Hodgson Pete: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Hodgson Pete: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:651;Page:306] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 The fact that this Government motion is on the Order Paper at all is a disgrace. It is a deception it is time wasting it will cause significant economic damage it will create business uncertainty it will damage our reputation internationally and it will generate an impost on taxpayers. It is a disgrace for all those and many many other reasons. It is a very very bad move.  
It is a very bad move for two reasons. The first reason is that it tells me that National did nothing about climate change in detail when in Opposition; it was there long enough. It tells me also that when it forms a Government the National Party is weak. The Prime Minister of this land is a weak man. That is what it tells me: lazy and weak. A good Opposition instead of spending all its time always opposing would have thought through what it wanted to do in Government in some detail. It should have said that it wanted to change the current law. It said it when the law went through—we heard it that is fine; they won that is fine. So what changes did it want to make: little ones big ones many ones just a few? We do not know. We have not had any detail from National despite the fact that it has had 9 long years in Opposition to have a look at it.  
National members have said for years that they wanted an emissions trading scheme. They voted against the version that was put in front of them. They said they did not like bits of it. They said they still like the idea of an emissions trading scheme and indeed the Prime Minister said so again as recently as Monday. But actually we do not know what version they want. They do not even have a discussion paper for this select committee let alone anything resembling amendments to current law. No they have not done the work. They have picked up their salaries they have grizzled and they have done no more than that. That is not good enough. They have done nothing except oppose that which has come forward and now the emperor has no clothes.  
They are derelict as well. They are derelict because earlier this week we got a fine-sounding Speech from the Throne that was all about the economy front and centre and all about economic growth. Do we remember that? Not any more! That was Monday. Today is Thursday and today we are debating whether to set up a select committee to start all over. What is meant by starting all over? We have been starting all over for long enough. We started starting all over in 1992 when Rob Storey who used to sit over there went across to Rio de Janeiro and signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That was 16 years ago. We started all over in December 1997 11 years ago this month when Simon Upton a National Party Cabinet Minister went all the way to Kyoto in Japan along with Jeanette Fitzsimons if I recall correctly and signed the Kyoto Protocol. That was 11 years ago. We started all over in 2002 when the Prime Minister of the land at the time the Rt Hon Helen Clark and I ratified the Kyoto Protocol in Wellington.  
Why are we starting again? What is going on here? The starting points have long since gone and the policy debate that must occur in parallel with the decision to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or to ratify the Kyoto Protocol has been going on for well over a decade as well. Simon Upton started it. He asked whether we should have a carbon charge or emissions trading. The very first thought that came back to the then National Government was that we would have a mixture. That was in the late 1990s. The Government of the day said that it did not want a bar of it.  
Upon the change in Government our initial approach was to go for a carbon charge as a way to transition towards an emissions trading scheme. That was put into the public arena. The National Party said no to that and Business New Zealand said no to that they did not want a carbon charge. The Business Council for Sustainable Development said no to that and after the 2005 election the majority of the House said no to that. All those people said that they wanted to go directly to an emissions trading scheme so we began the consultation again.  
An emissions trading scheme was put to a select committee it went around the traps it came to this House and it became part of New Zealand law. At the last minute the National Party said it really liked an emissions trading scheme but it did not like that emissions trading scheme. It wanted some differences. That is fair enough. The Greens said they would go with this emissions trading scheme but that they would rather have some differences themselves which of course were different from the National Party’s differences. But that is all fair in negotiating a way forward. Now even though National’s members went to the public before the election and said they were committed to action on climate change to an emissions trading scheme to some amendments to the emissions trading scheme that is already part of New Zealand law even though they publicly did all that they caved as soon as they had the election result in.  
That brings me to the bit about weakness because this National Party secured 58 seats. The ACT Party secured five seats yet with its five seats the ACT Party ran a rod through the heart of the emissions trading scheme and through this Parliament’s approach to climate change over all these years. I congratulate Rodney Hide. I did not believe that a person with a negotiating coin as limited as his could have achieved as much as he has. The only reason he has been able to achieve as much as he has is because the National Party is weak. The Prime Minister of this land is a weak man. He caved on the spot. He did not say: “Rodney you can have your regulatory review position you can be Minister for Regulatory Responsibility but you cannot go near the climate change stuff.” He did not say that; he just said: “Tell me what you want. You want a select committee? Fine we will do that. It does not matter that your wishes Rodney contradict what my National Party has been saying all this while or that they contradict our saying that we were going to make these changes done and dusted by September 2009.” Now we have a select committee that does not have to report until 2009. We have ourselves a weak Prime Minister and a lazy National Party in Government.  
You see it is going to come home to roost. For example take a look at this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 and at what Brian Fallow has to say. In his first paragraph he said: “It is troubling how wide a gap has emerged between what the new Government is saying and what it is doing with respect to the select committee review of the emission trading scheme. … if you look at the terms of reference the select committee is to be given you get a starkly different impression [from what National campaigned on].” He goes on to quote the Prime Minister of this land on just Monday and says “It is the Act Party’s wish list verbatim”. Here we have the 4 percent economic and environmental vandals of the ACT Party telling the Prime Minister what to do.  
I say to the Prime Minister that his dog has a very very big tail. I say to the Prime Minister that he is a weak man and he should not have given ground on an issue of this consequence that has been developed over this length of time.  
We then get the unctuous prattle of people like Dr Hutchison who said that this policy is being rushed and that it might have some losers. For God’s sake if we do not change behaviours we will not get on top of the issue of climate change nor begin to. So we have the ultimate conservative response coming out as a bunch of clichés from the National Government now it has won the election. It has become clear that the Government does not actually give a toss about the most serious problem that has faced this civilisation in my time on the planet. I think this is an outrageous Government motion. I think it is a disgrace and I feel ashamed to be part of this House. Indeed I will be seriously voting against it.