Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker, The Committee has determined that you should be recalled to give an oversight on a ruling that I gave in relation to an amendment from Dr Kennedy Graham. We are debating clauses 1 to 3, and he has submitted an amendment to change the title. Essentially he wants to remove the words: “This Act is the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”. He wants to delete those words and insert: “This Act is the Climate Change Response (Emissions Encouragement) Amendment Bill”. I gave this some consideration and was guided somewhat by Speakers’ rulings 116/6 and 117/1. Speakers’ ruling 116/6 states quite clearly: “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise” the bill. Although I would certainly concede that Dr Kennedy Graham is indeed serious about his concerns, after having listened to the debate I just believed that this was a step too far. It is, in fact, an amendment to the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. To assert that this bill is now a bill that encourages emissions was, I believe, beyond the pale of what was a serious amendment. There are some examples, quite clearly, that I felt fitted around this and they are set out in Speakers’ ruling 117/1. Accordingly I was challenged by a point of order. I upheld my ruling and the Committee has deemed that you be recalled to give your consideration on my ruling.

I apologise for unintentionally causing such concern on the part of the House. Even though the amendment was submitted at a late stage in the discussion—in the debate—it was not my intention to be in any way mischievous in misleading the Committee. The points I made when I advanced the amendment—and I will just summarise them for your consideration—are the following.

The Emissions Trading Scheme Review Panel from last year published its document, which contained, of course, recommendations to the Government for the future of the emissions trading scheme. In that it shows in figure 2.1 both gross emissions and net emissions projected to increase. That is my first point.

My second point is that if you then have, in response to that, an amendment bill in which you demonstrably defer obligations under the scheme—namely, a deferral of the price cap at the same figure, an indefinite continuation of surrender obligations, no restrictions on international credits coming in, and an indefinite deferral of the entry of agriculture into the scheme—then it is a logical, inescapable conclusion that those provisions in the amendment bill will not reduce emissions; they can be seen to only increase emissions. So if you have the original projection that increases emissions and an amendment bill that can be interpreted only as increasing emissions, my point was that it is a necessary conclusion that this bill will encourage emissions—hence the need to change the title.

Just briefly, Mr Speaker, I do not think that the member who has proposed the amendment, Dr Kennedy Graham, intended to be frivolous in the title, and he has explained that, but I am influenced by Speaker’s ruling 117/1(2) by Chairman Kyd in respect of the Employment Contracts Bill, which referred to the “Exploitation of Workers Act”. That was a value judgment. The Government disputes that emissions will rise under the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill necessarily, and, therefore, it is either a debating point or a value judgment. However, the point I am raising is that it is very similar to the issue that Chairman Kyd had to consider—what is, effectively, a value judgment.

It was me who raised the point of order and, unusually, followed it through to your recall. I do not do that often. The first point I would make is that we know the demeanour of different members of this House. You certainly cannot call the member who put this amendment, Kennedy Graham, one of the more capricious members of this House. He would be one of the more serious members of this House, and he believes that his amendment is appropriate.

Secondly, the discussion that you have already had to hear as to whether this is an appropriate amendment shows that it is a debatable point. It is a debatable point. If the Speaker has been listening to this debate as the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill has proceeded through earlier stages and earlier parts of the Committee stage, he will have heard that it is the Opposition’s contention that by excluding 50 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions from the emissions trading scheme, it has the effect of enabling an increase in emissions. That is a debatable point that it is within the purview of Opposition parties to put.

The third point, I would say, is that I understand why these rulings are starting to be made. There were times when there were hundreds of amendments being put to the titles of bills, and some of them were, effectively, trying to unfairly delay the business of this House. There is one amendment to the name of this bill on the table. With respect, I believe that the appropriate course, if the Government disagrees with this change of name, is to vote against it. It is not appropriate that the amendment be ruled out of order, because, in my submission, it is quite properly in the power of the Opposition to call a bill what it really is doing, and that is all this amendment tries to do.

I thank members for their contributions to my consideration of the matter. The issue, to me, is how a reasonable person would respond to what has taken place, because we do not have a specific Standing Order covering these matters, but there are fairly clear Speakers’ rulings. If one looks at Speaker’s rulings 117/1, they cover a very similar issue, where it is proposed that titles of bills should be changed to be less than objective to create a political view, if you like, of what a political view may consider the legislation to be doing. They have all been ruled out. I think a reasonable person would say that to change a bill’s title from the “Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill” to the “Climate Change Response (Emissions Encouragement) Amendment Bill” is a very different title, and contains the same kind of political view that is expressed in those titles in Speaker’s rulings 117/1 that have been ruled out. I think a reasonable person would arrive at that conclusion. I just want to encourage the House on these serious matters—because I fully accept that this is a serious matter—to be reasonable. That is why I believe I must support the Chair of the Committee in ruling out that amendment to the title, based on Speaker’s rulings 116/6 and, particularly, 117/1. I therefore declare the House in Committee for further consideration of the bill.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: May I speak to the point of order?

Does the member wish to raise a further point of order? Dr Kennedy Graham.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Well, just to—

I have just declared the House back in Committee. I will withhold that for a moment, so that I do not preclude the member from raising his point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without drawing out the time of the House, I would just say that I consider myself to be a reasonable person.

Forgive me, I did not mean to imply that the member was not; I was just asking members to think about those changes. I now do declare the House back in Committee for further consideration of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clauses 1 to 3 (continued)