CLIMATE CHANGE — Declaration of Climate Emergency

I move, That this House:

declare a climate emergency, following the finding of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that, to avoid a more than 1.5°C rise in global warming, global emissions would need to fall by around 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero by around 2050;

recognise the advocacy of New Zealanders in calling for action to protect the environment and reduce the impact of human activity on the climate;

join the over 1,800 jurisdictions in 32 countries to declare a climate emergency and commit to reducing emissions to avoid a more than 1.5°C rise in global warming;

recognise the devastating impact that volatile and extreme weather will have on New Zealand and the wellbeing of New Zealanders, on our primary industries, water availability, and public health, through flooding, sea-level rise, and wildfire damage;

note that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, that the Government has made significant progress on meeting that challenge through the Paris Agreement and the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019, and that New Zealand has committed to taking urgent action on greenhouse gas mitigation and climate change adaptation;

acknowledge the core tenets of New Zealand’s response by establishing emissions budgets that set us on a path to net zero by 2050, setting a price on emissions through the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, transitioning to a low-carbon economy and planning for climate adaption;

implement the policies required to meet the targets in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019, and to increase support for striving towards 100 percent renewable electricity generation, low carbon energy, and transport systems;

seize the economic opportunities that a clean, green reputation provides;

create green jobs in the low-carbon economy while managing risks for workers and communities currently reliant on carbon-intensive sectors;

recognise the alarming trend in species decline and global biodiversity crisis, including the decline in Aotearoa’s indigenous biodiversity, and acknowledge New Zealand’s strategic framework for the protection and restoration of biodiversity Te Mana o te Taiao;

note that the Government will take further steps towards reducing and eliminating waste; and

show leadership and demonstrate what is possible to other sectors of the New Zealand economy by reducing the Government’s own emissions and becoming a carbon-neutral Government by 2025.

I think the first and most important point to make is that this is a declaration based on science. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the pre-eminent scientific body in the world on this matter, has determined that in order to avoid a disastrous 1.5 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures and beyond—a rise that would see increased risk to human health and livelihood, civil unrest, mass drought, disease, loss of lands and homes, increased fires, increased tropical storms, mass human displacement, and globally exhausted resources—we must act with urgency to ensure global emissions fall to net zero by 2050.

This is a declaration grounded in a deep sense of responsibility—responsibility that we all must feel, but particularly given that we, as New Zealanders, are members of the Pacific. In 2019, I visited Tokelau, a rare privilege. A population of only 1,500, only accessible by boat—and so perhaps, therefore, their story is not often shared. But there I physically observed newly built coastal walls that were already toppling over from the assault by the sea. Those walls had been erected to prevent a seaside burial ground that had been there for many, many years from being inundated—to protect it against significant erosion. Those walls were already failing.

Tokelau is not alone. The Pacific Islands Forum has called climate change our greatest threat—their greatest threat—and that is why the goal to limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees is embedded in our legislation. That’s not something that every nation has done, but we have, because anything more than that means consigning the Pacific—it means consigning our region—to a devastating reality that if we are responsible members of the Pacific, we cannot and will not accept.

This declaration is an acknowledgment of the next generation: an acknowledgment of the burden that they will carry if we do not get this right and if we do not take action now. When I visit schools, when I read children’s letters, I’m often struck by how deeply personal the climate crisis is to them. We cannot underestimate a generation, full of angst and anxiety over the reality of climate change for them and their generation. And it is up to us to make sure that we demonstrate there is a pathway, there is a plan for action, and there is a reason for hope. For them, it is instinctual. It is tangible. It is real. It is about the country they will inherit and it’s about the burden of debt they will inherit unless we make sure that we demonstrate leadership on this issue.

This declaration is about our global responsibilities. As a nation, it is not in our nature to turn our back on a problem, and it’s certainly not in our DNA to ignore a sense of responsibility and obligation. On climate change we will only make progress if we absolutely accept that collective action is required. If any nation falls short, we all fall short. So, importantly, this is a declaration that records the formal importance of our intent as a nation and our intent on the global stage. It’s a declaration that now serves as a directive to all aspects of the public service around the urgency that we as a Government require and the urgency that we require around action. It acts as a catalyst for change.

It’s a declaration that says we must get our own house in order. It serves as the clearest of signals to the private sector, and I acknowledge significant action has been taken by many in the private sector. Many are taking action now, demonstrating leadership. But to others, I say there is no more runway to push back on. Globally, we have entered an age of action, and that includes the private sector as well.

