Clark David: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6232. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Goodness! What a speech. What a load of nonsense from the previous speaker David Bennett. It was disappointing even by his own standards. 
This is a shameful piece of legislation. I have heard members in this House in previous speeches describe it as a fig leaf. I think that that is too much to say. This piece of legislation the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is dangerous. It gives greater assurance to emitters. It is not a neutral thing; it is not simply a cover-up. It is actually giving those people who are engaged in the industries of today and of yesterday greater assurance about their prospects than those businesses that are engaged in the business of today and tomorrow. This is the wrong thing to be doing. You cannot use prices to influence behaviour without having a price. That simple fact seems to be lost on the Government. It is not really clear why it wants to do this for any other reason than political expedience. 
This scheme when it was originally designed was a modest scheme—a very modest scheme. It was designed to send an investment signal for future endeavours. In one sense it was bold because it included all sectors and all gases and it was the first in the world to do that. But it began modestly. It wanted to make sure that all businesses could adapt that New Zealanders were not put out of work but that we could start on the road to reducing emissions for the good of New Zealand and for the good of the planet. 
The National Party when it came into power immediately weakened it. At the same time it removed the renewable preference legislation which would have seen no new baseload generation built and no unnecessary baseload fossil fuel generation built. National also removed the biofuels sale obligation which meant that the biofuels industry has all but departed from New Zealand. Instead it has given greater and greater assurance over time to polluters that the taxpayer will subsidise them. 
The taxpayer currently pays for 100 percent of emissions in the agricultural sector. That is for agricultural emissions. The system as it was originally proposed would have seen polluters paying for 5 percent. After they had paid 5 percent it would have seen the taxpayer still pick up 95 percent of the bill. I think that is modest but it sends a signal. But that was too much for the National Party. It has pulled back from that position. It has continued to water down the scheme and now it is indefinitely suspending agricultural emissions from the emissions trading scheme. It sends all the wrong signals. 
There are plenty of other ways we could be looking out for industries in New Zealand. We know that we need pro-growth tax reform. Research and development tax credits would make a big difference to this industry. We know that we need better savings policy so that businesses have access to the capital they need to expand. We know that the Reserve Bank needs stronger tools and a stronger mandate for ensuring that the economy is in favour of our businesses. But unfortunately the National Government is using this tool wrongly in order to achieve friendship with some industries. It should be instead focused on making a difference in the climate change space and addressing the issues for industry through progressive policies that support those who want to grow business in New Zealand. And it can reduce other taxes. There are ways of going about making positive change without watering down this scheme and making New Zealand an international embarrassment. 
This bill modifies the emissions trading scheme. It weakens it by extending the transition period for polluters indefinitely along with the entry of the agricultural sector into the scheme. Aside from that it makes a range of technical changes that will also see the forestry sector worse off. It is a disappointment and it reflects National’s delusion that the environment and the economy are contrary forces. We need both.