English Bill: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
English Bill: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18125] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I support the comments made by our spokesman on climate change Nick Smith. The emissions trading system is probably the biggest single innovation in public policy for about the last 10 years or so. Parliament is trying to debate the creation of a whole new market in emissions trading permits essentially which the public does not understand and I venture to suggest which a good number of politicians do not understand yet either. Those who have been immersed in this policy-making process for 18 months to 2 years understand it but other people do not. That is why my colleague drew attention to the fact that there are 750 amendments—in fact hundreds of pages of amendments—with no description of what they are intended to achieve. That makes a nonsense of this Committee stage. 
I am one of those who sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and tried to come to grips with the detail of this legislation. At the end of that process the Government presented us with about a thousand amendments a number of which it described as technical. I have to say that the select committee members who sat through a process on which the Government put a great deal of weight really had no idea what they were doing when by majority they voted those amendments into the bill. 
The Government having put a thousand amendments into the bill at the last moment with almost no scrutiny of them by the select committee the next time that Parliament debates this bill—which is now—the Government introduces 750 further amendments. There are 1750 amendments and no one in Parliament knows what they achieve. I think we should be straight up about that. No one in Parliament knows what they achieve. Even as knowledgable a colleague of mine as Dr Nick Smith who from the time we received the amendments has spent as much time today looking at them as he could is struggling to understand how they all fit together. There is absolutely no doubt that almost everyone else in Parliament except perhaps the co-leader of the Greens Jeanette Fitzsimons will struggle to understand how they are put together. 
Does that matter? Of course it matters. I draw Parliament’s attention to the history in this Chamber of the only legislation I can think of that was similar to this bill in its innovation and that was the fishing quota legislation that set up individual transferable quotas and all that. In the whole time that I have been in Parliament which is 17 years we have barely gone a year without a fisheries amendment bill. In recent months we have actually been debating yet another one— 
Hon David Carter 
: That’s right. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —as the Hon David Carter would be able to tell us. 
Hon David Carter 
: Another two. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have been debating another two fisheries amendment bills over points of law that are directly related to a Minister’s ability to make decisions. This legislation today puts enormous weight on ministerial decision-making and discretion. In my view it puts far too much weight on them and that is one of its weaknesses as a public policy. But there is no doubt that what is being done today driven by the Government's political interest is setting this Parliament on a course for an endless procession of amendment bills to try to fix up the mess that Parliament is about to make. 
We should be in no doubt about what is driving this process: Helen Clark is concerned that she may lose the election—and she is even more concerned after the events of the last week or so—and she is trying to ram this legislation through the House at the last minute. It is simply not good enough for the Minister to say that we have spent the last 2 years thinking about it. A small group of officials may have done that but if we thought that officials should do all the legislating we would not have a Parliament at all. We would not even bother to have the select committee process. In fact what often worries Opposition members on select committees is just how much difference a select committee can make to legislation when the committee is made up of part-time legislators dealing with full-time policy makers. 
This whole timetable is being driven by the Government’s political needs. The Government has very little to show for its third term in office. Dr Cullen has KiwiSaver to show for it but that is about it. Not much else has happened of any significance even though Government members may regard themselves as having been busy. Helen Clark has figured out that as she faces a potential election loss she has very little to show for her third term. It is unfortunate for New Zealand that she has decided on the emissions trading system as the thing that she wants to have pushed through before the bell goes.