So, with action in mind, today, as a Government, we are also announcing the Carbon Neutral Government Programme that requires Government organisations to be carbon-neutral by 2025. We must get our own house in order. How can we stand and take a leadership position amongst the private sector unless we take the same action that we expect of them? It will require Government agencies to measure and reduce their emissions, and if they are unable to achieve carbon neutrality, they must offset. They will be required to develop emissions reduction targets and plans. They will be required to individually report to Parliament on their emissions. Ministers will be held accountable. And from 2025, as I’ve said, if they do not reach their own targets, they will be required to offset. This means they will have to act differently. They will have, also, a major financial incentive to do so.

There are three specific elements to our plan around a carbon-neutral Public Service. First, we will phase out the use of coal boilers in the State sector. We’ll prioritise getting rid of the largest and most active boilers, using the $200 million State sector decarbonisation fund to replace them with clean alternatives. There are over 200 coal boilers still in the State sector; that needs to change. Secondly, we’re requiring mandated Government agencies to only purchase electric vehicles (EVs) or hybrid vehicles. If electrics are not appropriate for their specific needs, then there is a specific operational requirement that they must go through in order to demonstrate why. We are also requiring them to optimise their fleet at the same time. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority estimates that we can reduce the size of our fleet by up to 20 percent. We’ve also allocated $20 million from the State sector decarbonisation fund to co-fund the cost of EVs and charging infrastructure. We spent the better part of last term putting in place the infrastructure that would enable this transition to happen. Thirdly, we are putting in place an energy efficiency building standard on all mandated agencies who occupy office space over 2,000 square metres.

So let me be clear. This is a declaration that will need to be supported by ongoing, continual action and activity. It sits behind the work that we did in our first term of office: our plan to plant one billion trees; our ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration; our goal of 100 percent renewable electricity generation by 2030, and we are already under way investigating a scheme that would allow New Zealand to have, essentially, the battery that helps us overcome dry years to reach that 100 percent renewable goal; our record investment in rail, trains, buses, walking, and cycling, and now we are moving to decarbonise that public transport fleet, too; our $100 million Green Investment Fund; our world-first partnership with farmers to reduce primary sector emissions; and our intention to make action on climate change an integral part of our COVID recovery so that we don’t only build back our economy, we build it back in a sustainable way with a focus on carbon neutrality.

We issue declarations sparingly. The reason we have done this today is that those cases where we do issue declarations are often where there are threats to life, threats to property, or civil defence emergencies. If we do not respond to climate change, we will continue to have those emergencies on our shore. I do want to acknowledge, as I conclude, the Minister of Climate Change and the Green Party, endless advocates for activity in this space that we will continue to work in partnership with. But I encourage every member of this House to take the issue of climate change with the utter seriousness that it deserves. Vote in favour of this declaration today. Be on the right side of history. Be part of the solution we must collectively deliver for the next generation.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to debate the Government’s decision to declare a climate change emergency. National is fully committed to efforts to address climate change. We are committed to the Paris Agreement and to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, but declaring a climate emergency is nothing but virtue signalling. Symbolic gestures just don’t cut it—by declaring a climate emergency when there is consensus on what needs to be done. We need to drive our emissions down. A climate emergency won’t change our approach to this. Last year, National supported the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill. The bill put into legislation a goal of reducing emissions to net zero by 2050, and it established the Climate Change Commission. Lower emissions is the organising principle of the Climate Change Response Act, as it should be. To lower emissions we need an effective plan based on practical sensible solutions, not extreme policies such as declaring a climate change emergency.

The test for this Government is: do their policies reduce emissions effectively? Only effective policies can help keep temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Centigrade, as required by the Paris Agreement, and deliver net zero emissions by 2050. The task before us is monumental. Net zero emissions in 30 years is hugely ambitious, especially for a country that earns half of its income from the primary sector. We simply cannot sink investments into ineffective policies. New Zealand will run out of money long before it reaches its targets if we commit to policies that simply don’t work. Our policies must lower emissions or be dropped.

What does a commitment to effective action look like in practice? Well, we see the solution in three parts. First, we must test every policy. We must know how many tonnes of greenhouse gas as a policy we take from the atmosphere, taking into account downstream effects to decide whether to go on with the policy or not. Every policy should be tested and each policy should be tested again after it is launched—and not just once but regularly, because reducing emissions is not just where to cut emissions but how much. For every policy the first tonne of cuts is usually the cheapest. Further cuts in emissions become more expensive. Each policy has a point at which the next tonne is no longer competitive with other sources. Our ambitious targets mean we need to know when each policy has reached those critical points.

The second aspect of effective action is that policies should demonstrate a minimum level of effectiveness before they are funded. In practice, minimum effectiveness will be a cap on the number of dollars the Government will commit to spend on a policy to cut a tonne of emissions. Policies that do not reach the minimum threshold of effectiveness should not be funded and the money saved should go to other more effective policies. This cap would certainly rule out the Government’s 100 percent renewable electricity goal, which actually has been costed at around $1,280 per tonne. New Zealand can make great progress towards emissions targets simply by redirecting spending from bad policies to better and more effective options.

