Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) : I move, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. New Zealand has a proud history of advances in environmental, economic, and social policy. It is a history that proves that Labour Governments have led the vast majority of important reforms this country has seen. So I am proud that today, with this legislation, New Zealand has risen to meet one of the great challenges of our time—that of climate change. We are taking our place among the large number of countries that are adopting emissions trading schemes as a measure to control climate change. Already, 27 nations in Europe, plus Norway, Sweden, and Scandinavia, have emissions trading schemes. Various states in the USA, Australia, and South Korea are developing them.

Our scheme is advanced in that it includes all greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol, and, over time, it will encompass every sector of the economy. This is sensible and avoids distortions within the economy. The emissions trading scheme does not create costs; rather, it minimises the cost of reducing emissions in accordance with our Kyoto commitment. It does so in a fair and effective way by charging the polluter for increases in emissions and rewarding decreases. It will save New Zealanders hundreds of millions of dollars between now and 2012 alone.

Since New Zealand signed the Kyoto Protocol a decade ago, this country has debated ad nauseam how to price emissions. Consultation and debate on the issue have been exhaustive, and, as many commentators have said, it is now time to get on with it. We in Labour are not afraid to make decisions on the emissions trading scheme or on other sustainability issues. We have passed legislation to support biofuels and reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels. We are committed to having 90 percent of our electricity generated from renewable sources by 2025, and this legislation puts a 10-year restriction on extra baseload electricity generation from coal and gas-fired sources. It also allows for a $1 billion package for household energy efficiency, which is part of the biggest boost to energy efficiency that this country has ever seen.

It does National no credit that time and again it has opposed every single piece of legislation that promotes a sustainable New Zealand. Right from the start National has been reluctant to participate in the climate change debate, which is why, when it comes to doing something concrete about meeting the challenge of climate change, National members inevitably prevaricate, obstruct, and call for delay. In the end they do nothing. The so-called six principles underlying National’s opposition to the emissions trading scheme crumble under close analysis. They are just six excuses to do nothing.

This week, on 8 September, the Gisborne Herald reported the National spokesperson on agriculture, David Carter, telling a local conference that to include agriculture in the emissions trading scheme would be economic folly. That is the opposite of what his party has said in this House. Whom are we to believe? National has not been able to point to any fundamental flaw in the emissions trading scheme. Instead, it has resorted to exaggerated criticisms about process. At least the ACT party has had the honesty to say it has not supported this legislation because it does not support the science of human-induced global warming. In the end, we have worked with parties that take climate change seriously—the Greens, New Zealand First, and the Progressive party—and I thank them for their support.

This scheme will help to get our emissions down, at the lowest possible cost. It will help us to meet our international obligations under Kyoto, and it will help to improve the productivity of our businesses. It clearly puts New Zealand on the path to a sustainable future. These are goals we should all aspire to, and I am confident that this legislation will assist us to achieve them. We in Parliament have the responsibility to make this decision. We should not delay any longer. I therefore commend this legislation to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : It is with considerable disappointment that National comes to the third readings of this legislation, which is about what I think is the most challenging issue facing not just New Zealand but the globe. The emissions trading legislation is not in a state for us to be putting it on the law book. It requires additional work if it is to be workable legislation that we do not end up amending over and over again in future years.

This issue is such a big issue that I was optimistic that we might be able to build enough cross-party support to ensure that instead of the legislation being passed with a very slim majority in the dying days of a Government, it would have broad community and parliamentary support. That is why I want to briefly recite the history of the debate on emissions trading. Back in 1999 the then National Cabinet made a decision in principle that the best way for New Zealand to respond to the challenge of climate change and to the Kyoto Protocol was to put work into the development of an emissions trading scheme. When Labour came to office in 2000 it abandoned that work, and for 6 years it went down the road of a carbon tax. When the Government abandoned the carbon tax proposal, I wrote to David Parker on behalf of my National colleagues to say that we were open to constructive dialogue on an emissions trading scheme for New Zealand. We did not even receive the courtesy of a response.

Every action that this Government has taken over the last 2 years has led me to the view that Labour wants National to vote against this legislation. Let me give members a few examples. In respect of the release of the discussion papers, National received them after the media did. When it came to the introduction of the original Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preferences) Bill, National had absolutely no advance notice of it; however, we acted in good faith and voted for its first reading. During the select committee process there was absolutely no attempt by the Government to engage with National. In fact, it tabled a thousand amendments to the bill the day before, in effect, the deliberation on them—the day before we had to vote on those amendments. Furthermore, the Government announced a major change to the emissions trading scheme—the delay of the liquid fuels sector—in the middle of the select committee process, without any consultation with the select committee, at all. Then during the Committee stage the Government, just last Tuesday, tabled 785 amendments without any consultation, and National members were forced to vote on them that day. I put that information to the House to show there has been absolutely no endeavour by the Government to build the sort of cross-party support that is needed for this sort of very major reform.

National’s key concern about this legislation is that it is being rushed through the House. We have had hundreds and hundreds of amendments. The Minister in charge of the legislation, David Parker, may dismiss them as minor, technical issues, but they go to the core of the issue of whether this legislation will work. I can only conclude that Government members, in their own minds, are trying to gain credit for introducing the biggest, most ambitious “all gases, all sectors” emissions trading legislation in the world, and are passing this legislation in the hope, almost, that they will not have to deal with its complexity. It is my view that this legislation in its current form represents a hospital pass for whichever party forms the next Government.

National has six key areas of concern about this legislation. I want to work through them because they are substantive.

The first is the issue of balance. It is National’s view that this legislation is driven by the Prime Minister’s objective of New Zealand being a world leader on climate change. The problem for Labour is that in its 9 years of Government our emissions have actually gone up faster than those of any other country. This Government has the 38th worst record when it comes to growth in emissions. Far from the 20 percent reduction in emissions by 2005 that it promised, emissions have in fact gone up by 20 percent. The difficulty is that, every step along the way—whether it has been the carbon tax, the animal emissions levy, or the negotiated greenhouse gases agreement; whether it has been any one of those measures—the Government has had poor process, it has blustered ahead in a gung-ho way, and the policies have fallen flat on their faces. The tragedy of this legislation is that the Government has learnt nothing from 9 years of failed climate change policy. National wants a policy that is balanced. If the Government is honest about wanting a world-leading climate change emissions trading scheme, it should be honest with the public and say that it means having world-leading petrol prices and world-leading electricity prices. If National is given the chance to amend the legislation, we will put in it a more balanced objective of a 50 percent reduction in New Zealand’s emissions by 2050.

