliament and say what it really believes: that we should do nothing. 
So right at the very last moment when it was well speculated in the media that we had reached an honourable agreement with the Maori Party ACT suddenly fronted up and said we should delay things for 12 months. Let us think that through. Can I be any more confident than I am today that in 12 months’ time National—which believes we should take action on climate change and which has long said we need to have an emissions trading scheme—and ACT could reach agreement? The honest truth is that I cannot. The truth is that we had a special select committee inquiry. The truth is that the ACT Party’s position at the end of that inquiry was exactly the same as at the beginning albeit it was a single view. So do I think the right step forward for New Zealand today is to defer things for another 12 months? No I do not. 
John Boscawen says that we are doing this ahead of other countries. Let us think that through. I think Kennedy Graham’s point on this is quite true: that if New Zealand takes the approach of saying we will move only when another country has moved and if every one of the 196 countries takes that approach nobody will do anything. 
So we have said we want to realign this emissions trading scheme with Australia’s scheme. I have been to Australia three times. Most recently I had a long discussion with Malcolm Turnbull on Monday so that I could ensure that this legislation took into account the most recent accounts of what is occurring in Australia. The reports continue to be that its scheme is likely to be passed into law this week. Given all the arguments about process I remind the New Zealand Parliament that the Australian Government has not yet tabled its amendments and is intending to both introduce them and pass them all in the same week. This issue—[ 
Interruption 
] 
I do want to respond to a point that has been made by Grant Robertson and the likes of him. Those members have said the process is a shambles but they take no responsibility for their role in that. I will say why they should. 
Hon Members 
: What? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well let me tell those members this. During the first reading of this bill Labour members argued strongly that it should be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I have long held a view that it would be better if National and Labour could reach an accord on this issue. So in discussion with Gerry Brownlee we said it was not a big deal and we would allow the bill to go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I sought leave to do that. Can members believe that the Labour members voted against it when I sought leave for the bill to be referred to that committee? A large number of technical amendments were agreed to at the select committee. Members of the Labour Opposition agreed with the changes around tree weeds. If they agreed with those changes why were those amendments not made at the select committee? It is because Labour wanted to make the process as bad as possible and because it is simply being destructive. 
I challenge the Labour members. I say this issue is too important to play those sorts of political games with. This is the sort of issue on which this Parliament should rise to the occasion rise to the huge challenge and not be involved in that sort of silly exercise. I say if the Labour members want to make claims about the process they need to answer to New Zealand on the role they took in the process to make it as destructive as they possibly could. They must bear responsibility for that and they must eyeball their children and grandchildren about that as we confront the issue of climate change. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think we have had so much urgency that we have almost worn the bell out. If members hear this sound in the future it is the normal bell. We are trying to get it fixed.