Special Debates — Climate Change Response Act 2022—Emissions Budgets

I move, That this House express its support for the following proposed domestic emissions budgets, which set out the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions that will be permitted in each emissions budget period as a net amount of carbon dioxide equivalent, and are to be notified under the Climate Change Response Act 2002: 290 megatonnes (million tonnes) carbon dioxide equivalent in the first emissions budget period 2022-25; 305 megatonnes carbon dioxide equivalent in the second emissions budget period 2026-30; and 240 megatonnes carbon dioxide equivalent in the third emissions budget period 2031-35.

The challenge that the climate crisis presents also represents the greatest opportunity that we have had in at least a generation to build an economy that is much more productive, much more sustainable, and much more inclusive than the one that we have today. And that challenge is as urgent and as important as it has ever been.

Over the last few months we’ve seen firsthand the impact that the climate crisis is already having on our communities. We’ve had multiple floods in Tai Rāwhiti and Gisborne. We’ve had severe storm damage again repeatedly in Westport and Buller. We’ve had droughts in Southland so acute that the Awarua-Waituna Wetlands caught fire in autumn. The climate crisis is no longer something that’s happening somewhere else to someone else at some point in the future. It is happening here, it is happening to us, and it is happening now. Our lived experience has now caught up with what the science has been telling us for some time, which is that our best chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees is our best chance to avoid the worst effects. And, to that end, last term this House passed unanimously the zero carbon Act amendment to the Climate Change Response Act 2022.

To my knowledge, Aotearoa was the first country in the world to enshrine a commitment to hold global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees in its primary legislation. This temperature goal drives long-term targets which are also enshrined in the legislation, and those long-term targets are in turn broken down into a series of emissions budgets for stepping stones along the way. Each emissions budget establishes a total quantity of emissions that will be permitted in a five-year period, and it’s the first three of these emissions budgets that we are debating here today.

Now, in that sense, today’s debate represents a significant milestone in New Zealand’s climate change policy. We have never before had a binding domestic framework for cutting the pollution that we put into the atmosphere that causes global warming. And we put this framework in place to give New Zealand a much needed sense of certainty and predictability to future climate change policy. One of the main reasons that it has taken us so long as a country to get started on the path of cutting our emissions is because climate change policy has been so politicised and so subject to the back and forth vagaries of the political cycle. But it is a generational challenge. It requires a level of consistency across Governments and across decades. And the critical thing about this framework is that the imperative is set and the direction of travel is clear.

So, to that end, the independent Climate Change Commission recommended that we hold this special parliamentary debate on the first three emissions budgets. That would allow each party to put its views on the record and, at the same time, preserve each party’s ability to disagree on the policy prescription by which we meet those targets collectively. After all, the first three emissions budgets take us through to 2035, which will span the life of probably more than one Government.

Cabinet has now set these first three emissions budgets and they are as follows. The first, from 2022 to 2025, has been set at 290 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases. That averages out at 72.4 megatonnes per year, which is two megatonnes per year less than the five-year average leading up to this point, and 3.1 megatonnes less than our projected emissions for 2022 through to 2025.

The second emissions budget, from 2026 to 2030, has been set in principle at 305 megatonnes, which is an average of 61 megatonnes per year. That is 13.4 megatonnes or nearly 20 percent per annum below what we emitted from 2017 to 2021. The third emissions budget, from 2031 to 2035, has been set, again, in principle, at 240 megatonnes or 48 megatonnes per year on average, which is 26.4 megatonnes per year—about 35 percent less than 2017 to 2021.

The first emissions budget at 290 megatonnes is exactly what the commission recommended and two megatonnes less than the Government consulted on last year. Cabinet had proposed a slight variance to the commission’s recommended emissions budgets based on updated forestry intentions numbers. Now, there is considerable uncertainty around forestry projections, and so having reviewed the evidence, Cabinet chose to revert to the commission’s recommended first emissions budget. However, Cabinet has largely retained the modified second and third emissions budgets that were consulted on last year.

The second and third emissions budgets have been set, as I said, in principle. The commission will review the latest evidence and update their advice in advance of the Government of the day finalising the next emissions budget in 2024 and then the one after that in 2029. That will take account of not just more recent and firmer forestry projections but also account for uptake of new technology and scientific advances. Of course, the nature and the momentum of those changes will rely in large part on what we are able to achieve in our first emissions reduction plan, which I will publicly release on Monday, 16 May.