National’s second area of concern about this bill is that it is a massive cash cow for the Government. The Government’s officials have advised that the Government expects to make a profit of $23 billion over the timetable of this legislation. Climate change is not an excuse for Michael Cullen to get his fingers deeper into the pockets of New Zealand businesses and New Zealand families.

The third area of concern is in respect of our maximising alignment of this scheme with that being developed in Australia. The European Union has an emissions trading scheme covering the 24 countries within it. There may be areas of difference between Australia and New Zealand, but it is National’s long-term view that if we are to deal with climate change, then surely New Zealand, with all our commonality with Australia, should be able to more closely align our emissions trading scheme with that of Australia.

We also have concerns that this legislation will export both jobs and emissions. National is interested only in climate change measures that will make a difference. We are not interested in the provisions of this legislation that will encourage the relocation of some of our heavy, energy-intensive industries overseas. It is also our view that this legislation needs to be changed in respect of the way it deals with small and medium enterprises, which are discriminated against. We oppose the rigid timetable for the phasing out of industry support, and we want a more flexible regime in which the phasing out moves in line with what occurs in international negotiations.

I also have to express concern about the detailed provisions for forestry. This Government’s dealing with forestry in this legislation has contributed to the greatest level of deforestation since records began in 1951. National members are not satisfied that we have got right the provision of incentives to plant trees, which is one of the least-cost ways that New Zealand can rise to this challenge. We have concerns about the issue of flexible land use. We put amendments in the Committee to provide for the offset rule to apply in respect of forestry, and we are disappointed that the Government has not seen the merit of that approach, which would not have posed any difficulty in terms of actual emissions but would have resulted in a lesser cost to the economy and more efficient use of New Zealand land.

I also express concerns about the fishing sector, which is discriminated against in this legislation.

In summary, National says that New Zealand needs a well-balanced and carefully designed emissions trading scheme, but we should not underestimate how important and how difficult that challenge is. The gung-ho approach that we have seen from the Minister and the Government will cost New Zealand dearly and will not address environmental issues. National members will address them. National will amend this important legislation so that we get a price for carbon on 1 January 2010, but the legislation in its current form does not deserve National’s support.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : Today marks the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill, which will empower the establishment of a comprehensive emissions trading scheme covering all sectors and all greenhouse gases, and the third reading of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill. This legislation represents an important step forward for New Zealand.

National objected to the legislative process undergone by the original bill—the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. We have just heard National’s latest recitation of excuses for not supporting it. As chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which heard public submissions on the bill, I find that set of excuses offensive. The claim that the bill was rushed and that inadequate time was given to submissions is just nonsense.

The facts are these—because what actually happened bears repetition in the record of the House. The Finance and Expenditure Committee received 259 written submissions and heard 96 oral submissions on the bill. Over 58 hours of hearings took place, and another 16 hours were spent considering the detailed provisions of the bill after those hearings. The committee heard recommendations and advice from a number of expert groups and officials, such as the Emissions Trading Group, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Furthermore, prior to the submissions process, as we were advised and kept informed by the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, more than 100 public meetings and hundreds of stakeholder meetings were held concerning the issues raised by the bill.

All the matters dealt with in the bill and in the amendments, both in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and in the Committee of the whole House, have been well rehearsed for over 9 months in the context of the emissions trading scheme. Despite the attempts of the National Party’s climate change deniers to delay the bill, it is high time to progress this legislation. I am pleased and proud that we are now doing so.

I will turn to some of the key changes to the legislation The Finance and Expenditure Committee did deliver, in my humble opinion, a comprehensive package of improvements to the original legislation, but, clearly, there is always scope for improvement, especially in our MMP environment. The key change that I want to mention relates to the provision of additional financial assistance. This includes financial assistance to households to compensate for some of the increased costs they will face under the emissions trading scheme, and also the establishment of a household energy fund to encourage investment in energy-efficient products, which will reduce both energy consumption and the power bills of households.

An innovation fund will be established to encourage the deployment of innovative technology that will significantly reduce or avoid emissions from industry. The fishing sector will be compensated with a one-off free allocation of units, equal to 50 percent of the impact of the emissions trading scheme on the sector’s liquid fossil fuels. Support will be given to electric buses and trains to offset the increased cost of electricity. These are all matters that the select committee heard extensive evidence about but, for one reason or another, was not in a position to address. I welcome them, especially the complementary measures such as the incentives to deploy energy-efficient technology.

We heard evidence in the select committee that it is this combination of a well-designed emissions trading scheme and comprehensive measures to promote energy efficiency that will deliver the best long-term gains to New Zealand, as far as long-term emissions reductions are concerned. This is a historic day for our Parliament and for our country. We finally enshrine our Kyoto Protocol obligations in law, and it is good law. I commend the legislation to the House and to the people of New Zealand.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : This is a historic day, but it is also a very sad day. I say to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues that he should be ashamed of himself for progressing this legislation in the way it has been progressed. The Minister sent an invitation to me late last night, by email, asking me to drinks after the conclusion of debate on this legislation. I will not be attending. I thank the Minister for his invitation, but I do not think the legislation is anything that anybody should be celebrating. I say that because there was an opportunity to pass legislation in this House today to give New Zealand an efficient emissions trading scheme, and it could have been done on a consensual basis with all major political parties. However, because of the Minister, this legislation will be passed tonight only because of the support of New Zealand First. I think it is a pity we have not been able to develop a well-balanced emissions trading scheme that would have delivered the important behavioural changes necessary in this country to do our bit for climate change. This one will not work.

We could have had a general consensus. We certainly could have had the National Party and the Labour Party on the same page, because in December 2005 we wrote to the Minister, offering our support to work together to develop an emissions trading system that would have been workable and accepted by significant consensus. The response we got from that Minister was no response, at all. Mr Parker arrogantly ignored an offer by National to work with the Government to develop a scheme that could have been before Parliament tonight and probably would have had greater than 80 percent acceptance of this House. I say to Mr Parker that that would have given enduring legislation—but, no. As a result of the Minister’s attitude, this legislation is now seen to be a political football. I say to the Minister that I guarantee to him that this legislation will not be enduring.

