to present its submissions on the Emissions Trading Scheme.
The Centre was unable to attend on the original date set by the Secretary but 
the deferral to today (7th May) proved to be excellent timing, for two reasons.

First: The Government has been forced to modify its original proposal because of 
the impact of high and rising fuel prices on families, and the fear of real 
economic damage to key industries.

Second: the whole alarmist scenario of global warming is beginning to fray badly 
at the seams.

While I was waiting my turn, it seemed that all the submitters before me had 
immediately responded to what we might call the "GST food exemption" 
effect. Given that the door had been opened for some exemptions, everyone was 
now specially pleading their own case.

I was doubly fortunate in that Dr Willem de Lange, of Waikato University, 
oceanographer and an expert on sea levels, was able to mount the case against 
the theory of AGW which has been mounting over the last three years and over the 
last few days in particular. A new report out of Leipzig emphasises the role of 
the oceans in driving decadal climate cycles – something which the IPCC has been 
reluctant to acknowledge.
 
For a lay report on this new development, go to:  
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/

It's fair to say that many members of the Select Committee were visibly shaken 
by Dr De Lange's recital of his experiences as a long term IPCC reviewer, and in 
particular his experience when MfE requested him to report on the effect of sea 
level rises in New Zealand. When his report said there was virtually nothing to 
worry about, the MfE was most unhappy and kept on seeking paper after paper 
after paper until finally they received one which forecast the possibility of 
catastrophe in the event of uncontrolled global warming after 500 years. De 
Lange was credible and convincing and handled the questions well.

This meant I did not have to even think about challenging the science but could 
focus on why the Emissions Trading Scheme was doomed to fail, and how so many of 
the predictions we made in our original submission in February had already come 
true.

In response to the final question, from the chair, I said that our conclusion is 
that if Government feels it must do something to hasten the move away from 
fossil fuel then the policy favoured by most economists is a simple tax on 
fossil fuel. The rules are simple and well understood, and other taxes can be 
reduced to ensure overall tax neutrality. By that time the Committee were 
obviously looking for some way out of the quagmire.

See the submission and my speech notes on the Centre's website 

http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/index.php/issues/49-pollution-soil-water-air/

One step at a time.

I have added my oral "interpolations" to my speech notes to provide a record 
closer to what was actually said.