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:18624] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 A couple of speeches ago the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Charles Chauvel stood in the Chamber and said it was a fundamental truth that the entire world is likely to face a carbon tax. I am interested with regard to our major trading nations. I ask Mr Chauvel which of the following are likely to face a carbon tax in the near future. I ask him when the United States is likely to face a carbon tax when Australia is likely to face a carbon tax and when China is likely to face a carbon tax. I ask when Malaysia and India are likely to face a carbon tax. 
New Zealand is going down the track of being one of the few nations if not the only nation to implement an “all sectors all gases” emissions trading system. Let us focus on agriculture and consider which of the nations we export to are likely to face a carbon tax for their agricultural sector. Is China is likely to face a carbon tax for agriculture? Europe has a carbon tax now but not for agriculture. When is Australia likely to face a carbon tax for agriculture? That is one of the six issues that concerns National about the policy. 
National talked about balancing environmental and economic interests. We talked about industry incentives to exit New Zealand. We talked about windfall profits to the Government. In our minority report on the bill we also talked about an alliance with Australia to develop an emissions trading scheme about the importance of small and medium sized enterprises and also lastly about the unilateral phasing out of industry support. 
It is the perverse incentives to exit New Zealand that I really want to focus on. One of National’s main concerns is the perverse incentive in the bill to export jobs and emissions offshore. The emissions trading scheme in its current form would encourage major industries like cement steel aluminium and—this is most concerning—agricultural products to be progressively relocated offshore and in most cases this would result crazily in increased global emissions overall. 
Let us think about our dairy industry which Mr Woolerton constantly talks about. The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to decrease global emissions of greenhouse gases on a global basis. Now the dairy industry has growth in dairy products globally. I ask Mr Woolerton whether New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme will stop the growth of those dairy products globally. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: No it won’t. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Probably not. The growth in dairy products will continue. 
New Zealand is one of the most efficient producers when it comes to producing a kilogram of milk fat solids. We have created a situation where we introduce an emissions trading scheme to our agricultural sector we put a cap on the production of milk fat solids in New Zealand—limit production—and we force production overseas where a kilogram of milk fat solids is produced less efficiently. So here we are with a perverse incentive implementing an emissions trading system that will increase the amount of emissions globally. How crazy is that? It is insane. 
Those are some of the major concerns and perverse incentives caused by racing through with the emissions trading scheme that covers “all sectors all gases” when a serious number of countries will not be facing a carbon tax in the near future. More to the point many countries will never face an agricultural carbon tax—certainly not in the near future. Those are some of the concerns raised in National’s minority report. It is a considered report. We have looked at the issues logically and have come up with a range of arguments for not supporting the bill at this point. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: National’s minority report is a whole lot of waffle. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: How can that be? How can the argument around the dairy industry be a load of waffle? How can exporting emissions offshore which would result in increased global greenhouse gases be a good thing? That member will be facing those questions on the hustings. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak and I rest my case at this point.