The second point I make to the Minister and the House is about the inclusion of agriculture in an emissions trading scheme. I want to be absolutely clear that agriculture should be included in a well-balanced emissions trading scheme. As an emitter of 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from New Zealand, there is no way agriculture should be exempted, but to include agriculture in this emissions trading scheme, we had to develop and debate the extent of its inclusion. We had to be accurate about the facts. The first thing I say to the Minister is that on this basis no other emissions trading scheme developed anywhere in the world includes agriculture.

I will include the Australian Government’s position on this issue. After releasing its green paper, the Australian Government said “The Government does not consider that it is practical at this stage to include agriculture emissions in the trading scheme at commencement.”, and “Accordingly, the Government has decided that the earliest that agriculture should enter the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would be 2015, with a final decision on inclusion or exclusion to be made in 2013 in the light of progress in overcoming practical difficulties and after extensive consultation with the industry.” Is it not a pity that the Labour - New Zealand First Government was not also prepared to take such an attitude?

It is a common view around New Zealand that agriculture should be included, but the difficulty of including it and forcing it into legislation in a dogmatic fashion, as this Government has done, is that the Government is refusing to acknowledge there are practical difficulties in monitoring, measuring, and reporting. I say to David Parker and Helen Clark tonight that the best interests of New Zealand should have been paramount. This issue should not have been based around personal agendas and the ticking of a few more boxes for CVs that might be needed in another couple of months. Yes, Mr Parker should include agriculture, but not to the extent whereby he risks the very viability of New Zealand farming operations and, more important, of the economy of this country.

On a number of occasions throughout the select committee process I attempted to get a true indication of costs. The quality of the answers that we received at the Finance and Expenditure Committee were at best evasive, and in many cases totally inadequate. The homework had simply not been done, to the extent that the Minister himself—David Parker—said in the House last week that there was no evidence that the scheme would have an adverse effect on agriculture. That is what the Minister was reported as saying in the New Zealand Herald of 3 September. He had only to look at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry paper, entitled Projected Impacts of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme at the Farm Level, which was released earlier this year. It states explicitly that, as expected, all farm types will suffer adverse profit effects. It is time the Minister was up front with the facts.

If this emissions trading scheme had been designed properly, its financial aspects and implications for agriculture could well have been recognised, but now, in a world that is demanding more and more food, we will put our production base at risk and we will achieve nothing for global warming. The world will still demand the production of that food, which will simply be moved to other countries. The Minister has been totally irresponsible, because he knows as well as I do that in New Zealand we have a farming system that is relatively efficient in carbon emission terms. So the Minister will actually be shifting production from New Zealand to countries in South America, such as Uruguay, that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Those farming systems are far less carbon-efficient than the farming systems he is attempting to replace in New Zealand, so the net effect will be that global emissions from methane will actually increase, which will do nothing for global warming. The Minister should be aware of that.

The final point I make concerns the chaotic fashion in which this legislation has been progressed right through the select committee process, under the appalling chairmanship of Charles Chauvel, and more recently through the House. We have gone in and out of urgency, because of a weird agreement with the Greens whereby this legislation was not actually to be considered in urgency. So we have done a little bit of it, then we have gone into days of urgency. We came back tonight to do a little more of it, only to be told half an hour ago by Dr Cullen that we will be going back into urgency tomorrow morning. I remember when the late Rod Donald used to rile against having any urgency, but, no, with the agreement of the Greens we are in and out of urgency, in order for there to be some sort of cosmetic appearance that the emissions trading scheme is getting a fair crack and is not going through under urgency.

This was meant to be flagship legislation for the Labour Party but it is just shambolic, and Mr Parker has done his party no good, at all, in entering into such a shambolic process. But the more important thing is that when this legislation is passed later on tonight, with the support of the Rt Hon Winston Peters and his team, it will not be enduring regardless of the election result. I say to Mr Parker that this legislation will not endure. It will be back before the House before too much longer, because it will not take long for the people of New Zealand to realise that the legislation will bind the economy, cause the standard of living of all New Zealanders to decline, and achieve very little—or nothing at all—for climate change.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) : We now head towards the end of the third reading of this hugely important legislation and the passage of what I would go as far to suggest is probably the most important legislation to go through this House since the GST legislation was passed in the mid-1980s. It will have a very profound impact on all households in New Zealand and on all businesses. It has been estimated, for example, that households face in just their electricity prices an increase of 20 percent at a carbon unit price of $25, but recently prices have gone higher than that, and estimates suggest that the price of carbon could go up to $100 a tonne by 2012. That could increase the price of electricity by anything up to 40 percent.

Hon David Parker: Rubbish!

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I hear the Minister saying “rubbish”, but these are not my figures. These figures have been estimated by other people trying to get a grip on what is likely to happen to households’ electricity prices. Businesses will all face significantly higher costs of production. Food, which has already gone up in price, partly because of the biofuels interest and production, will, of course, go up very significantly again. One of the worries is whether the public of New Zealand understands this. Does the public understand what we are passing through this House right now? And although there has not been a lot of research on this it is interesting to note a Stuff poll that came out just recently—one should not give too much credence to those, but it did have almost 7,000 votes recorded on it. Of those 7,000 votes, 12.4 percent said they did understand what the emissions trading scheme legislation was all about, 62 percent said they did not understand what it was about, and a further 25 percent did not even know what the question was about—they did not know what the scheme law was actually about. A total of 87 percent of people did not even understand what on earth we are doing with this legislation. That is a worry when it will have such a profound impact on their lives.

My colleague David Carter has already expressed concerns about the fact that this legislation leads the world in involving all sectors. We want to make it very clear that National supports an emissions trading scheme—we have always made that clear. But our concern is that this legislation is getting out so far ahead of the rest of the world, and ignoring so much representation from New Zealand businesses that drive our economy—ignoring what they are saying this will do to them.

One of the reasons why it is so unwise to get out so far ahead from the rest of the world is that technically it is very difficult to do what this legislation will require of New Zealand businesses. Let me take the technical aspects of it with which I am most familiar—those relating to agriculture. One of the reasons it is unwise to get out ahead of the rest of the world, bringing agriculture into such legislation, is that one cannot measure the special emissions from agriculture. Sure, agriculture’s energy utilisation, and all that, will be included in the scheme, and no one argues about that—the use of electricity, the use of energy in agriculture, of course that is the same as for anyone else. But agriculture has special emissions, like methane and nitrous oxide. One of the challenges with this kind of legislation—and I want members of this House to understand this—is that the scheme does not propose that one measure methane emissions from ruminant animals, because one cannot easily do it. It is technically extraordinarily difficult to do it, and the Minister acknowledges that.

