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:18143] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The arrogance of the Government in the way in which it is dealing with this legislation speaks volumes about why New Zealand desperately needs a change of Government. To have a bill that will have such profound effects on every nook and cranny of New Zealand and to expect this Parliament in a few hours to do it justice really makes today a disgraceful day for this New Zealand Parliament. 
Let me go through just a few of the significant issues. Everybody in this Parliament should understand that agriculture is at the core and is the powerhouse of the New Zealand economy. To include agriculture in an emissions trading system is a very very major reform. The most basic question— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I think you’d take it out. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —I say to Doug and to New Zealand First is to ask whether the point of obligation is going to be the farmer or the processor. I say to Mr Parker that if he wants to get the international accolades for having the first emissions trading system in the world to include agriculture he needs to answer that most basic question. But the Minister and this Government are passing a hospital pass to the next Government. They are saying they do not know the answer to that question and they are just going to kick it into the future. The aim here is for Helen Clark to get herself some job in the United Nations while selling the people of New Zealand down the tube by not working out the most basic mechanics of an emissions trading system. 
Then we come to the forest sector. If people want to look at any area where this Government has made a complete hash of New Zealand climate change policy it is forestry. I have an amendment that does the most basic thing. You see flexible land use has been at the core of New Zealand’s wealth creation for 160 years. We do not know what the economics and the future will be for dairying cropping or forestry—all those different land uses. What National wants in this bill is something very simple. If people want to deforest an area of land should they not be able to plant some other area—perhaps some of that million hectares of highly eroding hill country—to absorb the carbon? There is absolutely no loss for the environment. Whether the tree is growing on this acre or that acre makes absolutely no difference to the climate yet this bill will lock New Zealand in some sort of a time warp around land use. Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber say: “Not good enough Labour. Not good enough Mr Parker.” 
Then we take another area like fishing. Why is it that when it comes to the dairy industry we say we are going to grandparent 90 percent of it when it comes to the steel industry or the aluminium industry or the cement industry we are going to grandparent 90 percent of them but when it comes to fishing—oh no—there are a different set of rules. What logic is there for that? Are we somehow saying that the fishing industry is not an important export industry? Three hundred and twenty jobs in my electorate have just gone down the tube. I was briefed recently by Sealord’s which told me that the other 900 jobs in the biggest fish processing factory in New Zealand teeter on the balance yet in this bill we are going to dump another $10 million in costs on that industry. 
I wonder whether Labour members have gone down to talk to the Service and Food Workers Union about the extra costs and what that might do for their members’ jobs as a consequence of this bill. When will any Labour member get to his or her feet and explain what the consequences will be for the many voters who are not National voters but who will be adversely affected by the complex provisions in this bill? I say to members opposite— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Oh 2 weeks ago. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Maryan Street has said to the fishing industry in Nelson of the extra $10 million that she does not give a sod.