John Armstrong: Parties committed to emissions deal

So far, so hopeful. The current round of climate change policy debate for the first time seems marked by a genuine will on the part of National and Labour to come up with an emissions trading scheme which both parties can live with for the foreseeable future.

To have any significant impact on carbon emission levels, the revised scheme will have to be robust enough, yet flexible enough to remain intact in the face of inevitable changes in government in coming years.

That requires an enduring consensus between National and Labour on the essential components of such a revised scheme as a minimum, if not multi-party agreement across Parliament as a whole.

National and Labour realised long ago they needed one another to make it work. What was absent was the commitment to be inclusive of one another.

Instead, there has been a frustrating on-again, off-again hunt for consensus. That light switch mentality has seen the major Opposition party offer to negotiate in good faith. The major governing party makes appreciative noises and then quietly ignores the offer and carries on regardless in order to gain all the credit.

It may be inviting trouble by saying it - and petty politics could yet derail things - but the initial signs suggest the search for consensus is this time much more than just tokenism.

The indicator of that is several olive branches proffered by Labour to National plus Thursday's letter from Climate Change Minister Nick Smith to Labour. The letter sought a resumption of negotiations which broke down three weeks after they struck some major snags.

Those talks will resume next week. National is also in similar discussions with the Maori Party. However, that party's official stance is less flexible than Labour's, making a deal less likely.

Ostensibly, National has been talking to the Maori Party and Labour because it needs the backing of another party on top of Peter Dunne's sole United Future vote to get legislation amending Labour's year-old scheme through Parliament. National won't get help from the Greens. It may well get backing from Act, but only if the current emissions trading scheme is basically gutted.

The Prime Minister is waving that threat in front of Labour. But it is a somewhat empty one. Unless Labour is on board, down the track there will be just more chopping-and-changing of the revised scheme.

While a minor party might still demand changes as the price for its support on confidence and supply, a consensus between National and Labour would elevate the scheme onto a new level where parties tamper with it at their peril - much in the same way as meddling with long-term superannuation entitlements became a political no-no.

It took the best part of two decades for parties in Parliament to reach an accord on pensions policy, however. No one, apart from Act, which is a paid up member of the Climate Change Sceptics Club, believes there is that luxury timewise when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas emission levels.

It should have been easier to get a multi-party agreement on superannuation, given that is an issue of personal security. Climate change will likewise be in the same category if the worst predictions are borne out. It isn't yet.

However, there is mounting public expectation that both major parties put the greater good ahead of self-interest. And increasingly it is in the parties' self-interest to get the issue off the table. The amount of political mileage to be extracted from instituting a new emissions trading regime is not what it was when Helen Clark talked of New Zealand becoming carbon-neutral.

National, however, is wary of Phil Goff's motives in wanting a leader-to-leader dialogue with John Key so they can agree on a "broad set of principles" to guide negotiations.

Goff wrote to Key seeking such a meeting after the talks broke down. He has yet to get a reply. National says that is because Nick Smith is handling the whole matter.

However, National, which does not trust the Labour leader following his cameo role in the Richard Worth affair, believes Goff is merely after a platform.

It is extremely reluctant to give him one. National strategists have only to point to the profile-raising benefits for Key as Leader of the Opposition after he put forward a compromise to break the logjam over Sue Bradford's anti-smacking legislation.

It is more likely that Goff's tactic in insisting the leaders be involved rather than just their underlings is to make it harder for Key to walk away unharmed if things turn pear-shaped.

If the negotiations are successful, Goff can hardly be shut out, not least because his presence will be important for symbolic reasons in terms of showing the two party leaders are in accord.

Goff may also have detected a heightening public expectation that he and Key do sit down together and sort it out.

They should be able to do so. It is not as if they are aiming high. To the contrary, National is reflecting a widespread view that Labour's scheme has too much impact on households and the competitiveness of New Zealand businesses.

Many of these concerns surfaced during the Act-instigated, special select committee review of Labour's scheme - a major reason why the committee's report released this week is so conservative and why the model for a revised emissions trading scheme that National comes up will be likewise politically safe at the expense of cutting emissions.

Labour is fighting a rearguard action in order to preserve as much of its scheme as possible. It is willing to make concessions to achieve that, including compromises on sticking points which brought behind-the-scenes negotiations with National to an abrupt halt.

National suddenly wanted to delay the date of the entry of agriculture into the scheme from 2013 to an unspecified date. National also sought a low price on emission units - a move which Labour argued was too generous to those emitting greenhouse gases, while limiting the returns to those removing such gases from the atmosphere, principally the forestry industry.

Labour pondered whether this was a deliberate bid by National to spike the talks. It consequently upped the overtures for discussions to resume, most notably by writing a constructive minority report in the select committee indicating just how flexible Labour intends to be.

Several factors are working to Labour's advantage. National wants a credible alternative scheme on display before the major international conference on climate change in Copenhagen in December. National also needs legislation in place to delay the end of year introduction of coal, gas and thermal electricity generation into the scheme.

The Greens, however, are puzzled why Labour is even negotiating when its scheme is on the statute books and it is National which will have trouble getting the numbers to amend it.

The reason is Act. While fundamentally opposed to an emissions trading system, Act is seen by Labour as being willing to execute an about-turn if that means effectively getting a toothless emissions trading scheme in name only.

While National might turn to Act as a last resort, Nick Smith clearly envisages something tougher than that rather than allowing greenhouse gas emitters a free ride on the back of taxpayers.

As it turns out, National is not currently holding discussions with Act, which anyway favours a carbon tax as a better mechanism.

Act is not flavour of the month in the Beehive right now following Rodney Hide's resignation warning over Maori seats on the Auckland "Super City" Council and what is seen as him revisiting the smacking debate at National's expense.

The idea of Hide being able to claim more kudos for his party through demolition of Labour's emissions trading scheme is not one that National is willing to entertain right now.