So what we do with this legislation is that we estimate the emissions, and if that could be done reasonably well, that would be fine. But we need to understand how the Government proposes to estimate those emissions. The way it proposes to do this is to take the number of relevant ruminant animals—sheep, beef and dairy cattle, and deer—apply the feed intake measured in terms of dry matter intake per head of those animals, and then apply a conversion rate from that dry matter intake to methane. In the case of cattle, for example, that methane conversion rate is 6.5 percent of gross energy intake.

That is how it is proposed to estimate the methane emissions; it is by the number of animals multiplied by the feed intake—the dry matter intake per animal—and then the methane conversion factor is applied. The next problem is that one cannot measure the dry matter intake of our ruminant animals in New Zealand. It cannot be done here. It could perhaps be done in some countries where they feed animals in stalls, but in New Zealand we cannot do it. Can you imagine trying to measure the actual dry matter intake of pasture of 10,000 sheep grazing out on a farm, or 1,000 dairy cows grazing on a farm somewhere? How does one actually measure that dry matter intake? It cannot be done. So what does the Government propose? It says that one estimates how much dry matter intake there is, under this legislation, by looking at how much is produced. So we take the number of dairy cows we have got and look at the amount of milk or meat that has been produced. From that amount of milk, meat, or wool that has been produced, one works back to how much dry matter must have been consumed. That is how one works out how much dry matter animals must have consumed. From the amount of milk produced and the number of animals, one can work out in theory how much dry matter has been consumed.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Prior to the dinner break I was emphasising the concerns we have about Labour getting ahead of the rest of the world by passing this legislation. I was focusing particularly on the problems the legislation will cause for the agricultural sector in terms of the measurement of methane emissions that are a very large part of the problem for New Zealand. The Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, David Parker, acknowledged that we cannot at the moment measure methane emissions, so the Labour-led Government’s proposal is that they should be estimated. The emissions are estimated by calculating the number of animals and their dry matter intake, then applying a conversion factor for methane from the gross energy intake. But, as I was pointing out, a further problem is that we cannot measure dry matter intake either—it has to be estimated, as well. So we now have two estimations.

And the problem with that is that it is proposed that dry matter intake be estimated from what sheep, cattle, and deer actually produce—so from the amount of milk, meat, or wool they produce, we would work back and estimate the amount of dry matter they had consumed. But I want the Labour, Green, and New Zealand First members who are supporting this bill to understand that there will be a variable percentage of digestibility in the dry matter intake an animal consumes, depending on the quality of feed the farmer uses. The calculation does not recognise that.

What is more, once that feed is digested, an animal of high genetic worth will utilise the metabolisable energy differently. An animal that has produced more milk or meat, for argument’s sake, could be an animal of higher genetic worth to which a farmer has also fed a more digestible diet. So we could have a situation whereby less methane has been released into the atmosphere for the production of meat or milk. But the system will not allow for that. The system will punish the efficient farmer and the animals of high genetic worth that produce more for a given amount of metabolisable energy being utilised. It will punish the farmer who feeds the more highly digestible diet. So we will see the exact opposite from what is intended. Because intake is based on production, it will punish those who feed higher-quality diets and have animals of higher genetic worth. That is the first problem.

The second problem is that, because all the figures are estimated, the variability—the error within those estimates—is so high. I am running out of time, but, for example, a farmer who has been estimated to produce 1,000 units of methane, and therefore should purchase carbon units to cover those, may well have produced 500 rather than 1,000, and the accuracy of those two figures would be equally likely. We could not be certain that the figure of 1,000 was any more accurate than the figure of 500, yet we would expect the farmer to purchase the carbon units to cover those 1,000 units. That is simply unworkable. I predict that if this scheme goes ahead as it is, then, unless we get the scientific breakthroughs—and this is where the research effort should go—there will be civil disobedience. Labour is sacrificing New Zealand’s future to its political ends, and that is bad for New Zealand.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : Tonight we pass legislation that is a small step towards getting New Zealand’s carbon emissions under control. I pay tribute to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, David Parker, who has pursued this incredibly complex legislation and set of issues for 3 years. Although the Greens do not agree with everything about the design of this bill, I really believe that Mr Parker has done everything he can, in the current political environment, to take this first step towards reducing our emissions.

The important thing is not to get the idea that, because we now have an emissions trading scheme, climate change is fixed. Price has only ever been part of the story, and whether it be a carbon charge or an emissions trading scheme, there is a great deal else to do. This scheme does not even cap our emissions in New Zealand. It allows us to grow our emissions as much as we like, as long as we pay others to limit theirs. Although that may be all right in the short term, we cannot expect the rest of the world to compensate for our rising emissions forever.

So what do we need to do now in climate change policy to build on the emissions trading scheme and to make sure we have genuine emission reductions? First, the Greens believe that we need to sign up to the international target—about which there is increasing consensus—of limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees. People argue about whether that equates to 450 parts per million in the atmosphere or somewhat more. Hansen, one of the most prestigious climate scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) says that it equates to 350 parts, and we are already past that. At any rate, we need to sign up to that target. Then we need to adopt real targets within New Zealand.

The most important target of all is the date at which our total emissions level off and start to fall. That turn-round point is incredibly important. The later it happens, the more ground we will have to make up in the future. I believe we should set a date, gazette it—under the new provisions in the legislation that the Greens have negotiated, targets will be gazetted—set a reduction path to 2050, and gazette that too. Then we will all know where we are heading and we can look at the mechanisms to achieve it.

In terms of international negotiations, we need to spend less time on special deals for New Zealand and more time on strengthening the agreement, finding ways to get the United States and the larger developing countries into it, and finding ways to include soil carbon, which offers one of the biggest opportunities for carbon sequestration in the future but is not counted at the moment. We need to use our influence internationally to verify properly the environmental integrity of the units used to meet Kyoto objectives. The Greens are proud that the environmental integrity around Russian hot air is improved—it is now in the bill—but we need to turn our attention to some of the Clean Development Mechanism credits, which are questionable, to say the least. I know that the Kyoto partners are trying to deal with that issue, and we need to support that.

