Groser Tim: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Groser Tim: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18132] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 There is an old phrase in negotiations that says: “If you can’t do the deal right don’t do it tonight.” and there is a lot of wisdom contained in that phrase. But we are being asked to do this deal now and I think that people have to understand exactly why we are being asked to do the deal now when it is as plain as a pikestaff that this is not the right time. 
You asked Madam Chair for people to stick to the purpose of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: To the actual clauses. 
TIM GROSER 
: I think it is very important in this context that people understand what the purpose of this bill—in the current political context—is. The purpose of ramming this bill through during what may prove to be the last remaining days of the Clark-Peters Government is overtly political. It is overtly political because it fits an agenda that became quite clear in the Budget speech made by the Prime Minister about two Budgets ago when she said I think the word “sustainability” 26 times and earned herself the title of “Madam Sustainability” in certain quarters. It is perfectly clear that New Zealanders will be expected to decide this election in part because of a phoney debate about which of the two major political parties is or is not prepared for New Zealand to make a serious contribution to the global process of moving towards a decarbonised world economy—a process that will take decades. 
The reason why this bill is being rammed through has everything to do with this phase in the political process. If we look at this in the context of where we are on international trade what we have seen is a very very successful attempt frankly by the two major parties to move that section of New Zealand’s external economic interests into a true bipartisan policy position. I believe that that has served New Zealand’s interests extremely well by taking it out of the realm of partisan debate. That is exactly what should happen with this issue because as sure as eggs this process of the world coming to terms with the need to move towards a decarbonised economy will outlive this next electoral cycle the cycle after that and no doubt the cycle after that. 
Nobody holds power in a democracy forever and it is absolutely of central importance that we move towards this in a measured way. But the National Party having written to the Government in December 2005 proposing exactly that and getting absolutely no response while still ready to work in a constructive way has been denied that opportunity at every step along the way. It is important that New Zealanders understand why. This Government had no intention of pursuing this issue on a bipartisan policy position. Quite the contrary; it wanted to make it a point of political separation. If that is not obvious today it will become stunningly obvious as the election campaign unravels in the next few weeks. There are two separate issues which have been conflated in this negotiation in a way that I think can only be described as grossly dishonest and politically and intellectually polluted. 
The first issue is the underlying policy problem. Is there a serious issue of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and should responsible Governments like our own develop a policy response to that? That is issue No. 1. Actually this debate obscures the underlying reality—that both the major political parties answer that question in the same way. My own favourite way of answering that is to plagiarise Arnold Schwarzenegger's response. He said: “If my son is sick and I have nine doctors saying: ‘Take your son to the hospital and get something done.’ and one doctor saying: ‘No there’s no problem. This will fix itself; this is a natural phenomenon.’ what do I do? I take my son to the hospital.” On this central issue there is actually a consensus between the two major parties. The second quite separate question is this. What in that event is the right policy response? The policy response that is required is not this one.