Nash Stuart: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
Nash Stuart: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7662] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I must admit that it is good to see Hone Harawira back in the Chamber. He has been in Geneva representing New Zealand at an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference. He said that he gave a speech in front of a delegation; I will tell members what Mr Harawira would have said. He would have stood and commented on what an aspirational country he comes from. He would have commented on what an amazing place he lives in. It would have been fantastic. Now he has come back here and is part of the support party that will ram through an emissions trading scheme bill that is an absolute disgrace. That is the irony. We saw the same sort of behaviour from Nikki Kaye. She stood up and said she was a leader in climate change and a magnificent ambassador for the youth of New Zealand yet she supports this legislation. Simon Bridges was the same: he supports this rubbish legislation. It is amazing. 
I stand in support of the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill but just because I support it does not mean that I support the companion bill the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Bill. In fact it is quite the opposite. There is a big difference. Like other speakers have done I acknowledge the hard work of officials and I congratulate them. This is a very good bill. Any bill that gets the unmitigated support of both sides of the Committee must be well drafted and must have gone through good processes. 
Moana Mackey 
: Who drafted it? 
STUART NASH 
: That is the thing! This is a Labour bill. It is unbelievable is it not? Sam stood up and said— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
STUART NASH 
: Sorry. The acting chair of the Commerce Committee stood up and said this is wonderful legislation. It is fantastic legislation but that is because it is a Labour bill. It goes without saying. 
I also say that without a doubt settlement systems contribute to a well-functioning capital market capital market development and world-class infrastructure objectives. I think we all agree with that. But most of us would also agree that in this country at the moment we have an underdeveloped capital market. This is perhaps one of the reasons why many New Zealanders prefer to invest in the housing market as opposed to other forms of investment. For example if we look at our capital markets and the finance companies then—goodness me—we see what a disaster they were. Many good hard-working New Zealanders took responsibility for saving for their retirement. Savers put money in finance companies and they were let down absolutely. They have been let down even further by the axing of the contribution to the Superannuation Fund and the cut to KiwiSaver. Then there is the sharemarket. I admit that Mark Weldon has done a superb job in raising the standard of the sharemarket but we did not have the regulation right. I will use the example of Feltex Carpets. There was a “buy” recommendation on Feltex Carpet shares a week before it fell over. I congratulate Mark Weldon on getting the regulations right around the NZX. There is a lot of mistrust from people investing in banks as profits head offshore. There were allegations in the Multi-party Parliamentary Banking Inquiry led by Labour of price gouging. The banks would not turn up to that inquiry and none of the National Party members turned up and that just increased the mistrust we had. 
I am hopeful that this bill will facilitate the trade in carbon units and New Zealanders will embrace it in the knowledge that we have it right and that this is a step to ensuring legislative integrity. I am hopeful that investors will invest and trade in the knowledge that Parliament has got it right so that this sector of the overall capital market at least is disassociated from market risk. Of course we understand that there is risk in any sort of international trading derivative trading or futures markets and investors will understand that. But ordinary hard-working New Zealanders do not want and should not expect other types of risk associated with poor legislation. That is why I say that this legislation is pretty good. It will take away that risk. It is just a shame as my colleague Moana Mackey said that the emissions trading scheme which is before the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the moment will really suboptimise the ability of people to trade in emissions trading units. That is the shame of this bill. It had the potential to be of huge benefit to New Zealand—absolute huge benefit. [ 
Interruption 
] Is anyone on the other side keen to take a call? I was half expecting Simon Bridges to stand up. I saw him in the Chamber but when I heard him ask what the bill was about I knew we were in trouble. Mr Bridges should listen and he might learn something or maybe he should go back to his office and read a little bit. 
This bill is good legislation. But as I mentioned I am without doubt a big supporter of anything that improves the economic prosperity of a country. In fact if we look at the statistics of the 9 years under the previous Labour Government we see that businesses thrived GDP flourished and this country boomed. There was zero debt under the previous Labour Government. 
Charles Chauvel 
: A country good for business. 
STUART NASH 
: Mr Chauvel makes a very good point. The World Bank came out and said that New Zealand was the easiest place in the world in which to do business. We had zero debt. As Mr Cunliffe said earlier Treasury has come out and said that by 2050 we will have a gross sovereign debt of 250 percent of GDP. That started on this Government’s watch. It is a disgrace. 
In my maiden speech when I came into Parliament I said that my time in this Parliament will have been successful if I can walk away knowing that I have left this country slightly better off than it was when I entered Parliament. But the emissions trading legislation is dreadful. When I heard about the emissions trading scheme I saw opportunities for forestry. I tell Mr Bridges and Mr Harawira that there was real opportunity in Rotorua for Maori. The emissions trading scheme was going to be a fantastic scheme to really optimise the forestry sector in this country. But when the National-led Government put Labour’s emissions trading scheme on hold $700 million in forestry investment went south. I am sorry to say that when I say “south” I am not talking about Invercargill. I am talking about it disappearing in a puff of smoke because the investors said that they could not operate under that level of uncertainty. Millions of seedlings are rotting in the ground. How was Mr Bridges going to go to the people of Rotorua— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: He’s from Tauranga! 
STUART NASH 
: —and tell them that the forestry industry in Rotorua which is a huge supplier to the people of Tauranga had been thrown into disarray? I am sorry; I must admit I got him mixed up. I never know where he is at. He is all over the place is he not? 
Rotorua will be an easy trick for Labour. When I worked in the forestry sector we used to go out and give forestry plans to farmers to plant up unproductive land. They were planting for the value of the timber. But Labour’s scheme—and this is a very good point—meant that people could go out and plant trees not for the value of timber but for the value of carbon credits. That scheme has gone. That has been wiped away and it is an absolute disgrace. I cannot believe it—$700 million of investment. 
Simon Bridges 
: The people in the gallery are leaving! 
STUART NASH 
: That is because they have heard enough from that side of the Chamber. They have heard the facts they have got the arguments and they can now go out and say that the emissions trading scheme under the National Government is a disgrace. They are walking out because it is a disgrace what the National Government has done to the emissions trading scheme. I agree with them. Sue Bradford left because of what the National-led Government is doing and now people in the gallery are leaving. It is an absolute disgrace! What Labour would have done! What could have been! But we are very lucky: there are only 2 more years. Mr Bridges should probably leave because he does not know what this legislation is about. Tony Ryall does not even know what the health legislation is about. The only thing the emissions trading legislation does is create uncertainty and unemployment. The previous Labour Government believed in taking responsibility. Our emissions trading scheme created a level of certainty it created responsibility and I must say it was superb legislation. Thank you very much.