Climate Change Response (Removal of Transitional Measure) Amendment Bill

In conclusion, one of the advantages of being cut off at the 10 p.m. bell and then resuming at the 9 a.m. one is that you have the opportunity to reflect overnight. It occurred to me, overnight, that the way that we were talking about this—about climate change—was in terms where people do not really get the gravity. We can talk about a 96 percent increase in our projected emissions over the coming 15 years. We can talk about a 0.7 reduction in those emissions from this bill. We can talk about the fact that our emissions have risen 19 percent. But that is meaningless to the vast majority of people, and so let me just reframe it slightly.

When you think about the increasing frequency and depth and severity of the droughts, talk to farmers about the 2013 drought that wiped $1.5 billion off our economy. When you talk about the increasing floods around the country, talk to the people of Whanganui and South Dunedin whose houses went under water last year. When we talk about the increasing storms and the severity of those storms, talk to the people of Island Bay, whose whole sea wall was destroyed. They had to make a decision about whether to have a managed retreat of the Island Bay foreshore and sacrifice the road along that stretch of waterfront. Talk to the people of Hutt City who lost power for a week, and the small businesses there that went under because they did not get electricity. Those are the impacts—that is what happens in our failure to address climate change.

The Minister for Climate Change Issues, Paula Bennett, has said more encouraging words over the last 6 months than her predecessor did in 8 years. And I want to say this: if those are not just words, if they are not just there to mollify and soothe us into submission, if she actually wants to deliver on this, if she actually wants to do what is necessary for New Zealand to deliver on its commitment to do our part in facing the global climate crisis, then, I say to the Minister, let us know what we can do to help, because that is our primary commitment.

This is too big a task for petty partisanship. It is too important for petty politics. It is the single greatest challenge facing our society, our economy, and our civilisation today, so we are committed to doing all we can to ensure that New Zealand plays its part. I say this to the Minister: we will do everything that we can to support her, if she is truly committed to making a difference—“Girl, you know it’s true.”

In that, we will be supporting this bill, as we have said a number of times during the course of this debate. It is an incredibly small step, but it is a first step, and we hope to see more from the Minister in the very near future, because this is a crisis that has been growing over the course of 25 years. We are way behind the eight ball on this. It is time for New Zealand to step up and do what is necessary. We commend this bill to the House.

I want to make two preliminary comments, and the first is to acknowledge Minister Bennett’s admission that this measure is only one small step—important in itself, but one small step—and that much more is needed. We totally agree, and that is the approach that all of the other parties in the House are taking, of course. In that light, I would also like to endorse Megan Woods’s call for a cross-party approach to the development of a strategy for some real actions on climate change. And I think James Shaw has just echoed that sentiment in his speech.

We all want to move as fast as we possibly can to tackle this most serious of all problems facing humankind, but my endorsement of that approach is subject to a caveat, and that caveat is simply that we all need to listen to each other. So Labour and the Greens need to listen to the other parties that may not necessarily agree with every aspect of their argument. We need to listen to each other so that we can gain some degree of consensus so that those real actions that we want to see actually happen.

Following on from that, I want to make this perfectly clear: New Zealand First does want a more cautious approach to agricultural emissions than the Labour Party and the Green Party have taken. Although agricultural emissions are very significant for New Zealand and must not be left out of any future strategy to reduce our emissions profile overall, we cannot move too far ahead of competing agricultural exporting countries, simply because we would be likely to become uncompetitive, and that would be a problem. The damage to our farming community and exports simply could not bear some of the measures that some are wanting to take very quickly.

So I would ask Labour and the Greens to acknowledge that, and to also acknowledge that, as a matter of fact, the European Union, which is the world’s largest agricultural producer by far, has no primary food production commitment so far as emissions are concerned—at all. Think about that. And neither, by the way, has another huge producer, the United States of America. The truth is that New Zealand farmers are already the most carbon efficient on earth—already some way ahead.

Bearing that in mind, although we do want progress as far as agricultural emissions are concerned, we cannot push that envelope too far without doing too much damage. As a matter of fact, until the European Union and the United States of America start to move, we should not stick our neck out too far. I note, in that context, that James Shaw was content to follow. He said that in one of the speeches: as long as we do something, as long as we make progress, we should be content to follow. So that is the approach I think we should be taking as far as agricultural emissions are concerned.

I would like to point out too that the Observer published an article only last Sunday, on the front page, and the headline was “Eat New Zealand lamb and save the world”. That shows that they understand that New Zealand agriculture, as far as carbon is concerned and as far as emissions are concerned, leads the world. That reinforces what I have been saying. Yes, we do need to make progress with agricultural emissions, and, yes, it does have to be a major part of the strategy that we are calling for, and, yes, we do need to try to develop a consensus amongst the parties to take actions as part of that strategy.

