Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18124] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 What is being done in this Parliament this afternoon is both irresponsible and reckless. The issue of climate change and the introduction in New Zealand of an emissions trading system as set out in the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill are amongst the most important issues and bills of our time. For the Minister to announce today another 785 amendments after issuing 1000 amendments 2 days before the deliberation on the bill at the Finance and Expenditure Committee and assuring the members of the committee that those were all and that things were all OK is nothing less than reckless. 
We need to understand how big this bill is. It is certainly the biggest bill that has been dealt with in this term of Parliament. It is certainly a bill with huge implications for every household and its cost of living and for every business out there whether it be in our important agricultural forestry or fishing sectors—right across the board. For the Minister to expect this Parliament to digest and get right 785 amendments is treating this Parliament as a joke. How many members of the Government will have even read these 785 changes? I bet members there are none. How can this Parliament have any confidence that we are going to get the key elements of a complex emissions trading system right when the Government dumps so many amendments on this Parliament in that sort of way? 
The reality of this emissions trading legislation is that the Government itself has deferred its implementation for 2 years. The only reason that Parliament is under some mad rush to pass this bill is simply to try to save this Government’s bacon in respect of its reputation on climate change. It has been in Government for 9 years and every single one of its climate change initiatives has failed. The tragedy is that the Government has learnt nothing from those failures. It rushed ahead with the carbon tax and it failed. It rushed ahead with the Projects to Reduce Emissions programme and that failed. It rushed ahead with its tax on farmers—colloquially known as the “fart tax”—and that failed. It rushed ahead to proclaim that its forestry initiative would result in increased forestry; it resulted in the biggest chainsaw massacre in the history of New Zealand. So I plead with the Government and with the parties that are supporting this bill to learn from history. When the Government has rushed these measures it has got them wrong and the very essence of New Zealand’s reputation around climate change has taken a hit. 
The truth is that in every year of this Government New Zealand’s emissions have grown and ironically have grown faster than almost any other country’s. In some blind way in these last dying gasps of this Government it is desperate to pass this very complex legislation without getting the essential detail right. The truth is that in an emissions trading system the attention to detail is very important. It is important because if we get the detail wrong the emissions trading system will be rorted by those who seek to gain from it. And if that occurs the most important element of New Zealand’s climate change policy will be dead in the water. 
So National says to the Government it should not do this to our Parliament and bring New Zealand’s reputation into disrepute with such shonky lawmaking. Why are we looking at hundreds of amendments without even the basics of an explanatory note as to what the Government seeks to achieve? How can the Minister go around and say he is engaged in good faith with the Opposition in trying to build a consensus when the Government has not even attempted to provide basic information about the Supplementary Order Papers? The process over this bill is awful. It will result in serious mistakes and that will cost New Zealanders dearly in terms of both jobs and costs. New Zealand deserves a whole lot better than to have this shabby process.