Third, effective action means we must look at all of our options for reducing emissions. We must consider those options on a level playing field. That means accessing options on their merits according to whether they cut emissions and at what cost. The test for how we reduce our emissions should be based on not preferring one technology over another or whether it is in the right sector. Right now, across Wellington, hundreds of officials across four agencies are all working on one thing. They are writing rules on how we should live our lives. They want to tell you what car you can drive, what days you can drive, the size of your house, how much energy you can use and where you buy it from, and how many flights you can take. They have a name for this programme. It’s called transition, or transformation, and it’s hiding in plain sight. Official and Ministers refer to it all the time.

Just recently the Governor of the Reserve Bank delivered a speech called “Progressing climate action by driving transformational change.” Last year, the Minister of Energy and Resources gave a speech to the gas industry forum called, “Towards zero carbon.” In it she said—and I quote—“As we reckon with our global confrontation with climate change, it is clear the old ways or running our economy and paying our way in the world will need to change. We are on the precipice of a major economic transformation. … we need to change our economy at a larger scale and at a faster pace than that of any economic transformation in … history.” The Government has never made the case for transformation. It has not said what it means. It has not demonstrated it is necessary to cut emissions. It has not shown its benefits justify its costs.

There is no mention of transformation in the purpose statement of the Act or the targets of the Act. As I’ve noted, the legislation does say that our goal is to lower emissions, not transformation. The case for transformation must be made. It cannot be assumed. Yet it is being assumed. Transformation is being treated as though it follows directly and automatically from climate change. It does not. National believes that success means delivering on our emissions targets without sacrificing the things that help make life worth living. Success means meeting our responsibilities fully and genuinely while still driving the car we want, still leaving the heater running on a cold day, and still taking that once-in-a-lifetime overseas trip. Success means not having the climate change Minister telling us how to live our lives to cut emissions—because that means failure in every sense.

Command and control over every part of our life means not only losing the material things that we all enjoy; it also guarantees failure to meet our emissions targets. We cannot cut emissions as effectively and affordably from the top down. With all due respect to James Shaw, the surest way not to make real progress on emissions is to put control of a massively complicated problem in the hands of someone who’s never more than three years away from an election.

We have to be smart enough to not even try that approach. Sadly, for all this talk from this Government about a climate crisis, it’s doing nothing more than making it up as it goes along. They’ve chosen to fly blind. They’ve hardly even checked the cost effectiveness of their introduced emissions policies. This is inexcusable when there is so much at stake. Whatever happened to this generation’s nuclear moment? If the Government is serious about climate change, it must be transparent and well organised with its analysis.

To summarise, National is committed to doing what works on emissions. That is what our legislation and our international agreements require. Doing what works is the only way we can achieve our targets, and it will save us from big government trying to rule our lives. National believes we can fully meet our emissions obligations if we’re prepared to look at the options based on whether they’re affordable and effective. National believes that if we can meet our targets without changing our lives, we should, and we can if we are prepared to do what works to lower emissions. Declaring a climate emergency is nothing but a hollow symbolic gesture if there is no intention to act in the best interests of New Zealanders. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I’m proud to stand here today on behalf of the ACT Party to offer a different perspective, a pragmatic and constructive approach to mitigate climate risks, because declaring a climate emergency is simply a triumph of politics over practical solutions—slogans over substance.

As an environmental engineer, I understand natural processes, and I also know that human activity has a significant impact on climate and the environment. So the question is: what are we going to do about it? Declare a climate emergency. And now? Well, local government are already putting in place plans to mitigate climate change risks, to respond to sea-level rise. Local governments are already putting plans in place with infrastructure, rezoning land, and to reduce building risks. The climate change Minister has the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and the Climate Change Commission. That Minister has the power to set the price of carbon through the ETS. He could set it at $50 a tonne or $100 a tonne—whatever price he chooses. That Minister has the greatest influence on the behaviour of business and consumers than any other Minister in Government.

So ACT says that to declare a climate emergency is nothing but a stunt. It’s not a solution because the people with the real solutions to mitigating the risks from climate change and adapting are business people, are scientists, are engineers. Those people have the solutions. They should be incentivised to deliver their solutions, not punished for being in business, punished for providing people with jobs and incomes.