What do we need to do at home? We know that price will not do it all, despite advice from Treasury and the beliefs of many gung-ho industry people, and we know that because if price would do it all, then we would not still be ignoring hundreds of millions of dollars of cost-effective energy savings out in the community. In fact, if price would do it all, then our economy would be perfectly energy efficient at the current prices—but it is not. We need to intervene in a number of ways to capture those savings and reduce our emissions.

In terms of transport, the obvious, easy first thing to do is to improve the efficiency of vehicles coming over the border. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, which Cabinet approved and was released a year ago, provides for vehicle fuel efficiency standards for vehicles coming into the country. There is, so far, no legislation to provide for that, and that, I think, is an immediate urgency. We need to invest in rail, public transport, and safe cycling, because a tax on petrol will not encourage people out of their cars and on to public transport if public transport is full and people cannot get on it at rush hour. We need much greater provision of services in that respect.

We need better urban planning so that it is not so far to travel from home to work and school. We need to create a better investment environment for renewable energy. Ernst and Young has just released, yesterday or today, a report that is astonishing. New Zealand has the best resources in the world for renewable energy, but we are languishing at 20th place in the world in terms of our attractiveness as a country for renewable energy investment. Urgently we need to investigate why that is and do something about it. One reason seems to be that there are no feed-in tariffs here, and that is something we need to consider for the future. Also, as long as we are wobbling around as to whether there will be new gas-fired power stations, we are discouraging investment in energy efficiency because gas-fired power stations will always crowd renewable investments out of the market.

We know that heaps of energy efficiency is available in the economy. The Electricity Commission has identified real reductions, and we need to access those. The $1 billion green homes fund will leverage real reductions in energy in households, as well as improve health. We know that households use about a third of our electricity. Households could have a water heating standard that said people could not heat their water any longer by just sticking an inefficient coil in a tank, but would need to have one of the more efficient technologies: solar, hot water heat pumps, wood-fire wet-back—there are a number of them; we will get there one day.

Then the next step will be zero-energy homes—homes that are initially so efficient they do not use much energy, and then homes that generate their own energy and feed it back into the grid. Grid-connected photovoltaics is the technology that is coming along, down the track. It does not make sense to use that until we have homes insulated and up to scratch, but it will be the next step. The UK already has zero-energy homes in its building standards. Its building code provides for a transition towards zero-energy homes.

The rest of the programme needs more research and development for the technologies that are not quite here yet, particularly methane and nitrous oxide reductions in agriculture, marine energy—and we have made a start with wave and tidal power—and second generation biofuels. Those biofuels—from waste wood and from algae growing on sewage—are extraordinarily important, and they will help us as oil becomes increasingly expensive. I started this long process over the legislation by saying that it needed to be made more effective, more fair, and more urgent. In our negotiations with the Government, the Greens have achieved progress against some of those criteria, but not all of them.

One outstanding issue of fairness, which arose for us too late to be incorporated into our negotiations, concerns the issue of iwi who have received, in Treaty settlements, forests whose value has been seriously eroded by this scheme. We were under the impression, through our negotiations, that those iwi had reached agreement with the Government and were happy with the conclusions. They are not, and it is disappointing that it was not possible to do something today, in Part 1, to provide for that in the legislation. Nevertheless, there is a process under way at the moment to consider the extent of that loss and whether iwi were given all the information they should have been given at the time they purchased those forests in good faith. We expect the Government to operate in good faith when that survey is reported, and to restore value to Ngāi Tahu and other iwi who have lost value, if their cases are proven. We will be watching particularly to see how that process delivers.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : Let me assure members that New Zealand First supports this legislation, and let me assure the Minister that we are supporting it in the right spirit. But having said that, I have to say that New Zealand First does have some concerns. I will explain.

Our concerns first started when we learnt that New Zealand produces 0.2 percent of the greenhouse gases in the world—0.2 percent. We have 0.065 percent of the world’s population, but we produce 0.2 percent of its greenhouse gases. Then we learnt that half of that 0.2 percent comes from animals—from agriculture, if you will. So we had to ask what effect that would have on the weather, what effect that would have on global warming, and what effect that would have on climate change. I think that many of us, if not all of us, thought that it would be fairly negligible. But these were some tough questions we had to ask ourselves. Then we learnt that the European Union’s emissions trading scheme embraces only carbon dioxide. It does not include methane, nitrous oxide, or any other greenhouse gas; it simply revolves around carbon dioxide. So the question became: well, why do we need an emissions trading scheme, or, at least, why should we—we being New Zealand—be first off the block? Why should we be a world leader in this? Why should we be ahead of Australia in introducing such a scheme? To get those answers, all seven of us genuinely listened to the debate. We opened our minds, and our ears, and listened intently to the debate.

One thing became clear: there was going to be an emissions trading scheme whether it was with Labour, the Government, or whether it was with National, currently the Opposition—which thinks it will be the Government in a relatively few weeks’ time. So we knew there was going to be a scheme. The question New Zealand First itself had to address was: would we be best to stand outside that scheme and let Labour do what it wanted to do, or, in a few weeks’ time if National had the Government benches, to let National do what it wanted to do and have us stay outside that. But we thought that the issue was bigger than that. We knew that the scheme would have an adverse impact on the people we represent—the elderly, in particular, and the vulnerable, who are the people we have genuine concerns for—so we started a dialogue with Labour people to see what we could achieve with a scheme that addressed the concerns of those people we represented. It was obvious to us that a scheme was coming, and we wanted to soften the blow on the people we have real concerns about—the low-paid, the elderly, and the people who really need some help in this society. As I say, at that point we opened discussions with the Government.

We are in support of the deals that have been struck between New Zealand First and the Government, and indeed of those between the Greens and the Government. That is not to say that we are entirely happy. We looked at the option, as I said, of holding off and waiting for the National Party’s scheme at a later date, but National itself ruled that out. As much as we detest somebody coming along with a tape-recorder to secretly record messages, we learnt a valuable lesson then—that is, that the National Party says one thing but is prepared to do another. I will not go into the details of those tape recordings, but when we hear senior members saying that sometimes they have to swallow dead fish to get what they want, we know there is a secret agenda. We do not agree with the way in which those discussions were tape-recorded; I want to make that quite clear. But I tell members that they were caught on tape. And as if that were not enough, we know what they did to the Hon Maurice Williamson, and we learnt a lot from the way in which those people treated him. I am the transport spokesperson for New Zealand First, as members well know, and I do not agree with the Hon Maurice Williamson in some of the things he advocates for transport. I know his views on tolls and on public-private partnerships. He echoed those views on TV and he got his hand slapped—or more than that—by his leader, publicly, for saying what he believed and, as far as we understand it from the National Party, what the National Party was supportive of. He was treated—

Sue Moroney: Dare to say it out loud.

