Moroney Sue: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Moroney Sue: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6302. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair. I was so busy calling that I did not actually hear my name being called out. Normally I would start off a contribution on a bill such as this the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill by saying that it is a pleasure to rise and speak on the bill but it is about 6 minutes since the Melbourne Cup has been run. That I am here at all to take a call on any bill is a minor miracle— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Who won? 
SUE MORONEY 
: —but it shows the level of my commitment. It was Green Moon who won for all of those people who are wondering whether their sweepstakes came in or not. Even though it is Melbourne Cup day it is important to be here speaking in opposition— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well isn’t it appropriate to have a jockey in the Chair at the moment? 
SUE MORONEY 
: And appropriate as my colleague points out that the member for Waikato is in the chair at this time and that that really important horse racing town of Matamata be represented in the Chair at the moment. 
I do want to get on to the substance of this bill. It is really important to speak in opposition to this bill which will take us somewhat backwards in terms of our commitment to the international issue of climate change. We have had speakers from the Government who are today of all days trying to convince us that it has flip-flopped and now agrees that putting health and safety ahead of profits is an important thing for this Government when in fact it has been guilty of doing the opposite. Here it is again on the very day that it is trying to convince us that it now understands that health and safety is more important than profits putting an important part of this country’s future behind profits with this bill. The Government is putting profits ahead of the environment in this instance. It is doing that by delaying the entry of agriculture into the emissions trading scheme. 
Dr Nick Smith said in his contribution to this debate that if anyone was concerned about this country’s balance of payments they would support this bill. Well I think he could not be more wrong because one of the reasons that our agricultural industry and the products that come from our agricultural industry are so sought after on the world market is because of the clean green image that New Zealand has which this Government is putting at risk. That is our place in the world. That is one of the niches we have. We are not there because we are a mass producer of milk; we are there because we are a good producer of milk. One of the reasons behind that is our environmental record. Here this Government is putting at risk with this bill that very important part of how we market to the rest of the world. 
What we know from previous contributions is that it is also dipping into the pockets of the taxpayer to make sure that this happens. It is subsidising polluters with taxpayer money—taxpayer money to the tune of $328 million. That amount is significant because the very day—the very day—that this Government announced its intention to increase the money paid by taxpayers by $328 million in order to subsidise the agricultural sector and to delay its entry into the emissions trading scheme it also announced a financial veto on my bill to extend paid parental leave. I think this tells us everything we need to know about the priorities of this Government. It is quite happy to spend taxpayer money subsidising agricultural polluters and actually giving them another reason to continue to pollute rather than find solutions to minimise that pollution. The Government would much rather put taxpayer money into that than into supporting families. It would much more readily put money into this area continue that regime of pollution and risk our international reputation than support children. That is where the priorities of this Government lie and that is why this bill is so fundamentally wrong. 
It is wrong because it tells us that this Government which promised the country a brighter future has absolutely no intentions of that. It has no intentions of delivering a brighter future unless what it meant by that brighter future is a future full of more pollution unless it meant a future where our international reputation goes down the gurgler and unless it had every intention of the brighter future being about making sure that we have a country where farmers do not strive to find solutionsand that they have no financial incentive to strive to find solutions for pollution but instead are given a subsidy by this Government via the taxpayer to continue on their merry old ways—the merry old ways that have actually meant that we have increased and continued to increase our emissions in this country when we are striving to reduce them. I do not know how the Government MPs can stand up opposite and argue that they are committed to reducing emissions and meeting the target we have of a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2050. I do not know how they can do that while at the same time promoting this bill which ensures that the sector that actually contributes the most significant amount to our carbon emissions can continue to do that unchecked and without the financial incentives to actually get its act together on this. 
 I am based in the Waikato area and I know about how important this sector and its reputation is to this country. I know about how our reputation as a food-producing nation relies significantly not just on our ability to push milk out the farm gate but that it is of high quality. We will lose the race and holding that market position and holding that niche if we do not address these issues immediately and urgently. We should not be continuing along to be a follower as the Prime Minister would have us—a close follower. We need to be a world leader because that is the reputation that I want to see for our agricultural sector and our agricultural products in this country—world leading. That is the market position we must fight to retain. We will not retain that while we have measures like this that put the cost on the taxpayer while letting the agricultural sector continue on its merry old way without the financial incentives to find the solutions that we all need—that we all need—to make sure that we keep at the top of our game. 
Far from being the type of legislation that somehow protects our agricultural sector and enhances our reputation as the Government would have us believe this legislation is actually the antithesis to that. It is actually the antithesis because it damages our international reputation. Our international reputation has to be one of the most valuable things that we have when we are trading with the rest of the world. You would not know that by the way that the Prime Minister in particular bandies our international reputation around as if it is some stand-up comedy routine—some stand-up comedy routine. That is what the Prime Minister is doing. 
Andrew Little 
: In an offensive way. 
SUE MORONEY 
: In a very offensive way. Offending Finland offending Great Britain— 
Andrew Little 
: David Beckham. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Yes. And he is continuing on to make this country a laughing stock. It is no wonder that a Government led by that Prime Minister has come up with this piece of legislation which will continue to damage our reputation in exactly the way that John Key goes about with his stand-up comedy routine. He might find it amusing in front of a bunch of teenage girls but on the world stage hey Mr Key what I want to say is that makes us look ridiculous. Do not keep doing that with legislation like this with silly comments like you have been making in recent times. Our reputation is much too important to do that and to be the leader in our country going around bandying this type of legislation around and making those sorts of comments. 
Right from the start I think it was evident that the National Government really was not focused on our international reputation at all because it rushed this bill through the House to meet its December deadline. It clearly has not listened to what submitters have asked it to consider with this. Todd McClay frowns but I want him to go and see the forestry industry in his electorate and explain why his Government has ignored the submissions that the forestry submitters from his electorate came to make to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I want to hear a contribution from Todd McClay to actually explain how he has gone to those submitters.