Foss Craig: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Foss Craig: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7906. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I thank members for the applause! I am speaking on the second reading of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill. I am the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which the bill was referred to. The Minister for Climate Change Issues noted that the original preference was to send it to a specialised committee or to renew the previous climate change committee. But having said that I tell the Minister that the committee welcomed it with open arms when it arrived. 
It would be courteous and correct of me to acknowledge the members of the committee. The process we went through was somewhat unusual—but I have been here for only 4 years. On the whole with some exceptions the contribution of members was valued of course. I particularly acknowledge the officials advisers and anyone and everyone who participated in getting the bill at least to its second reading. Politics aside there were some tensions stresses and strains around the bill. Sometimes I think the officials in some of the goings-on very unfairly bore the brunt of some members’ frustrations. I need to give my personal thanks to the officials for their work. Actually some of them are almost old friends because this was the third time that many of them had sat down at the end of a committee table to look at the emissions trading scheme. The Minister alluded to the 2007 committee and the review committee earlier this year. We must have had well over 1500 submissions on the policy. 
The Finance and Expenditure Committee normally operates quite well. Members acknowledge their policy positions there is good robust debate and we go on quite well. I reiterate my personal aim and what I like to uphold which is that all members at all times treat all people as they themselves would like to be treated: with respect. Acknowledging the various positions I say that of course there is going to be disagreement. I acknowledge some members’ frustration at the tight time frame for the bill but the Minister in his first reading speech explained why that was. It was always a given that the bill would come back to the House on 16 November or earlier. 
There has been a lot of comment about the process of the bill as it went through the select committee. Some of the comment in the media has been criticism of me and of the committee. I have remained silent on that criticism because some of the allegations were made in the committee and I will not go outside of that. But in terms of some of the points that were raised I was on the other two committees and a 5-minute submission time for many speakers was quite the norm. I recall that in 2007 four submitters had 15 minutes to share amongst themselves that submitters were grouped etc. I want to point that out because some of the criticism of the process and of our committee is not quite fair. Sure there is politics involved but I do not think the criticism is quite fair. 
I point out that many members were actually asked for lists of those whom they thought the committee should hear. Virtually without fail those names were asked to submit without problem. At no time did this chair actually say that all submissions should be heard on one night in a period of 5 hours—which has been alleged I think. That was what was available to us in our first opportunity to hear submitters to hear evidence. 
I also point out to some of those who have criticised the process—knowing that the timetable for the bill was always tight knowing that November 16 was always the report-back date—that something that tightened the process was that some members wanted to spend some time away from these precincts. It is fair enough for members to want to spend time with their families and I encourage that at all times. I do not disregard it at all; I think it is quite fair. But we have to acknowledge that all the decisions are decisions of the committee. Perhaps some wanted to go on holiday. To criticise me for an allegedly fast process or an abuse of process when members were choosing not to be in the precincts in order to go on holiday is somewhat cute. I think it is very curious that some of those members have chosen to criticise me. 
To those who wanted to hear absolutely every submitter I say that I find it somewhat curious that during the proceedings some members complained about the committee hearing so many submitters when earlier they had asked to hear every single submitter. As was noted earlier all submitters have a right to be heard but many wrote submissions. Some submissions in fact had party crests on the bottom of them. 
Members will note from the commentary that the committee came out 6 all; it was not able to reach a majority. It is disappointing that the committee could not get to the stage where technical amendments to the existing scheme were able to be passed or issues that I think the whole committee generally agreed on. I acknowledge that there is a Supplementary Order Paper covering tree weeds such as wilding pines etc. 
I have two points. I have a quick note for my friends in the ACT Party. They believe in the market they believe in market instruments they believe in supply meeting demand and I know and acknowledge that some of them do not think that climate change is going on do not believe in the science etc. That is absolutely fine but the point I raise is that if that is correct if that turns out to be true then the price of carbon units will actually be zip—zero. If it turns out not to be correct that human-induced climate change is going on the price of carbon—which everyone talks about right now at being $25 or $50 a tonne—would fall to zero and the scheme would fall apart. 
I will touch on the mythical figure of $110 billion which I am sure members will speak to over the next wee while. It was an interesting time in the committee to be fair when that misunderstanding shall we say came about. The bottom line is that there is no such amount as $110 billion; the amount is actually $50 billion to $55 billion. But let us turn it on its head and take the number that members on the other side are talking about. What they are saying is that they are very disappointed that their original scheme would have taken $110 billion out of the economy; that is what they are saying. This scheme is not taking out $110 billion. It is simple compounding up. It is simple maths. I think those members actually acknowledge that although I think they need to sit down with their leader and discuss it because he raised the point again today. It is fair enough to have a discussion of the $50 billion to $55 billion amount even though it is full of variables for Africa but the figure of $110 billion is a mythical number. It is used just because it sounds big. For anyone in this debate to use that figure dilutes and undermines his or her integrity. 
This bill set outs and follows the principles that National laid out before the electorate before the election last year. The electorate endorsed those policies and principles. Most of this bill concerns technical amendments and small fix-ups which I think the other side generally acknowledges to the existing legislation. The substantive issues are emissions intensity without a cap and an open or closed economy. I look forward to further debate on this bill.