Clark David: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6318. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I rise to oppose this bill the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and clauses 1 to 3. I could be tempted to support a change of name to one that in my view more nearly reflects the intentions of the bill. This bill modifies the emissions trading scheme as we have heard in a way that weakens it by extending the transitional period for polluters indefinitely along with not including the agriculture sector in this scheme at all. It also makes various technical changes. The bill is a disappointment. It is fundamentally flawed. We have already heard that the select committee process was rushed in order for the Government to get this through in a time frame that did not actually allow for the concerns of the different sectors to be heard and taken seriously. We have heard that it is destroying the forestry sector in Mr McClay’s electorate the man who chaired the committee. We have heard that it will not help us reach the Government’s target of a 50 percent emissions reduction by 2050. 
This bill reflects National’s delusion that the environment and the economy are contrary forces to be balanced against each other when they actually are dependent upon one another. It increases the costs to taxpayers. So one suggestion for a name change would be the “Climate Change Response (Additional Costs to Taxpayers) Bill” because under one calculation it increases the cost to taxpayers by $328 million—which is a conservative cost—and another estimate at the carbon cap price has an additional cost to taxpayers of $1.3 billion. That is what this bill does for those who are watching at home: it increases the costs to taxpayers by subsidising polluters further. 
 So it could also be called I suggest the “Climate Change Response (Certainty to Polluters) Bill” because that is what it does. It gives greater certainty to polluters. Those who have invested in the technologies of today and yesterday are given greater certainty over their financial future than those who are investing in the technologies of today and tomorrow. It is a tragedy because as we prepare our economy for the battles of yesterday we are not putting ourselves in a good position to fight the economic challenges of tomorrow. 
It could also be more accurately called the “Climate Change Response (Weakening of Price Signal in the Market) Bill”. That is the effect that it has. It weakens the signal in the market. It makes those who are doing good things in the market more wary about investing. The forestry sector as we have heard will be damaged by the changes in this bill. It is likely that there will be job lay-offs. It is likely that that industry will suffer as a result of these changes. So that weakening price signal has a very real effect and it would be a good thing to include in the title to be very clear what the Government is trying to achieve here. 
Another title change could be the “Climate Change Response (Weakening of New Zealand’s International Standing) Amendment Bill” because that is one of the other effects that we have heard about. This bill makes New Zealand a laughing stock. Where once we were pioneering an all sectors scheme that sent a very real market signal here we have a Government running away from market signals. It seems to be a Government that increases red tape on businesses but is not concerned with letting markets do its bidding where they are actually designed to do so. This weakens the market. It collapses in New Zealand effectively the market in the units that would be traded in order to battle emissions worldwide. 
A further point here really is that this commencement date I would suggest should be pushed out for ever because this bill is not one that responsible parties in this Parliament can support. This bill is an irresponsible bill that sees New Zealand back-pedalling on its commitments that sees New Zealand not doing its fair share and that makes us a target for international ridicule. 
So overall the “Climate Change Response (Perhaps Emissions Increase) Amendment Bill” would be a far more fitting title. The others that I have suggested could also be picked up by the Government. I will be interested to see whether the Minister in the chair leaps to his feet and adopts any of these title suggestions in order to give a more real reflection of what this bill is achieving; otherwise I leave those thoughts with you.