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:650;Page:18613] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill has all the feel of legislation that is being passed by a Government that does not believe it will be around to implement it. It has the feel of legislation that is being passed purely for political and symbolic reasons. As I think any number of people have suggested one of those political reasons is so that the Prime Minister can put it on her CV that she has implemented one of the world’s most comprehensive emissions trading systems in order to help her to gain more international recognition and possibly employment should she stop being the Prime Minister of New Zealand. We think it has that feel because the Government has proceeded in such a reckless manner with such complex legislation. 
My colleague Nick Smith has pointed out the problems that arise from the fact that the legislation overlooks what has been one of the more popular types of energy efficiency in New Zealand in recent years and that is cogeneration. In this case that directly affects Fonterra and our largest export industry. How can a Government conceivably market itself as being interested in sustainability when it appears to have no idea what actually happens with regard to our largest energy users and when it rushes through Parliament legislation that effectively rules them out of the system it is creating? 
I think the legislation has the same effect on one of the largest enterprises in my electorate: the Finnegan freezing works now run by Silver Fern Farms. It has just implemented a large-scale cogeneration project that means that all the energy except the lighting energy for that freezing works which employs 1000 people will be generated on site from waste products. I have no idea whether this measure cuts out that project and we have a matter of maybe hours to sort that out. That is a high-profile big step forward in energy efficiency from the agricultural sector which the Greens in particular lambaste month after month. The Greens have gone along with the Government’s reckless process that essentially says to that sector: “We want to kick you for doing nothing but when it comes to writing the rules we don’t even know you are there.” That is one of the reasons—only one of dozens of reasons—why we have opposed this legislation. 
As my colleagues have pointed out the National Party has for several years indicated a strong level of goodwill towards an emissions trading system. We have supported it and have argued that if we are to do something about climate change that is the best method of doing it. The Government has persisted as it does in many ways with its own self-serving partisan agenda which it has put ahead of the interests of New Zealand. The interests of New Zealand are best served by an emissions trading system. Therefore the interests of this country are best served by a considered and measured process that deals with all the issues now raised by something like 1400 amendments since the Finance and Expenditure Committee stopped considering this bill. 
Parliament needs to be clear about this. The bill spent a number of months before the select committee. The Opposition took a considered and diligent approach to submissions. We listened to them all we considered all the issues they raised and the environment in the select committee was positive with the Greens in particular contributing from their depth of knowledge—even New Zealand First contributed to the atmosphere of goodwill. Since we stopped considering the bill maturely as a Parliament the Government has wheeled out over 1400 amendments and that is reckless. That flies in the face of the goodwill that the Opposition and all the other parties in Parliament—which are I think all represented on that select committee—applied to this legislation. The Government has decided to proceed regardless of the consequences. We can only presume that is because it does not believe it will be in office to implement the legislation. Of course the consequences of this legislation are many and they are very complex. This legislation has to me the feel of the original fishing quota legislation.