If the Government wanted to do something tangible, it wouldn’t just tell civil servants to carbon zero; it would take ACT’s recommendation to amend Parliament’s sitting hours. Stop flying MPs all over the country, wherever they like, whenever they like, because MPs are the only people in the world with an unlimited travel budget to fly anywhere they like, whenever they want, on the taxpayer. No business would accept its staff jumping on a plane on a whim—no business in New Zealand would. ACT believes that politicians should lead by example when it comes to climate change. So ACT proposes to change the parliamentary calendar. Currently MPs sit three days a week for 30 weeks a year. We could sit for four days a week—imagine that—for 23 weeks a year. That would reduce the number of flights taken by MPs and carbon emissions by around 25 percent, and it would not only reduce emissions; it would save taxpayer money.

ACT believes that New Zealand must play its part on climate change and that the response must be simple to administer, politically durable, and effective. New Zealand will only prosper if we match our goals with actions, and actions which actually benefit the environment and climate. But if the Government forces through much deeper emissions cuts than our trading partners and sets more aggressive targets than other countries, we will simply impoverish ourselves. We will push vital economic activity to other countries. That is why ACT proposes New Zealand ties our carbon price to that of our top five trading partners. We can remain competitive as a trading nation. ACT believes New Zealand should do its part, through innovation led by business, engineers, and scientists, not through slogans and PR stunts. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Order! Order! Before I take the next call, can I just advise members of the gallery that they may not take part in this debate and to hear the rest of the debate in silence.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’d like to just start my contribution to this debate with a few ripostes to some of what I’ve heard before, such as the recent plan to reduce New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the number of flights that members of Parliament take. I mean, if there was ever a virtue signalling, that would be it. I also would like to mention what it is that some of our trading partners are doing, because one of the things I just heard was that we should tag our ambitions to the ambitions of other countries around the world.

There’s been a lot of movement on that recently. Every single G7 nation now has a net zero target for 2050—including all emissions, including biogenic methane—and are therefore more ambitious than New Zealand’s targets are, ourselves, that we were able to get through this House last year. Even China now has a net zero target for 2060. So, actually, we are now in the position of having to play catch-up to some of the world’s largest economies. I look forward to the wholehearted support of the ACT and National parties as we do try and meet the rest of the world on that.

I would like to start by just acknowledging what I thought was a mostly thoughtful contribution from the new National Party spokesperson on climate change, Stuart Smith, and I want to congratulate him on his first appointment. I do want to say, the National Party—I want to acknowledge the contribution that they have made over the years and in their time in Government. I know I had a go at them at question time, but it was the National Party that took us into the Paris Agreement. I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of the Hon Simon Bridges, who was there for that. It was the National Party who lodged our nationally determined contribution under it. It was the National Party who voted for the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act.

It was the Hon Steven Joyce who set up the Productivity Commission report that turned into this Government’s climate action plan that that National Party then voted against every measure of. That National Party rejected the idea of a feebate scheme for electric vehicles, which was one of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission report that the Hon Steven Joyce set up. I want to say, if they think that this declaration is devoid of substance, then I look forward to their full-hearted support of every single policy that we introduce over the next three years to actually put some substance into this and to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. You want to put your money where your mouth is, folks.

Look, I want to point out some of the things that the Prime Minister mentioned about the machinery of Government here. We have been reluctant to declare a climate emergency that would just be empty words. It has to have substance. The Prime Minister and Cabinet have decided that there was going to be some machinery of Government that gets organised to make sure that this happens, because we have seen jurisdictions—some local authorities here in New Zealand, some jurisdictions overseas—that have made these declarations without providing substance. The Prime Minister is going to chair a committee of Ministers to make sure that Ministers and their agencies are accountable for all of the actions in the climate action plan; we’re directing the Public Service to prioritise the actions that are in the climate action plan; everything that Stuart Smith said that he was worried about, about the lack of a plan—we have a plan.

We’re now organising the Government to ensure the delivery of that plan, in line with the fact that we are saying that this is an emergency that has a level of equivalence to any civil defence emergency. It’s not a civil defence emergency, of course, but it is the cause of more frequency and more severity than every single civil defence emergency that we have, except for earthquakes. Therefore, we need to treat it as an emergency with the same level of seriousness that we would treat any civil defence emergency. The response is different from a civil defence emergency of course; if you declare a civil defence emergency, there are certain authorities and powers that go with that. In this case, we need to make sure that we have a long-term approach, a just transition, an approach that includes mana whenua, and businesses, and communities, and enterprises all over the country. This is not just an emergency here in Aotearoa, although the effects are being felt here.

The Prime Minister referenced the Pacific Islands, and I do want to say that the effects are being felt there much more severely, much more early, than they are being felt here. The Cook Islands believes that up to 25 percent of its annual budget is used in dealing with climate emergency responses. It is an absolute responsibility that we have to declare this emergency and to back it up with substance, with action. Finally, I’d just like to acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of many of the people who have held vigil: Ollie Langridge, Fridays for climate, the tens of thousands of people who marched before COVID on the school strikes for climate—this declaration is for you.

Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Ko te mahi o te kaitiaki i te mana ō Papatūānuku, ō Ranginui hoki, tae noa ki ā rāua tini tamariki-mokopuna nei e whāngai nei i a tātou o te ao mārama nei, he mana tuku iho ngā iwi me ngā hapū i ēnei ngā mana atua me Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Mā ngā iwi me ngā hapū e whakahaere, e kai hoki, kia ora ai a Papatūānuku me ana tini uri-mokopuna, tatū mai ki te tangata.

[The role of protecting Papatūānuku (Earth mother), Ranginui (Sky father), and their multitude of descendants that sustain us, in the world of light, is a responsibility that is passed down through the generations to the tribes and sub-tribes that descend from the gods and through the Treaty of Waitangi. Tribes and sub-tribes will continue to do our part to manage, protect, and conserve Papatūānuku and her descendants, including humankind.]

I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to support this motion to declare a climate emergency. For tangata whenua, this motion is well overdue. Tangata whenua have known long that our environment is totally out of balance, and for decades have understood the urgency of dealing with climate change.

In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—IPCC—released a landmark report that made it clear that there were only 12 years left to limit climate catastrophe. There is no time for inaction or delay. We have an obligation to our rangatahi to unite and to do everything as kaitiaki to protect our taiao and our whānau from the climate crisis in the short time that we have left.

For years, Rawiri Waititi and I have both been fighting for climate justice. In 2010, Te Whānau-a-Apanui worked to successfully stop Petrobras from deep-sea drilling in the Raukūmara Basin, and for the past seven years, my Ngāti Ruanui iwi have been leading the campaign against seabed mining off the South Taranaki Bight in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Our commitment to our people is that we will be unashamedly, unapologetically champions for climate justice and will push for policy outcomes that reduce emissions.

It was deeply disappointing to see the report that Aotearoa is being threatened with being left out of the climate leaders’ summit because New Zealand Governments have had great rhetoric on climate change but have failed to implement policies that actually reduce emissions. Declaring a climate emergency is a positive step, and many of the policies set out in the Speech from the Throne are a good start, but we must be bolder. We need tangible policies that reflect the urgency of this emergency.

During the election campaign, I announced Te Paati Māori’s policy that proposes transformative climate action, including ending new onshore oil and gas permits and withdrawing existing onshore and offshore permits, with a target of decommissioning sites by 2030; putting in place a nationwide ban on seabed mining within the EEZ to withdraw existing seabed mining permits; establishing a $1 billion scheme for Māori-owned community energy projects for whānau energy and efficiency, creating jobs; immediately bringing methane into the emissions trading scheme and phasing out synthetic fertilisers by 2025; and establishing a $300 million fund to support Māori farmers to transition towards regenerative and value-added agricultural models. We must restore balance with the natural world and regenerate our whenua, our wai, our moana, and our precious indigenous taonga species.

We look forward to working with MPs across the House to get these and many more policies across the line to ensure Aotearoa plays a leading role on the world stage in protecting Papatūanuku and taking real climate action. That is the climate action our mokopuna will be proud of. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

It is with a deep sense of honour, privilege, and an overwhelming sense of obligation to future generations that I stand in this House as a member of this Government in affirmation of this Government’s declaration of its action on climate in declaring a climate emergency. There are many people in this House that have dedicated their lives to the mana and the restoration of that mana of Papatūānuku. I have heard passionate speeches in this House today that speak to the guts of what this declaration is. It is a clear recognition that climate change is the defining long-term issue of our generation.

This is an affirmation that this House has heard the call of our rangatahi, of our taiohi, asking that we turn our minds and make a declaration that climate change is in a state of emergency. This is an affirmation that we have heard the calls of our friends, our relations from throughout the Pasifika nations, asking that we declare that the climate is in a state of emergency. We have heard the call from our scientists for generations that have been stating on the best basis of the science available to us that our climate is in a state of emergency. And I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, who said only three years ago, when she stood at the Throne for the first time as our Prime Minister, that this, climate change, is the nuclear moment of our generation. And there was a call that went up and down the nation in affirmation of those words, because we know that climate change demands a complete change in the way that we have done things.

I hear the spokesperson, the new spokesperson, for the National Party say, “But we want to continue to drive the cars that we want to drive.” Well, actually, no longer can we just live a life of status quo because Papatūānuku is demanding something more of us. So this declaration is not without meat on the bones. This declaration comes with a clear indication from this Government that we will do things better. We have just heard from the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern that by 2025 the public sector is expected to become carbon-neutral. Chucking my Minister of Conservation hat on—I was sitting next to my colleague the Minister of Forestry. We are both here to help the Public Service in any way we can to help the Public Service achieve those goals.