PETER BROWN: Yes, he was treated—I cannot think of a polite word—

Hon Mita Ririnui: Shamelessly.

PETER BROWN: Yes, that is it—thank you. I thank the member. That is a polite word; I could not think of one.

We learnt a lot, and the question we asked ourselves in New Zealand First was whether we could wait and trust that crowd. Could we wait, if that crowd got the Government benches, and trust them? The answer was a firm “No”. We wanted the best deal we could get for households, for elderly folk, for families, for whomever. We achieved that deal by dealing with the Minister and the Labour Party. We do not think it is the best deal, but at least we have established one thing—the precedent that must be considered in the future. I challenge the National Party—I have listened to its speakers—to say whether they will rescind it should they get the Government benches. Will they rescind the—

Eric Roy: Which part?

PETER BROWN: The financial assistance to households and families—will the member tell us now? He is saying no, but they would not have put it in. I guarantee they would not have put it in. I have listened to National speakers tonight, and I say that National would not have made any concessions at all to the elderly, and whomever. [Interruption] It is a considerable amount of money. That was a very important factor in New Zealand coming together as a team to support this legislation. The Minister is well aware of this. I am not telling the Minister anything that he is not aware of it.

New Zealand First will support this legislation tonight. We will support the third readings. We say to the Minister, with due respect, that we think this is a move in the right direction. It is not completely right. There will need to be some amendments. I will not go as far as David Carter did when he said that this is not enduring legislation, and give the impression that it will fall over in a matter of months. I do not believe that. But I believe it will have to be addressed on a number of occasions to get it right, and I know that before agriculture comes in, before transport comes in, there will be quite some discussion. It will have to go through Parliament and get the seal of approval. In essence, New Zealand First is supporting this legislation because it has the framework there. It will be modified. It will need to be modified, in our view, but it is a move in the right direction and it has the support of New Zealand First. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : Firstly, I acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Hone Harawira, who has deferred his speech to allow me the opportunity to speak.

I listened to a very confused contribution from Mr Brown of New Zealand First. He said that New Zealand First is supporting the legislation but he is not sure why, and that it will need to be modified.

Peter Brown: I didn’t say that. The member will need to listen from time to time.

ERIC ROY: I listened carefully, and the member said that it will need to be modified.

I want to state something again. Out there, if one dares to criticise anything to do with climate change, one is termed a naysayer—that is the call. I have said it before in this House and I will say it again: I am not a naysayer; I certainly believe that the climate is changing. I believe that there is a natural cycle, and I believe that human activity is chasing it along, making it go faster than would occur naturally. I am concerned about that, and I have made several speeches on it. I do not want to be accused of being a naysayer. In that respect, I should say that I think this legislation has one thing right: there needs to be a market for carbon, driven by market forces, and that is, essentially, what this legislation does. But there is a list of things about it that give me some angst and some concern, and that is why National is not supporting the legislation.

The first concern is the process. Yes, a very committed group of officials worked for a considerable time to work up a bill to come before the House. We were presented with a tome of I do not know how many pages—several hundred. It is one of the bigger bills to go through Parliament, but there is nothing wrong with that; it just shows that this matter is complex. It requires proper scrutiny and proper assessment, and we need to make every endeavour to get it right. Well, how can National members sign off legislation on something as important as this when, in the Committee stage, 780-odd amendments were dumped on us before we even had a chance to read them? So my first concern is the process of this legislation, which will imprint itself on the business culture of New Zealand and on the quality of the impression that we give internationally. We are a world leader on many aspects of this legislation, but National members are not able to sign it off.

That is the first point. It raises three other questions. Will it work? Is it practical? What is the cost implication? Those are the issues I want to address to some degree in the third readings of this legislation.

I have said that it is important we have a market price, and I come to the reason why we need to have it. I have mentioned that I believe that human activity is increasing the rate of climate change. But whether or not one is a naysayer, if New Zealand as an exporter of products to the highest-priced markets in the world does nothing, we will be caught by consumer resistance to buying products from countries that do not conform. Right at this time, all three main food retailers in the UK are embracing a greenhouse-gas branding process for their food products. Tesco is reputed to be spending between £400 million and £500 million on branding 110,000 different food items. Is it doing that because it wants to save the planet? I would suggest that it is not. Tesco is doing that because it wants to earn another pound. That tells me we have no alternative but to respond.

We come to the question of whether the legislation will work. We could introduce something that is a placebo, and, to a degree, this legislation is a placebo, because we have not given it enough scrutiny to be sure it will work. We have an emissions trading scheme and it is in legislation, so we can hold up our hand and say that, yes, we are responding. But there is a little issue that concerns me, and in the Committee stage I raised quite a bit of detail about it. You see, the measurement is not of where we sit in the world; the measurement is being done on the basis of per head of population—not on the basis of world’s best-practice. If we have a higher agricultural profile per head of population than other countries, then we show up as, in our case, 50 percent. If we have one aluminium smelter per 4 million people, then our aluminium profile is higher. China has 23 aluminium smelters, but its profile for that stuff will be much lower. And China is a category 3 country, so it will not count for a long, long time.

The issue is that if this legislation does not embrace world’s best-practice, it will drive industry, it will drive agriculture, and it will drive dirty industry in particular to countries where the system of estimation of their carbon imprint is lower. The higher the population of a country, the more dirty stuff can be crowded into it. Well, this problem is a global problem, and, quite simply, that approach is nonsense, and to a large extent it is one of the dangers of this legislation. Let me give an illustration. Rio Tinto has very, very carefully considered its responsibilities in this matter. Initially, we were called to get back to 1990 emission levels, and I think—and someone can correct me—Rio Tinto is the only significant energy emitter in this country that has got itself back to 1990 levels. [Interruption] There is another one; I thank the member for that.

Hon Member: They’re actually below 1990 levels.