The other parties, Labour and the Greens, need to listen to us and, I think, to National, which seems to be saying roughly the same thing—that as far as agricultural emissions are concerned we actually need to be a little bit realistic. It does not mean a lack of commitment; it just means a degree of realism.

In any event, if we follow New Zealand First’s prescription we do not really need to move too fast on agriculture, because it would form part of what we want to see as the first area where we would take action, and that would be the whole area of transport. We want to see transport targeted early and actively and effectively. We want to see electric cars encouraged. We want to see electric buses and trucks, which are now under development, being incentivised. We want to see the main trunk railway in New Zealand completely electrified. We want to see light rail introduced, with Government assistance, in the main centres. In fact, we want to encourage all public transport. We want to see the New Zealand railway system completely redeveloped so that it would become a modern, efficient, and effective system and would thereby make a major contribution to reducing our dependence in this country on fossil fuels.

That is the priority for us, but, as I have said, we do need to develop a consensus. That means all parties listening to each other and listening to, I hope, what I have been saying. We will certainly be listening to what others are saying, as well, with the possible exception of David Seymour, who is unlikely to make any contribution whatsoever. However, having said that, we will nevertheless try to work with other parties. We do want to see a comprehensive strategy developed. This is one very minor first step, not enough in itself, and I agree with the Minister that a lot more needs to be done. So let us get on with it.

This is yet another example of very pragmatic, sensible, and balanced legislation from a Government that is committed to ensuring that New Zealand businesses and households have an opportunity to adapt to the measures put in place to respond to the issue of climate change and climate disruption. Paula Bennett, the Minister sponsoring this legislation, should be commended for it. I commend it to the House.

I call Dr—[Interruption] Order! I am calling Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.

I presume that our National colleagues are free to select their own pronouns between the adjectives and the nouns that they are given.

I want to just mention three points in this third reading debate. The first point is that this debate, yesterday and today, marks, essentially, what I think is a new start—hopefully, it certainly does. We are lost if it does not. But let us assume that this marks the start of a new phase. Taking from the Paris Agreement, which reflects a new global approach to climate policy, the focus has now switched from the universality established in Paris in December to domestic action. The challenge now for all 196 State parties is the domestic action. Let us regard this Budget and the bill that is in front of us as the beginning of that domestic action to implement the new universality that comes out of Paris. The work starts now.

I pick up on Denis O’Rourke’s point—we have been making it, James Shaw and I and Labour colleagues—of the need for a consensus. We are genuine about that. We will dialogue and we will listen, but we will make our points. On our part—the Green Party—where we differ is, as I think Mr Simpson said, in the sense of urgency. I promise you that we will convey the reasons for the greatest sense of urgency, on our part, in that dialogue, but let the dialogue begin. Quickly, in response to Mr O’Rourke about agricultural competitiveness and the need to go carefully, of course we take the point. I just respond with the fact that competitiveness works both ways. With the opportunity cost, the omission of the counterfactual that was there in the lead-up to New Zealand’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, it is the same with agriculture. If we do not move, including on agriculture, we lose our competiveness in the medium term, if not the short term. So we have got to move on agriculture as well.

Maybe New Zealand First is aware of the 2013 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations report that said Oceania can reduce agricultural emissions—livestock emissions—by 14 to 17 percent. Maybe New Zealand First is aware of last week’s global report, which says global agricultural emissions can drop from 5 gigatonnes to 4 gigatonnes by 2030—but let us find out. We will have a dialogue and see whether it is aware of the double side of the competitiveness argument.

Paris is the real test. We now move to domestic action. What does that mean for us? It means institutional change. It means that we do need to emulate the British: we need an independent climate commission that can talk independently of politics and independently of the politicians’ and party views, composed of experts and well-recognised authorities who can speak with authority to the Government and to Parliament. Let us establish that. Let us establish a forum—not unlike the Land and Water Forum, but taking into account the lessons learnt from that—and involve business and civil society, that, again, is independent of Parliament. Let us have those two institutions set up now and moving fast. Let us think about reforming even our own parliamentary structure on climate change. Climate change is an orphan because it is cross-sectoral—sectoral—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

—and it does not sit nicely—I need another minute, Mr Assistant Speaker, as a result of that—in the select committee structure, so we need to look at that. The transformational pathway that we need to focus on will begin with a new recognition of our national responsibility level, dividing the global carbon budget up according to the principles of equity in order to find out what we are actually responsible for, as opposed to the second point, which is what we are capable of in terms of domestic mitigation. They are blurred, those two concepts, and quite often deliberately so, by Governments. We need to be at least intellectually honest and politically honest, and recognise the distinction between those two concepts. That then takes us, once we know what our national responsibility level is and what our domestic mitigation potential is, to a point where we move to what the effective policies are—and let that discussion begin.