There is a huge impact on our conservation values. Many of Aotearoa’s plants, our birds, our bats, our insects, our reptiles, our fish—they are not found anywhere else in the world and they are all at risk right now from the impacts of climate change. This is time we cannot get back. Climate change poses much more risk to entire habitats being lost from extreme flooding or fire to changes in the range of distribution of pests. For only a couple of weeks now, I’ve held the portfolio of Minister for Emergency Management. My colleagues from the National Emergency Management Agency across the country have had to adapt radically the way that they are responding to emergency management issues because there has been an uptake as a consequence of climate change.

I have no idea why the Opposition may laugh and jest at these things, because these are having real-life, tangible impacts in rural communities, in urban communities. Our future generations have asked us, “Please, House of Representatives, please hear our call for urgent action.”, and I am so proud that we have a Government that will take bold action that is required. Last year, we had floods in the Far North and in the deep South. In my home patch of the East Coast, we’ve got Edgecumbe and Tolaga where our coasts are eroding. This declaration of a climate emergency is a declaration for those future generations and I thank you all, those rangatahi, for bringing that call to this House. Tēnā koe.

There are many wonderful things about the modern world that we live in. One of the bad ones, though, is that if you say something with enough feeling these days, it’s somehow automatically true and valid, whether you’ve done anything about it or not. Emoting is mistaken for actual actions. Feelings and chats like the Prime Minister’s very diplomatic language, the dialogues we have—they are mistaken for outcomes. Well, when I was growing up, there was a saying: actions speak louder than words. Let your deeds do the talking. In three years on climate change, nothing’s happened. Literally, James Shaw passed a law to set up a committee. It’s what we’ve done. We voted for it—I mean, it’s a nice committee. It’s a structure; I accept that. There’s been an oil and gas ban which has, perversely, resulted in more coal imported into New Zealand and emissions going up. Literally, I defy the members on the other side to tell us one other thing in three years that has happened that has made a difference.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that in the last three years, emissions have gone backwards. They’ve gone up. They criticised our target when Tim Groser and I went to Paris and signed the deal, but emissions have gone up. We’ve had emoting, we’ve had feelings, and we’ve had nothing else. I don’t like to be cynical but hold huge hope for the next three years. What’s so frustrating is, as Stuart Smith has said, the actions we should take are practical and, with respect to the Prime Minister and the Labour Party and the Green Party, they’re obvious. But Government’s not interested in the practical, sensible stuff right before its eyes.

In the last National Government, I was for a time Minister of energy, a transport and associate climate change Minister. I wanted to be climate change Minister, but Paula Bennett stole it off me when she worked out I wanted it. I had in my office, in the—

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: She’s gone now.

Well, you know, there’s always a chance to have a little resentment about something, right? Let’s be honest. I had a chart, a pie chart, in my office—very large—and it literally just divided the emissions of New Zealand up into sections. My portfolios made up half, broadly speaking—the maths isn’t exactly right. A quarter is transport, a quarter is energy, and, of course, the other half is, effectively, the primary sector. In energy, the reality is it’s not electricity. We’ve got the gains from that at 85 percent renewables in electricity; 65 percent—85 percent while National was in office.

💬 Hon Marama Davidson: Yeah, we still need the rest of energy.

By the way, it’s going backwards now, Marama Davidson. It’s at, I think, 82 percent, and I blame your gas ban for that. The Government’s mucked around with the market in that area.

I know David Parker’s keen and other Ministers are keen on this idea of an Onslow project: effectively, a Muldoonist think-big project which will waste several billion dollars—they say four; I’d say more—on a project that really isn’t where the real game is, because we’re so close to 100 percent in electricity anyway. We’d be better, frankly, to put the money into incentives for electric vehicles in this country than do the Onslow project. But the real answer is, well, part of it in energy is in industrial heat, and I acknowledge the Government’s doing some things—some timid things, some cautious things, but some things there.

Then you’ve got a quarter in transport. Nothing’s happening—nothing. We went into election 2017 with a number of rail projects: electrification, third main line—none of those things have started. In fact, in electric vehicles, the only things today the Government is doing are things that I talked about and had planned for. Then, in primary production, here’s a practical solution: rather than talking down to farmers, how about updating our biotech regulations, investing in technology and innovation so that, actually, we meaningfully do something about emissions in this country. Today, we’ve got an emergency where all we do is chat. Actions speak louder than words.

