Chauvel Charles: General Debate 
Chauvel Charles: General Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:15949] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I begin by acknowledging the presence in the gallery of members of the public who are here for the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill. When that bill is read it will be a historic and solemn moment in this Parliament’s history—perhaps a bit more historic and solemn than the matters that have been bandied about in this debate so far. It is good to know that Parliament will be getting on to doing its proper job. 
I would like to take up the challenge laid down by the previous member and debate an important issue before the public at the moment and that is climate change. Members will know that another historic bill is before Parliament—it is actually before the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the moment—and that is the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. It is a very very important bill that will allow New Zealand to fulfil its Kyoto Protocol obligations. I take this opportunity to urge members all around the House to express their support for what is very very good legislation. 
I also want to ask National members in particular what position that party takes on climate change. We seem to have lots of different indications from lots of different spokespeople. In October 2007 John Key said what I think is a very responsible thing. He said: “I think you need to balance your economic opportunities with your environmental responsibilities. If you get those things out of whack what you are likely to do is just export a whole lot of industries … On the other side of the coin I think you have got to take climate change seriously.” That is a responsible statement that tries to reflect the policy being striven for in the emissions trading legislation and I hope that the National Party will stick to that position. 
Unfortunately we have had inconsistent statements even from Mr Key himself. In May 2005 he said that Kyoto “is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so … even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it …”. That is a worrying inconsistency. We really need to see consistency from members opposite on this important issue—like the responsible position taken by Mr Key’s deputy when he said in February 2007: “we are open to the science …”. That is very similar to the position taken by Nick Smith. He has taken a responsible public stance on the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill which I hope members opposite will follow. 
But we heard Maurice Williamson speaking earlier in this debate in praise of Television One and its investigative abilities. I would like to join him in doing that because we owe Television One for that famous interview where Maurice Williamson was asked: “I understand that you said to the AA conference that you didn’t believe [climate change] was happening.” Williamson responded: “That’s not true. What I said at the AA conference is I wasn’t going to comment on any other member’s policy. I was there to talk about roading.” Television One asked: “Do you believe in climate change?”. Williamson replied: “I believe in the National Party’s policy.” Television One then asked: “But do you yourself believe in it?”. The reply was “I believe in the National Party’s policy”— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Whatever that is! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Paul Swain makes a good point. What is the National Party’s policy on climate change in general? What is its policy on this emissions trading legislation in particular? The public has a right to know and it is time we heard. 
Members will remember that other famous interview by Television One with Lockwood Smith who said: “I don’t know what this is about. My position is totally consistent with National’s position.” Television One: “What I’m asking you is whether you believe in global warming.” The reply: “My position is totally consistent with National’s position.” Television One: “Lockwood I’m asking you whether you believe in global warming.” Lockwood Smith: “I’m telling you what my answer is.” Television One: “What is it?”. Lockwood Smith: “That I totally support National’s position.” Television One: “Do you believe in global warming?”. Lockwood Smith: “I totally support National’s position.” Television One: “Why can’t you tell us yes or no?”. Lockwood Smith: “Because the important thing is what I support.” 
When John Key was asked about this apparent conflict he said: “Well I mean in the case of Maurice and Lockwood I mean they they simply are they look they nat they back the National Party position which is on climate change. Since I’ve been the leader I’ve made it very clear that National is going to take climate change seriously. We’ve got a target of reducing our emissions by 50 percent by 2050. We’ll be backing the emissions trading scheme albeit that the system is complex and that; and we’ll need to take a good look at it. We back Kyoto. So ah you know we’re bound by collective responsibility and I think in that regard Lockwood and Maurice have made that quite clear; and that’s totally fine.” Well let us hope that is the position and that the National Party will support this important legislation. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.