I call David Seymour—5 minutes.

On behalf of the ACT Party, I rise in support of this bill. I am here to say all the things that the National caucus has been thinking but has not been able to say.

💬 Hon Member: That we want to go home?

Ha, ha! A former member, Richard Prebble, once told me that in a parliamentary debate one should seek to respond to the earlier contributors, but, having just listened to the last three speeches, there is very little scope for that. So let me just say a few other things.

This emissions trading scheme is a piece of Swiss cheese public policy. It is so filled with holes, and deliberately so, that it never quite achieves its objective, and yet it also gives the impression that the Government is trying to do something. We saw that in Minister Bennett’s speech last night, when she first moved this bill. She said “Well, it’s going to do quite a bit.”, and then, each time she said that, she pulled back and said: “But it won’t actually have any binding, biting effects on real activity.”

The fact that there was a two-for-one discount on carbon credits in the first place tells you everything you need to know about the seriousness of the emissions trading scheme. Throughout the scheme’s history, there has been a whole host of adjustments: what sorts of credits you can redeem within New Zealand; what sorts of activities are included, and when they are going to be included. The truth is that it is designed to give the impression of doing something without actually binding any sector to change its behaviour, and at the same time providing vast amounts of room for political horse-trading and manoeuvring.

The emissions trading scheme is and has always been an utter joke. Today we find ourselves debating, under urgency, as part of a Budget measure, the removal of the two-for-one discount, which should never have been needed in a serious piece of public policy designed to reduce emissions in the first place.

What might we have been debating if we were serious about this problem? Of course, the reality is—sadly, for our colleagues in the Green Party—that the overwhelming majority of the population is not serious about it. We could have been debating the introduction of a simple, transparent, uniform carbon tax. If New Zealand was serious, if the people of New Zealand really wanted to reduce their carbon emissions and were prepared to make a commitment to doing so, then what we might have done is come here to debate the introduction of a carbon tax. We have not, because its simplicity and its transparency and its effectiveness are all the reasons why it does not fulfil the role that the emissions trading scheme has fulfilled in New Zealand politics. It bites evenly on everybody who emits greenhouse gases, and it actually does not have any room for any political manoeuvring or horse-trading. That would be a sensible policy, committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand. The emissions trading scheme is not, and this urgent debate about the two-for-one discount is just another manifestation of its long history of political horse-trading.

I none the less am in support of this bill. It is a public policy abomination, but on balance I would much rather keep these people over here in Government, because, believe it or not, in spite of everything that I have said about the emissions trading scheme in the bill we are debating today, those people on the other side of the House are far, far worse. These people occasionally make a public policy mistake, but if you look over there you think: “Oh, my God! Thank God their mistakes are so minor compared with what those parties often threaten the New Zealand public with.”

So this is not a particularly desirable piece of legislation, and it is not a particularly desirable situation to be here debating, under urgency, the removal of this discount. None the less it is all the best for New Zealand that I support it and keep these people over here and those people over there.

Mōrena, e Te Mana Whakawā. This bill reflects that the Government is truly committed to a low-carbon economy, and I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

Good morning. Talofa lava. Maleifua maia lau afioga i le Fofoga Fetalai. Good morning, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to follow on from Dr Kennedy Graham, and from others from New Zealand First, in saying to this Parliament that there is a real need for us to take this issue seriously, lay aside the politics, and take on board the call that Dr Megan Woods has made that we come together cross-party to come up with solutions that will not only address our international obligations relating to climate change but also do the right thing for this country and its future generations. I have got four points, and I hope that you will not intervene when I mention the Pacific in this debate, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The first point that I want to make is that people would have noticed a report that the New Zealand Herald made yesterday, with reference to an event organised by community workers called Park up for homes Māngere—park up your cars for homes in Māngere. I bring that to the attention of this House because I have been asked to invite the Government Ministers to participate in this event.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s about as wide of the wicket as you can get. We’re debating climate change.

I will get to the point, Gerry—I will get to the point. Climate change, contrary to the views on the other side, is not just about rising sea water levels. It is also about the fact that our climate is changing. It is getting colder; it is getting hotter. Last February was one of the hottest summers in our history, and people here are fearful that this winter is going to be the coldest winter in our history.

So in light of what this Government said at the beginning of this Budget, that there is no support for people sleeping in cars, this is an event to give the opportunity to Government members to come and park their cars and sleep from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. on 16 June so that they can experience for themselves the kind of cold environment that the public of New Zealand are going to experience this particular winter. So that is the first point. Gerry Brownlee might want to attend, but I am particularly inviting the Ministers who live in Auckland. Come join us. Bring your car, and experience for yourselves what it is like to sleep in a car during this cold winter.