Tēnā koe e te Kaiwhakawā. Tuatahi, tēnei ka whakaarohia ki te kaupapa kei mua i te aroaro e pā ana ki tō tātou taiao me ā tātou nei hiahia ki te tiaki i a Papatūānuku mō te āpōpō te take, nō reira ka tīpako tērā kōrero nō tōku tūpuna “E kore tēnei oranga e huri ki tua o āku mokopuna”.

[Firstly, I consider the matter that is before us at the moment—our environment and our desire to protect Papatūānuku for future generations. Therefore I will use the words of my ancestor to make the point “This way of life will not continue beyond the days of my grandchildren when we shall reach salvation.”]

Can I just say that today is the kind of day where you want to debate the issue of a climate emergency, because we know that the more we do now, in some very practical ways, the better the future will be for many of our children around New Zealand. There’s a Chinese proverb that says that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago; the next best time is today. So what we’re doing is stating very clearly that a climate emergency declaration is our opportunity to put a stake in the ground and say we must do more.

In fact, we have done a lot in the last three years. So I just want to respond to some of the remarks of the previous contributions, because when we announced that we would undertake an effort to plant more trees—one billion trees by 2028—there was a whole lot of guffaw on the other side of the House, but that was an opportunity for us to again create jobs, contribute back to the environment, and make a big difference in this area. Stopping new offshore oil and gas exploration permits—again, a clear signal that we were drawing a line in the sand about what would not be sustainable or in the best interests of our kids going forward into the future. We weren’t going to leave that to chance in terms of regional economies; we’re going to help them transition into this new future a low-carbon economy and what they could do to generate jobs by regions, and Taranaki has been the focus.

Our goal of 100 percent renewable electricity generation by 2030, I believe, is something that has created a lot of excitement throughout the country. When we look at local community projects that are now starting to be generated, we can gain much encouragement from that. Our investment in rail trains, public transport, walking, and cycleways again signals a very strong intention. Can I just go to my own region in the Waikato. We are positioned between Auckland and Tauranga port; having rail from Auckland to Hamilton is a significant opportunity to get trucks off the road and the passage of goods by rail, thus reducing emissions—again, a significant contribution just in the last three years.

The 100 million Green Investment Fund, Jobs for Nature, our world-first partnership with farmers to reduce primary sector emissions, and the launch of Te Taiao, Fit for a Better World, to signal that we are leaning into this space of doing more—actions speak louder than words, and we are demonstrating that we are committed to action.

The Prime Minister’s announcement today is to say very clearly that we must lead by example. So the public sector must absolutely demonstrate that they will make the changes that can influence further change, potentially in the private sector. I’m so proud of phasing out the use of coal boilers in the State sector, ensuring that we move the Government fleet towards electric vehicles so that we can gain greater efficiencies in the way that we—our people—in the Public Service move around the country, and ensuring that we’re putting energy efficiency building standards on all mandated agencies of the offices that Government services occupy. They are all practical things and steps that send a very big signal.

Just this time last year, round about, I was in Napier, and young children were marching to the local community centre around climate change. I was actually at a Society of Local Government Managers conference, and at the time several local authorities had already called a local climate emergency because fires, flooding, droughts—all these natural hazards that were impacting on our day-to-day lives—were very real challenges. Local governments are stepping up to the plate because they know something needs to be done. And here we have today the Prime Minister calling a climate emergency, not for any political reason, but, actually, because our kids deserve it. Their kids deserve it, and if the lot on the other side really, really wanted to work with us, we could all do something tangible together so that all our kids will have a better future than what they’ve inherited.

I rise to speak in opposition to this motion, because I think we should be straight with New Zealanders. This declaration will have no measurable impact on global climate change. I know it, the Prime Minister knows it, and I reckon even Chlöe Swarbrick knows it. It won’t take a single car off the road. It won’t reduce the methane from a single cow, nor remove a single tonne of carbon dioxide from the air. The motion before us employs all the implied drama of the word “emergency”, but it does so with zero practical effect. It is, unfortunately, yet another collection of words in place of the sincere policy and concerted action New Zealand must take to drive down our emissions.

Let’s reflect on the history of political statements about New Zealand’s climate change ambitions: a carbon-neutral nation, the world’s first truly sustainable nation, the nuclear-free moment for our generation, and, today, the declaration of a climate emergency. It is time we realised that these carefully worded ambitions are no substitute for meaningful policy reform.

So let me be very clear, and I say this especially for those who might try to use this debate to mislead New Zealanders: there is no doubt that climate change is the greatest environmental challenge of our time, nor do I doubt that it will be the greatest challenge environmentally for my children’s time to come. When our kids look back on this moment in history, they won’t judge who was on the right side or the wrong side by what words were spoken; they will judge us by our actions.

