18 November 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
National Party member asks what’s the rush on climate bill
Now that Prime Minister John Key has joined US President Obama in realising that there is little chance a binding treaty
will be signed at the forthcoming UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December, the question arises why the
Government is in such a rush to pass the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill, asks
Terry Dunleavy, secretary of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Mr Dunleavy, a lifelong member and former office-holder in the National Party, and national convenor of its Bluegreens
interest group 1999-2004, says he is astounded that the government's "headlong rush", especially in view of the division
within the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee whose members were unable to agree on what should be done with the
bill.
"This headlong rush is also mystifying in the light of the finding by Treasury’s Regulatory Impact Analysis Team that
the level and quality of analysis presented is not commensurate with the significance of the proposals, which represent
major design changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme, and that the Regulatory Impact Statement accompanying the bill
does not provide an adequate basis for informed decision-making. Since then we've had the $50 billion cost underestimate
by Treasury, and now a last-ditch attempt to buy the support of the Maori Party.
"Earlier this year there were two principal arguments advanced by Climate Change Minister Nick Smith: the need for
harmonisation with Australia and something to put on the table at Copenhagen. The Australian Government has now backed
down on agricultural emissions which it will exempt from its legislation, which will not pass in the Senate this year,
if at all, but Minister Smith is persisting in his determination to penalise New Zealand farmers. As for Copenhagen, the
table is now and will be bare, apart from no more than meaningless political agreements to further talkfests next year.
Even Minister Smith is now on record as saying we should not be holding our breath for a post-Kyoto agreement at
Copenhagen.
"It is astonishing that the astute political leader John Key has become cannot recognise the damage being done to his
party, let alone New Zealand Inc by allowing Nick Smith's obvious and irrational zealotry to overcome prudence. In
particular, Mr Key should pay careful attention to what is proposed by the UNFCCC draft Copenhagen treaty text which
proposes a ‘world government’ over-riding national sovereignty as well as imposing on developed nations such as New
Zealand heavy liabilities to compensate developing nations for what they claim to be our 'climate debt’. The Government
has already announced extravagant 2020 emission targets which will impose annual costs on us of 5.5 billion dollars.
This is already utterly unaffordable before ‘climate debt’ is added on top.
“Is the rush to pass the bill a hidden agenda enabling Nick Smith to offer these giveaways at Copenhagen? No other
explanation has been offered.
Mr Dunleavy said: "It is true that the government has a problem with the Labour/Greens legislation passed in haste last
year and due to come into force on 1 January 2010. But the ACT Party has offered a solution in its minority Select
Committee report:
"Stop, slow down, and simply change start dates of 1 July sectors to 1 January 2011 (or beyond) and no other changes to
existing ETS at this stage (ACT would support National on this, guaranteeing a majority for this change).
"Leave bill in front of select committee for review post-Copenhagen and in the light of Australian and US developments.
"Do proper Regulatory Impact Statement: not clear that international relations and commercial benefits warrant costly
action by New Zealand.
"Express preference for a low, revenue-neutral carbon tax as an initial measure for New Zealand, with exemptions for
trade-exposed industries and subsidies for sinks. A carbon tax would facilitate statutory adjustments of contracts (for
example Todd Energy). There is a growing international consensus that a carbon tax is preferable to an ETS, and a tax is
much easier to dismantle than the property rights created under an ETS, should climate change concerns be ultimately
unfounded."
"Our Coalition suggests to Mr Key that he emulate his predecessor David Lange when faced with a similar impasse: call
time out for a cuppa. It makes no sense for us to rush to judgment with binding legislation in a demonstrably cooling
world and before we know what outcome, if any, there will be from Copenhagen," Mr Dunleavy concluded.
ENDS