The second point I want to make—[Interruption] I would not want to sleep with him either. The second point I want to make is that I am pleased that Minister Bennett has taken this step. She has also acknowledged that it is not enough, and we say to her, continue the work and look broader. In addition to what we have got to do here in New Zealand, we have also got to repair our damaged reputation.

I will give some points, which were raised earlier by some of the other speakers. At the Paris meeting, on the very first day, we received a Fossil of the Day award. The Fossil of the Day is awarded by a global international network of climate change activists, which includes some of the scientists who are working with the United Nations to provide the evidence for countries to use to combat climate change. That award was awarded to us because the Prime Minister made the point at that event that his Government was abolishing the subsidies on fossil fuels, but the global international network of activists knows that that is not true and that since his election in 2008 the fossil fuel subsidies have actually increased by 700 percent. So we do need to do more to repair our damaged reputation.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s an outright lie.

That is not a lie. That is not a lie. In fact, I quote the report that was made—the Prime Minister was hypocritical in his statement—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The word “lies” is unparliamentary, and we will not use it again, and to say the Government is hypocritical—that is out too.

That was the second point. We got a fossil fuel award because of the failure of this Government to abolish fossil fuel subsidies. It has gone up 700 percent since the Prime Minister came into power.

The third point is that a report was released in February of this year by Gareth Morgan, saying that our Government is a climate change cheat. That report revealed that the emissions trading scheme has meant that we have been emitting emissions by purchasing credits from other countries or other companies that are reducing their emissions. This report highlighted the fact that we have been buying credit from countries whose credit schemes are deemed fraudulent. Ukraine is one, and Russia is one that this report revealed. This Government knows that they are fraudulent, but it continues to use these credits to show the international community, as if we are meeting our international obligations.

We got a second fossil fuel award because we are at the bottom of the 20 percent of countries with the lowest emissions targets. We got a second fossil fuel award because we are saying to the international community that we have reduced our emissions of carbon by continuing to emit and to buy credit that is fraudulent. Despite the fact that we know that these credits are fraudulent, we are holding them up to show that we are doing our part, and that is simply not true. The point I am making is that the Minister needs to do more.

The Government needs to repair our reputation and the harm and damage that her colleagues have caused in damaging the clean, green climate image we had once upon a time. The previous Labour Government did a lot of work, and once upon a time we were seen by the international community as a credible voice on climate change. The Pacific Governments tell me this, but now they tell me that this Government has got a reputation that they cannot trust. They cannot trust this Government when it comes to climate change because at that Paris meeting this Government blocked off the call for compensation for the most vulnerable countries affected by climate change. This is the country that led that charge. This is the country that goes out and says to the Pacific community: “We are your friend. We are going to support you.” So on the one hand it says that, and on the other hand it does these other things, like blocking what those countries are saying.

In that report, in the fossil fuel award that the country received, the global climate change activists did use that word that you have asked me not to use, Mr Assistant Speaker: the “h” word. They used that word to describe the action of this Prime Minister, and that is not anything that we can be proud of. Those awards are not awards to be proud of; they are rebukes by the international community. They are awards that should make us hang our heads in shame.

I want to say that I wrote a members’ notice of motion, and I do not know whether that Government took notice of it, but I want to repeat it for the Government’s sake. On Tuesday, I moved “That this House acknowledge and take note that newly released scientific evidence confirms that climate change with sea level rise, erosion and coastal flooding is a significant threat to the safety and security of the people in the Pacific, with evidence published in the Environmental Research Letters revealing that five reef islands, of the Solomon Islands group, that once supported dense tropical vegetation which was at least 300 years old had disappeared, while a further six had severe shoreline recession, further evidence of the urgent need to tackle climate change, and further note that New Zealand should prepare for the emergency of people in the Pacific who are or will be displaced from their homes and land, through no fault of their own, but as a result of climate change.”

The point made is that this Government has used this Budget and has used this legislation to appear as if it is doing something when it is a baby step, as my colleagues have called it. I am glad that the Minister has acknowledged that more needs to be done, but a great deal more needs to be done, with some sense of urgency. I know that she is probably surrounded by people on her side who do not believe that climate change is real, but I am glad that she acknowledges that.

I ask this Government to take on the challenge. Treat it as real. Come out on 16 June to Māngere with your car. Sleep in the car and experience for yourself the cold climates that the people of New Zealand are experiencing right now.

Wow! How do I follow that? What absolute negativity. What absolute pessimism. It is very clear why that party now has fewer members than the Green Party. What negativity.

On this side of the House, we are a lot more positive. This country has done a lot of great work around the emissions trading scheme. Since 1990 we have decoupled emissions from economic growth by 34 percent. We are phasing back now over the next 3 years. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.