Goldsmith Paul: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goldsmith Paul: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6226. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 It was very interesting to hear that latest speech on the emissions trading scheme from the member from the Green Party Kennedy Graham. It was interesting. On the emissions trading scheme the Greens are not interested in what the rest of the world is doing; New Zealand should strike out on its own regardless of what the rest of the world is doing. At the same time a couple of days ago when it came to other issues like— 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member just incorrectly alluded to the Green Party not being interested in other countries. It— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member is an experienced member. He knows that that is a debating point. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: They are very happy to see us strike out on our own on emissions trading scheme issues. Then when you come to the issue of quantitative easing for example—watering the milk or debasing the currency—the attitude is that everybody else is doing it so we should just go along with the flow and do what the rest of the world is doing. It is funny. There is no need to be consistent on these things but that struck me as unusual. 
I was fortunate enough to go the Kyoto Protocol meeting in December 1997—I was working with Simon Upton at the time—and it was a very interesting conference that they had there and a hugely ambitious thing that the world was trying to achieve. It was the first time we were getting a whole set of countries across the world to accept something that would materially lower living standards today in order to ameliorate a problem in the future. That was a heroic undertaking and there was always a tension between those in mainly the developed world and those out mainly the developing or growing economies. 
Sadly 15 years later there has not been much progress internationally. The first period is coming to an end at the end of the year and no agreement is in place thereafter. The tension between those in and those out has become much more relevant now given the epoch-making shifts in the global economy in the last 15 years. It was hard in 1997 to justify New Zealand taking significant actions when China was not doing anything. In 2012 it is absurd. The Government has always said that New Zealand should do its fair share and New Zealanders expect us to be positioned on the green end of the spectrum but few would support New Zealand striding out on its own riding its little pony while the rest of world hangs back. 
It is interesting to hear everybody talking about what Europe is doing as if it was the role model for everything in life but that is not where we live. We live in the Asia-Pacific region and when we look amongst our trading partners in the Asia-Pacific region where do we fit in? What is China doing? Not much—nothing. What is the US doing? It does not have much of a scheme. Canada—nothing; it has pulled out. I think Japan has a little scheme that involves about 1 percent of the economy. Korea Singapore—nothing much there. Australia has something but there is a huge question mark over its scheme politically. 
I found it very difficult when for example we had the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment coming in and being very critical of our legislation but admitting to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that she had given no consideration whatsoever to what the rest of the world was doing. I am afraid I do not think that is good enough. New Zealand does operate in a competitive global economy and we need to know where we sit in the world and to adapt to the situation. 
The options are that we could just carry on in the direction set in 2007 and become the only country in the world where agriculture is directly drawn into an emissions trading scheme. That seems to be somewhat reckless. We could drop the scheme entirely like Canada but we have decided to hold more or less steady in the meantime not doing too much damage to the New Zealand economy but having an emissions trading scheme still in place ready to ramp up if and when the rest of the world joins with us in combating what is a real issue for the globe. It is true that the Government will not get some of the income that it expected but it is absurd to call that a subsidy as some members of the House have done. 
When we look at the other side of the House we have the Greens really wanting New Zealand to immolate itself on a pyre of self-righteousness on our own and I do not think anybody who is concerned about New Zealand’s jobs and the productiveness of our economy in an open world of competition can stand up for that line of reasoning. On that score I commend the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to the House. Thank you.