ERIC ROY: I think the aluminium smelter is, too; I think Rio Tinto is, as well. We hold up our hands in horror, because when we measure the smelter’s emissions against our population it looks bad, and because for every tonne of aluminium produced, the smelter releases 2 tonnes of greenhouse gases. We can get carried away about that, but if the plant at Tīwai was to close down, Rio Tinto would most probably move its production to a country such as China, which to my understanding now has 23 aluminium smelters. The average greenhouse gas emission of those 23 smelters is, I am told, 7.9 tonnes for every tonne of aluminium produced. So how clever is it to introduce a system that has the tendency and the propensity to drive those sorts of industries from New Zealand, where they use world’s best-practice, to a place where environmental consideration is not worth the paper it is written on?

Hon David Parker: But it won’t.

ERIC ROY: I am pleased the Minister is seriously confident about that, because I am not.

Let me raise another matter that this legislation does not address. Various colleagues have made this point. We have heard about the chainsaw massacre of trees. Sequestration is important. By any measurement we have gone seriously backwards because of the way in which we have embraced our response to the Kyoto Protocol, and this legislation largely does not correct that. It does not allow tradability of forestry within New Zealand in order to have the best use made of land. Significant catchment areas in the North Island are crying out for forestation, yet we cannot transfer that land to what would be best-practice, or even go for two-for-one use of it. I am sure we could wear that—putting 2 hectares of eroding land back into trees.

Then there is the cost factor, and I want to make this point. When we impose a cost it is always the producer who picks it up. It cannot go anywhere else. Everybody else is cost-plus all the way through—in the servicing of it and in the transport of it—so the cost comes back to the producer. This House might not have noticed, but large sectors of the agricultural industry are not in a position to absorb any more costs into their production systems—none whatsoever. There is a paucity of information on how the producers can mitigate those costs. I would say that even putting a date on this system embracing agriculture is something National members were seriously concerned about.

We need to have all those answers before we are prepared to support this legislation.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Earlier today the Māori Party tabled three amendments to the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill that spoke to the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Treaty settlements. We sought to insert, under clause 28, a new section that made reference to any iwi that received redress under any Treaty of Waitangi settlement. Under clause 43 we sought to insert a new section referring to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and asserting the need to maintain the integrity and value to iwi of Treaty of Waitangi settlements and to have redress under those settlements. Finally, we sought to insert in clause 68(4) the words, “the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1988,”. We sought leave to table those three amendments because they were a simple but intelligent contribution to matters of fundamental importance to our nation. Today the House chose to vote down those Treaty amendments, and those parties and those politicians who voted them down must live with that decision, and with the shame that attaches to them for their part in doing that.

The Māori Party has always taken the view that every issue is an opportunity to recognise and honour the Treaty in word and in deed. So it is with emissions trading as it is with everything else. Treaty settlements are the instruments of national reconciliation. They are opportunities for Governments to begin to redress the wrongs of the past so that we can build a pathway forward together. Yet in this, as in far too many cases, decisions have been taken to undermine, to oppose, and to threaten that very path to reconciliation. This legislation affects all Māori, because it fails to pay due regard to the place of the Treaty in our nation, and it breaches the good faith in which five Treaty settlements have been reached—settlements that the people believed to be fair and based on principle, settlements negotiated and accepted by the people whose ancestors carried the fight for justice across generations, settlements that should have been treated as solemn pacts, and settlements that should be respected and protected by the Governments of the day.

Today Ngāi Tahu have told us that this emissions trading legislation represents the most direct assault on the integrity, finality, durability, and purpose of Treaty settlements since Treaty settlements began. This legislation is an attack on the integrity of Treaty settlements, because it is an attack on the so-called good faith the Crown said that it had in entering into Treaty settlement negotiations. Lack of good faith, as every iwi can tell us, has deprived iwi of the opportunity to develop, and has resulted in generations of iwi existing in poverty. Our Supplementary Order Paper was not just about Ngāi Tahu, and the massive loss they will be forced to suffer because of this bill, but it was also about other iwi in a similar position, who will also suffer loss because of a lack of good faith by the Crown.

The emissions trading legislation is also an attack on the finality of Treaty settlements, because it will wipe millions of dollars off the value of those settlements, so Ngāi Tahu’s situation clearly highlights the dangers of this bill for Māori. In 2001 Ngāi Tahu relied on the Crown’s promise when it purchased forestry lands at market value, only to have that promise withdrawn when the Government signed up to the Kyoto Protocol less than 12 months later—an act of betrayal that will lead to a loss of millions of dollars from the value of the Ngāi Tahu settlement. That loss comes directly as a result of the non-disclosure by the Crown at the time Ngāi Tahu were encouraged to purchase forestry lands, and the fact that the Crown must have known in 2001 that the Kyoto Protocol it would sign up to in 2002 would lead to a significant destruction of the value of Ngāi Tahu’s forestry purchases. Had Ngāi Tahu known of Kyoto’s implications, they would undoubtedly have made different decisions to ensure the future prosperity of their settlements, or, as Ngāi Tahu themselves would say: “Mā tātou, ā, mō ngā uri a muri ake nei.”—“For us and our children after us.” Any erosion of good faith inevitably impacts on the durability of the agreements reached between Māori and the Crown—the first in 1840, and the second in the Treaty settlements—and in this situation the Government’s failure to disclose its lack of good faith in its Treaty settlement negotiations actually prevented Ngāi Tahu from making choices otherwise available, and created the grounds for a second claim of a Treaty breach.

Yesterday Te Ohu Kaimoana added its voice to this issue, noting that the durability of iwi and pan-iwi settlements is vital to sound working relationships between Māori and the Crown. Chief executive officer, Peter Douglas, commenting on the concerns of both Ngāi Tahu and Ngāti Awa regarding emissions trading, summed it up when he said: “If the early wave of settlements are considered by their people to be at risk, then the certainty and finality of all Treaty settlements is put at risk as well.” The settlements affected here are those from the early wave of settlements, and the risks that have occurred have taken place within but 10 years of their conclusion. Ten years is too short a time, within the life of a so-called perpetual agreement between Māori and Crown, for such risks to have emerged.

I want to make it quite clear that we knew that the amendments we sought to table would not cure the loss—they would not remedy the lack—of good faith today. All we wanted to do was to allow for these issues to be reconsidered by this House. As Te Ohu Kaimoana said yesterday: “We do not expect that Treaty settlements should have special immunity from the consequences of change, but we do expect the Crown to engage in good faith with iwi over changes which will affect the nature of those settlements.” This is not just about Ngāi Tahu having to deal with a change in policy; it is about their being misled and making decisions on the basis of poor information provided by a Government that knew otherwise. I hate to say it but I am not surprised by these actions, for they simply replicate Crown behaviour against Māori over the last 170 years—behaviour that has been in repeated breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and behaviour that demonstrates the Crown’s failure to honour its obligations to its Treaty partner.