I am very firmly of the view that climate change threatens our world and our communities, that the production of greenhouse gas emissions by people is its cause, that New Zealand must act to reduce our emissions, and, of course, that Parliament has a solemn responsibility to take steps to achieve that.

Of course the National Party is on board with the global mission to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Really?

Yes, it is a mission we share with New Zealanders up and down the country. I remind this House, as my colleagues the Hon Simon Bridges and Stuart Smith did, that the previous National Government signed the Paris Agreement, we supported the zero carbon Act and the creation of the independent Climate Change Commission, and we continue to promote sensible policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But it is not at all clear how this declaration will take us a single step further forward.

Traditionally, of course, New Zealand has declared emergencies in the context of our Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, and it’s instructive to look at the special powers that that Act brings forward: powers to remove vehicles, to evacuate premises, to make rescues, to remove dangerous structures, requisition equipment, restrict access to public spaces—all of these and more. The emergency declaration today is completely empty of any such powers.

Is it any wonder I feel cynical? Because let’s remember, this is a Government that again and again has reached for the easy gestures of political symbolism and yet time after time has failed the hard test of policy delivery. My suspicion is that the Government intends this motion to distract from its record, its failure to stabilise let alone reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions; to distract from its failure to accelerate electric vehicle take-up, its failure to reduce reliance on coal-fired energy generation, its failure to accelerate breakthrough technology that would reduce not only our agricultural emissions but agricultural emissions throughout the world, its failure to produce a meaningful plan to implement our existing emission reduction targets; to distract from its preference for policies that fit in neat phrases like “100 percent renewable energy” but that are not approved by the independent experts and that result in renewable energy use dropping to 82 percent.

My sense is that New Zealanders do expect more from our Parliament on climate change, but they are not asking for more flowery words. They want sensible, carefully thought through policies that will move our country forward. So let’s spend less time on meaningless declarations and much more time on the hard work of actually reducing emissions.

Congratulations, Madam Speaker, on your election. I want to say, in response to the previous speaker, Nicola Willis, words matter. Words matter as well as commitments. My elders would say, “E pala maʻa ae le pala upu.”—meaning “Rocks turn to dust but words will always remain.” This declaration is important words. This declaration is an important commitment, is another step on top of everything else that we have introduced since coming into the administration. It is another step towards helping New Zealand transform into a nation of low-level emissions.

In order for us to do that, it requires us to act at the scale of the Industrial Revolution and at the speed of the Digital Revolution. It isn’t just one thing; it is many things, and already we have shown and demonstrated the One Billion Trees programme; stopping new offshore oil and gas exploration permits; our record investments in rail, trains, buses; and our world-first partnership with farmers to reduce primary sector emissions. Fact: the Earth is warming. Fact: oceans are rising. Fact: the ice sheet melts continue. Fact: our climates are getting hotter, wetter, and drier. These are absolute facts, and it’s happening right now. So this declaration of a climate change emergency is an important stake in the ground. It sends a signal, it declares our commitment, but it also will inspire others. I saw earlier young people up there in the gallery. I hope it will inspire young people to do the right thing. It is a declaration that is based on science, and it is not a statement of aspiration but a statement of fact.

One only needs to look around the regions. We see coastal erosion. Our climate change advisers have advised Parliament about what is happening around our coastal regions. Our stocks and our livelihoods have been destroyed. Floods—all of those things are happening around us. We don’t need to look very far. Homes have been destroyed. Local councils can’t figure out who to pay for that. Livelihoods, jobs, are at stake, and even lives.

I want to acknowledge the indigenous perspective that has been introduced in the debate here, because that’s important. From a Pacific perspective, climate change is a consequence of the failure of the market. They know that since the Industrial Revolution, the rich and wealthy have gotten richer—more wealthy—while the poor become poorer. And since the Industrial Revolution, they have seen how the costs of pollution have been socialised and the benefits have been privatised. Tuvalu, Kiribati, Tokelau, the Marshall Islands—those islands are fighting for their lives. They’re fighting for their homes. So this statement is New Zealand putting a stake in the ground, acknowledging that indigenous knowledge has a thing to say—about whanaungatanga. We are family and, therefore, we have a duty of care, a responsibility not only for our own population and future population but for the population of the vast Pacific Ocean.

So I want to stand here and acknowledge the leadership of the Prime Minister when she said that this was a nuclear-free moment for her generation. We’re not going to resolve this overnight. It’s going to take time, but the steps that we have taken, the commitments that we have made as a Government—and that side did commit to the carbon-free emissions goal last year, so I don’t know what’s going on there. I think the true leader ought to step forward. The one who should be the spokesperson for climate change should step forward and stop messing around.