Robertson Grant: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7968. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is interesting to follow on from the member who has just resumed her seat Nicky Wagner in the Committee stage of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill and to have clarification that Treasury appears to have a crystal ball that is also a computer. We just heard from Ms Wagner that the computers are to blame. The machines have taken over at Treasury. Nobody is putting any data in; there are no actual people. I do not know what Aaron Gilmore thinks of this. He is a former Treasury person and he must have been part of the crystal-gazing over the road there. 
Moana Mackey 
: He was the crystal ball! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: In fact he was the crystal ball at Treasury. That is what we heard. The problem for Ms Wagner is that Treasury did make this estimate. Treasury made this estimate for 2050 and National has been very very happy to talk about the emission reduction targets that it has for 2050. It has been very happy to stake its credibility on reducing emissions out to 2050 but suddenly when Treasury—the brains that drive the financial management of New Zealand—comes up with a projection and National does not like it it is crystal-gazing. It does not matter any more. 
New Zealanders will have to pay for this emissions trading scheme. Ms Wagner shakes her head but someone has to pay. I quote somebody she knows very well: “Are there fairies at the bottom of the garden with money?”. Somebody has to pay for this and Part 1 shifts the burden for that payment from heavy emitters to taxpayers. It shifts the burden from heavy emitters to ordinary taxpayers. It shifts the burden from this generation to the next generation. Last night we heard a disgraceful interjection from the National side of the Chamber on one of my colleagues. Jacinda Ardern was speaking about the impact of this bill on future generations and we heard an interjection that said she had no right to talk about that because she did not have children. 
Hon David Parker 
: It was Amy Adams. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That was who the interjector was I say to Mr Parker. I was appalled by that interjection as I myself am somebody who does not have children. I will tell members of some other people in our history who have not had children and who have made a big influence on this Parliament: Michael Joseph Savage and Peter Fraser. They did not have children but they cared about future generations. On this side of the Chamber we also care about future generations whether or not we have children. Part 1 of this bill is pushing the burden for paying for this for paying for our future on to future generations without taking responsibility for it now. I believe that that is a great shame. 
We need to recap a little on where we have got to. I am a relatively new member in this House so I take the advice of experienced members who have been here for some time. I want to quote from one of those members: “The importance of getting this legislation right cannot be overstated. [The development of an ETS] represents the most significant economic reform since the deregulation of the economy in the late 1980s. Getting this bill right is also important for the environment. Poor policy can also have unintended adverse environmental consequences.”—I think we can agree with that. The quote continues: “the legislative process has been rushed and inadequate given this bill’s complexity and significance. The public has not had adequate time to examine and submit on the bill and it is inevitable that serious mistakes will be made that will adversely affect New Zealanders … this process has not been conducive to getting such an important bill right nor in getting the cross-party support needed to ensure the stability and longevity of New Zealand’s ETS.” 
Moana Mackey 
: Who said that? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I will tell members that the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith said that and he was talking about Labour’s climate change legislation last year. 
That legislation had had over a year’s worth of work on it extensive consultation prior to it being introduced with working groups working alongside the Government throughout the process and a proper select committee process with a wonderful chair in Mr Chauvel and Mr Smith told us last year that it was inadequate. I ask members what we are seeing now. We are seeing a process rushed through select committee legislation rammed through in urgency and we heard yesterday that the deal with the Maori Party was agreed to 18 minutes before it was announced to the public. Is that the proper scrutiny this bill deserves? Is that the proper scrutiny that Dr Smith was talking about last year? 
Paul Quinn 
: Absolutely! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No it is not. This bill has been rushed through and this process is a shambles. Over there is Mr Quinn the politiciser of the Public Service. I wonder whether he will be organising something in association with the Ministry for the Environment in his electorate over this. I do not think so. 
This process has been deeply deeply flawed. This is what the Treasury which the Government side of the Chamber does not want to listen to said about this bill: “The level and quality of analysis presented is not commensurate with the significance of the proposals which represent major design changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme and the Regulatory Impact Statement does not provide an adequate basis for informed decision-making.” Treasury made that comment in all seriousness; the people at Treasury are not frivolous people. The National Party campaigned on respecting the professionalism of public servants but it has completely failed to do that in this case. Treasury made a serious statement and it further stated that the changes to the emissions trading scheme “come at a cost to the economy as a whole by delaying the transition of the New Zealand economy to a carbon constrained world.” [ 
Interruption 
] I repeat for Mr Quinn’s benefit that the changes to the emissions trading scheme “come at a cost to the economy as a whole by delaying the transition of the New Zealand economy to a carbon constrained world.” 
That is the problem with Part 1. National seems to believe that we can somehow reduce our emissions and meet our international targets without having to really change. Nicky Wagner described Part 1 as a “gentle phase-out”. What that really means is that the people who need to be fronting up—the large heavy emitters—are being given a gentle phase-out and the taxpayers of New Zealand out to 2050 and beyond will shoulder the burden of this legislation. Future generations will shoulder the burden because this Government has not been prepared to front up take some responsibility and take some time to develop a scheme that is sustainable and has cross-party support. That is shameful. Part 1 is deeply flawed.