Foss Craig: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Foss Craig: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6858] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I am proud to stand up and speak in the debate on the first reading of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the Minister for Climate Change Issues the Hon Dr Nick Smith on bringing together an emissions trading bill for the shape and structure of the New Zealand economy in the current times. It matches our profile and our ambitions to be an environmentally and socially aware and conscious nation balanced out with the economic challenges that are facing the structure of our economy.  
First I will acknowledge members of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee especially the chairman the Hon Peter Dunne who did a great job. I am not sure whether he regrets that this bill if it passes its first reading will be going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee as opposed to another committee with which I am sure he would have been involved. I will be interested to find out his view on that. I also thank the member who spoke previously Charles Chauvel for his endorsement and vote of confidence in the abilities of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to rapidly process this bill through the various stages that it needs to traverse. I acknowledge and I am very interested in the fact that he carved out entirely all the environmental considerations around what is contained in this bill noting that we have had two very large select committees considering this particular issue. They were totally focused on the economic matters in and around this bill and on the impact or otherwise that this changed bill will bring to our economy.  
I am sure that once members go through the numbers look at the potential job losses under the previous scheme and examine the improvements that this new bill will bring to the existing scheme they will be pleased to see them particularly in these hard and recessionary times. It surprises me somewhat even discounting some of the rhetoric from members opposite that the word “jobs” has not appeared once in any of their speeches on this matter. This improved bill is entirely about preserving New Zealand jobs. It is as simple as that. The term “leakage” is used often and for the benefit of those who are listening that refers to the leakage of jobs—that is this Government is all about trying to keep New Zealand jobs in New Zealand and to improve and grow the industries that contain them.  
If we take some of the comments made by other members to the logical extreme we realise that the easy route is to allocate New Zealand units based on 90 percent of the 2005 level of emissions as in the previous scheme to some of the large emitters. The price of carbon would go up those businesses would close down and jobs would go the emitters would get a free windfall gain of absolute billions and New Zealand would be left where? Unemployment would rocket and our current account would absolutely deteriorate. There is a lot of highbrow economics around this stuff but the bottom line is that New Zealand families and jobs are now in a better place because of the improved emissions trading scheme bill that Dr Nick Smith has put before us today. I look forward to working through this bill with the members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I will be quite intrigued about the various power plays as to which members will appear because I am sure that the Hon David Cunliffe will want to have part of this action as a senior Labour member on that committee.  
A point that seems to be constantly lost on other members particularly the member who spoke previously is that the policy intent of the National Government in the improved emissions trading scheme was put before the electorate last year. Last year the public of New Zealand voted against the scheme as described by the previous speaker. They voted for an amended scheme that balanced out our economic future our opportunities and our concerns about climate change and the environment. The word “balance” is the absolute key. The election-result deniers who are in speaking on this matter perhaps need to remember that they put all of their arguments which we are now hearing again today before the electorate last year and the electorate rejected them. The five or six key principles that this new improved amended bill is based upon were before the electorate. Nothing here is new.  
With regard to the point that the previous speaker made about his having only just received this bill I note from memory that when Labour was in Government its bill came in under urgency. At the time the National Opposition had maybe half a day’s notice if that but the difference is that we put aside the politics and voted for it.  
This bill is all about minimising the risk to the New Zealand economy and balancing out our objectives in order to be part of a global concern. As an exporting nation it is very very important that we get this right economically with regard to the perception of the customers for our export products around the world. I will reiterate for  
Hansard 
 that I am a very very proud New Zealander and I would wear a “Proud to be a New Zealander” T-shirt anywhere in the world with or without this bill. My pride in New Zealand goes beyond that.  
There was a very good article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 this morning by Brian Fallow. There is a lot of politics around this stuff but I think that what is missing out there is the point that so much of this emissions trading scheme has actually been agreed to across much of the House. In fact I am surprised that there has not been more celebration of the fact that at least the majority of members in the House have come to the point where yes they are arguing over some key detail. We can focus on that positive aspect for the sake of our economy and our environment. I will pick out the point that Mr Fallow noted. It is very important because it shows how close the two proposals—this improved scheme and the existing scheme—are around the 90 percent emission levels in 2005. I will quote the article just quickly: “If a large emitter’s emissions per unit of output in 2005 was bang on the average for its industry in this part of the world its allocation of free units would be the same under both models.”—that is it would be exactly the same—“If it is below par it would be worse off if it is above-average it would be better off.”  
Therein lies the starting point. Labour members now seem to be suddenly rejecting the benefits of the market-based price mechanism which the previous Government brought in because this amended bill the new bill applies it across the economy. We are an open-market trading economy at the whim of the international markets so the moment that someone tries to fix something for the long term or to decide which industries should be in New Zealand—and because industries are foreign owned apparently they are bad and ugly so I say that Labour members should front up to employees and their families and tell them that they work for a bad and ugly international employer. They should just see what those people say.  
I look forward to this bill going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I look forward to good solid progress and cooperation as we consider the bill in the committee. I enjoy that committee. I am the chair of that committee and I look forward to hearing contributions on very tight and specific points about this new bill noting that so much of this information has been reviewed the arguments have been litigated in two select committees and many times in the House so I am quite sure that it will be a very quick seamless and focused process. Thank you.