Today’s amendments were a modest and reasonable approach by iwi to national, international, and environmental considerations. Today’s amendments were an opportunity to consider the Ngāi Tahu situation in the context of the national interest. Today’s amendments simply asked that in terms of the settlement process and the integrity of the emissions trading scheme, Parliament should have the option to reconsider its views. But it seems that that is not to be the case—that this House is not yet ready to deal honestly with Māori issues, and that this House is not genuinely committed to the reconciliation of our nation.

Although we are on different sides of the debate on this bill, I again thank the Green Party for their continued support of the Treaty. But in closing I again say how absolutely devastated we are to see that Labour’s Māori MPs, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mita Ririnui, Mahara Okeroa, Dover Samuels, and Dave Hereora, have again chosen party loyalty over the Treaty, and again chosen to vote down the Treaty when they had a chance to finally make a positive stand. That is a point that Māori people all over the country will remember when we go to the polls in a few weeks’ time. Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : I am very pleased to stand and take a short call in this historic debate, the third reading of this legislation, and it will be a historic moment when it is passed. I think the debate is actually quite enlightening this evening, because here we see one of the many defining issues between Labour and National. On this side, Labour is prepared to take leadership and to actually have a vision to go forward. On the other side, the National members are wringing their hands over not having 100 percent certainty over everything that moves, and therefore they are not prepared to move forward because they cannot have that absolute certainty. This demonstrates the leadership being displayed on this side of the House, and the absolute lack of vision over there—the absolute lack of vision—and the lack of commitment to moving forward. Any excuse will do to stand still with National. Well, that is not the vision that Labour has, and I am very pleased to support this legislation at the third reading.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) : I appreciate having the opportunity to take what I hope will be a shortish call on the legislation, and to speak against it. One of the things that prompted me to take a call was listening to the appalling effort of the deputy leader of the New Zealand First Party, Peter Brown. In many ways the contribution of that member to this third reading debate sums up exactly what is going wrong with this legislation. He had nothing at all to contribute in terms of the merit of the legislation or what it will mean for New Zealand, and he chose instead to indulge in a diatribe against the National Party. I have one little bit of advice for Mr Brown. It must be terrible for the member sitting here in the House, trying to keep his head down, and freezing every time his cellphone rings. He must be wondering whether the call is from Serious Fraud Office employees to say that they want to talk to him and that they suggest he bring a lawyer.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): The member will come back to the legislation.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

When National members spoke during the Committee stage, member after member, myself included, asked a question that the Minister never ever answered: why the rush? What is the hurry? This is the most fundamental, profound change to New Zealand’s economic system to be legislated through this House in some 20 years. What are we doing? We are not sitting back and reflecting on its significance. We are not examining the implications for New Zealand in any detail, at all. What we are doing is rushing this legislation headlong through this House, and Opposition members cannot understand why. But one does begin to get a little bit of an insight when one listens to what—

Peter Brown: Will the member take a question?

ALLAN PEACHEY: I think Mr Brown’s cellphone is ringing. He had better answer it.

I listened to the previous contribution from the junior Government whip, Sue Moroney. She talked about this legislation being a defining issue between the discredited socialists who sit over there and the National Party—

Sue Moroney: One of the many, because there are plenty!

ALLAN PEACHEY: Yeah, right! I guess there is some distinction between the two major parties in respect of this legislation. The first point of distinction, and this will not be lost on the people of New Zealand, is that on the Opposition side of the Chamber we do things properly. The Government is not doing this properly. It is bent on driving this legislation through the House. Why? I repeat the question to members opposite: what is the hurry? Where is the analysis from Government members? Where is the understanding of the potential harm to the New Zealand economy that this legislation, as it is currently structured, will cause?

The Government—known now as the “Clark-Peters Coalition”—is showing no respect for, and no understanding of, the New Zealand business community, and even less respect for the agricultural sector. Surely the Government and its coalition mates would at least show sufficient respect for the agricultural sector, the backbone of this country for generations, and take a little bit more time—and less rush—to consider the legislation and debate it in the House. How can one drop on this House, as happened last week, some of the biggest legislation that I have seen in my short time here—

Chris Tremain: And the most complex.

ALLAN PEACHEY: —and certainly, as my colleague Mr Tremain says, the most complex—then throw in 785 amendments and expect New Zealand to take this House seriously, as we rush it through? This legislation is being rushed through because that Government’s coalition partner, New Zealand First, part of the Clark-Peters cabal that has run this country for 9 years, wants to get it through. We did not receive any explanation in the Committee stage, and I have heard nothing in this third reading debate, as to why the New Zealand First Party is so keen to help that crowd to get this badly structured legislation through the House before it rises.

When the country goes to the general election in, I suspect, fewer than 2 months’ time, the electorate will make a judgment. But there is still time for this House to step back and acknowledge the validity of what this side is saying, which is that the legislation is rushed, that it is far too complex to be given such a short time for consideration, and that it is full of 785 amendments. There is still time for this House to vote this legislation down, which would give us time later on to introduce considered and constructive legislation that will not rip the heart out of the New Zealand agricultural sector and therefore our economic system.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : For the benefit of members of the public who do not know this, I say the member who has just resumed his seat is called Allan Peachey. He is a National member of Parliament from somewhere, who thinks we are rushing through this legislation. He should know that this legislation is a result of a discussion document, a result of hundreds of public meetings up and down New Zealand, and a result of a select committee process where 259 written submissions were made and 161 oral submissions were heard, and where there were over 58 hours of hearing time. There was a landowners’ forum, there was a Māori leaders’ group, and there were four technical advisory groups all inputting into this legislation. That was a do-nothing speech from a do-nothing member of Parliament.

I am very proud to be supporting the passage of this legislation, and I wish to acknowledge the leadership of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen in steering it through the parliamentary process. I particularly acknowledge the leadership of the Minister responsible for the legislation, David Parker. I also acknowledge the integrity and hard work demonstrated by the other parties in their discussions about their support for and commitment to this legislation. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges that we face. It is important that New Zealand continues to play a leadership role and shoulders our share of the responsibility for it. This legislation completes that process.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): [Interruption] I am sorry, there have been 12 speeches and National has had six of them.