Dyson Ruth: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6456. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It was very disappointing to hear the contribution from the member Todd McClay who has just resumed his seat because he is the member of Parliament representing Rotorua which is an area surrounded by forests and forestry jobs. This bill above all others will have a significant impact on jobs in that member’s electorate. On this day when we have heard about the highest rate of unemployment for years the member stands up and says not one thing in defence or support of the forestry workers who are not down the other end of the country and not on the other side of the island but in his very electorate. That member knows because time after time after time our select committees have heard it from the forestry industry that unless there is a significant change in the Government’s attitude the forestry industry would be in trouble. What is it about good jobs decent advice and pleading from the forestry industry that that member did not understand? I think actually it is all three of those points. He clearly did not take any of it on board and has the ignorance and arrogance to stand up in this House after getting his riding instructions from his Minister—whom presumably he wants to sit alongside in Cabinet—and not say a single thing in defence of the workers in his electorate. 
I think—and perhaps it is a bit old-fashioned as the member for Rotorua thinks—that the security of a decent job is really important to every human being. I think that when we are passing legislation and we have had leaders in the forestry industry coming to Parliament and saying: “This is wrong; here is how to fix it.” Parliament’s response should have been to listen to them. 
 The other point the member made that I was fascinated by was that he stressed so adamantly that New Zealand should certainly not be leading in this area. The member seems ashamed to think of New Zealand as a country that could lead the world. We have in other things. We led the world in the right for women to have the vote. We led the world far more recently in being nuclear-free having nuclear-free areas designated. I do not know why we would not want to at least struggle to catch up with the world actually on having a focus on clean green and clever technology and having secure employment as a result. My colleague from Dunedin North Dr David Clark has just commented that perhaps the only thing we lead the world in is the current account deficit and I am not sure that that is something that we would be particularly proud of but it is an accurate comment. 
So we get to the end of this debate on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill after a disgracefully rushed process. Not only did the National Government not listen to the clear submissions that were given to the Finance and Expenditure Committee not just on this occasion but other times as well but it has used a disgracefully rushed process to the point that members of the select committee often did not get advice on particular matters they were considering in time to be informed before they made a decision. The chairman of the committee has got his riding instructions; he has been told what to do. Who cares about listening to evidence facts or information? Clearly it is not the current member of Parliament for Rotorua. 
Instead of a decent length of time—instead of say normally having 5 or 6 months for legislation to go through Parliament—this bill has been squashed into a 7-week time frame. This is not a minor matter. This is a significant important and complex matter. It is one that is now directly threatening jobs employment in our country in the member’s electorate of Rotorua and in the electorate of another member of the committee actually—John Hayes who I am sure will be taking a call. I hope he speaks in defence of the forestry workers in his electorate because their submissions their pleading and their understanding of the impact of this bill was significant. So John Hayes and Todd McClay amongst the other members of the National Government whose electorates will be directly and negatively impacted by this legislation should stand up and speak in defence of their workers who are now at risk of losing their jobs. 
The introduction to this bill was really an example of amazing spin on the Government’s behalf. It should come clean in this third reading stage and say that what the bill does is just significantly weaken the emissions trading scheme. I do not know when the Hon Dr Nick Smith might be getting back into Cabinet but I certainly hope it is soon. Even though Dr Smith would not see me as a strong supporter of his I am desperate to have somebody in the National Cabinet who knows something about these issues who actually cares about the environment and conservation and who can charge through that bulldozer machine of Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce who are clearly running the whole show at the moment while the rest of Cabinet just sits around and agrees. I know that it may not have made Dr Smith popular among some of his colleagues in the past but at least he had a clear conscience on issues of principle in conservation and the environment and at least he understood the emissions trading scheme. What we have now is a total lack of any understanding of the scheme complete ignorance and a bulldozer approach. What we are ending up with is basically as my colleague Charles Chauvel so clearly spelt out in his excellent contribution to this debate corporate welfare—something that I thought the National Government would be pretty embarrassed about. 
This bill is fundamentally flawed. Not only does it not do anything to progress New Zealand’s position in terms of gross greenhouse gas emissions but it actually moves us backwards in that regard and that should be of dismay to this Parliament rather than something that the National Government will push through with a very slim majority. One of the votes that it will be relying on is from another member of this House who will have forestry workers in his electorate and who frankly has had the experience through his time in Parliament to understand this legislation and therefore in my view should not be casting his vote in support of it and that is the Hon Peter Dunne. He knows that his legacy by putting his vote against the Ayes lobby on this bill will be job losses which no member of Parliament should want to stand up for and a massive carbon deficit for future generations. I do not understand how somebody like the Hon Peter Dunne who has had experience in this area could put his name alongside this bill and I certainly hope that before the end of this debate he comes to his senses and votes against it. 
Labour sought to amend a bad bill to make it better. We had four Supplementary Order Papers: one was to restrict the international units one was to follow the recommendations of the review panel in regard to the transition period one was to give consumers the ability to know when they are being overcharged for carbon and the final one was to ensure that agriculture had a fixed date to enter the scheme. That certainty is actually more important to the industry than the National Government gives it credit for. All of those Supplementary Order Papers would have made a bad bill better. It would have remained a bad bill but it would have been significantly improved. The National Government for blind ideology—that was the only reason I could understand—voted down those four Supplementary Order Papers. 
We have now ended up with a scheme that is taking us in the opposite direction to that which most New Zealanders would be proud to have their name attached to. It is a scheme that is being led by a Minister who clearly has not got to grips with it and a select committee chair who does not stand up for what is good for his own electorate or the rest of the country and does not listen to submissions and who is prepared to be pushed around in promotion of his own career. 
This is one of the biggest disappointments amongst many from the National Party and I certainly hope that its very slim majority on these issues—significantly slimmer because the Maori Party listened to the voices of the submitters throughout the process and is I understand going to vote against the bill—changes before the end of this debate.