I know that there are those who will be worried that these emissions budgets do not go far enough. I’m one of them. There are also those who worry that these emissions budgets will be unaffordable or unachievable. To them I would say this: we established the Climate Change Commission as a politically neutral expert-led body to provide rigorous evidence-based advice on what we should and can do. Our agencies have tested their numbers, but the emissions budgets I have outlined today reflect the commission’s advice. These budgets are grounded in what the science says is needed and in a ground up analysis of what our economy can do over the coming 15 years. So don’t take my word for it; take the commission’s word for it.

Aotearoa New Zealand’s first three emissions budgets are the final piece of the framework that we have established in Aotearoa for bold, enduring climate action that reaches across Governments, across parliaments, and across generations. There remains a tremendous amount of effort required to meet those budgets, to meet our targets, and ultimately to do our bit to lower emissions and to limit global warming. This Government is committed to meeting our emissions budgets and achieving our targets, and as we do so we are committed to building a future that is more equitable, that is more prosperous, that is more innovative, and all within planetary limits. These budgets set out the path to a net zero Aotearoa. Our first emissions reduction plan will set out the actions that we take to get there and that we will do so in a way that benefits everyone—that takes everyone with us and leaves no one behind. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. The Hon Dr Megan Woods—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Nearly 2½ years ago, this House came together and, I think, displayed what it can do when it is at its best. We came together across parties to put into place the binding domestic framework that the Minister of Climate Change has just been talking about in his speech. We came together because we know the climate crisis that we face is intergenerational. No one Government will solve this crisis on its own. It needs to be a commitment from parties right around this Chamber that we do have a way to tackle a real and present danger and crisis. So when this House passed the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act with unanimous support, I think that was a very good day for what we can achieve as a group of parliamentarians.

The Minister of Climate Change has said to us as a group of Ministers that we are all climate Ministers. That is correct—each and every one of us needs to be considering climate when we consider our portfolios—but we are all climate parliamentarians. We must all be considering the climate crisis and how we meet that over the coming decades.

This Act is determining what our climate response will be in these first three emissions budget periods, and I want to reflect a bit on what these budgets will mean for us. These budgets are ambitious, and they should be, but—importantly—they are achievable. They put us on the path for what the science tells us needs to be done, and with the right commitment we will play our part in tackling emissions but, at the same time, we can also build our economic security.

Globally, New Zealand has an enviable environmental reputation. That means our products are in high demand. Moving towards a low-emissions economy is not only critical for our planet but it is also good for business and builds our resilience across multiple sectors, including energy and transport. We know that this will put us on the right path.

Today’s debate is not about these policies per se, but it is worth reflecting that we know we have effective measures available to us. What it takes now is the political will to put those measures in place. To meet these emissions budgets, we know that we will need to pull all the levers to continue to turn our pledges into high performance and to bring momentum to tackling this crisis. These are things that any responsible Government must take seriously and must have a comprehensive plan to meet.

The emissions trading scheme creates a price incentive, but it is alongside complementary policies like energy-efficiency standards, the Carbon Neutral Government Programme, and programmes we’ve put in place such as the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund (GIDI) that it all can work in tandem to enable the change that we need at the pace that we need it. GIDI, in particular, has shown us what can be achieved quickly when we do have ambition and back businesses to make the change. To date, I reflect on the $69 million that we have spent on that scheme across 53 major industrial projects. These projects are the equivalent of taking 134,800 cars off our roads. This is the kind of change that we need to see.

But we also have to have a commitment to this being a just transition, a transition that is equitable, and a transition that is inclusive, where no one is left behind. The pace here does enable this, and this Government is committed to delivering a fair and equitable transition to provide a future where clean, green jobs and cheaper electricity and energy become the norm. We must be thinking of people within this transition and how it is that we are prioritising this.

We need to do this, we have to do this, and we are able to do this. I want to thank the Minister of Climate Change for leading this work, and I commend these emissions budgets to the House.

The Hon Kiritapu Allan—five minutes.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the time to be able to make a contribution in the House and to follow my colleague the Hon Megan Woods in commending the work and the leadership of our friend and our colleague in this Government Minister James Shaw and the Green Party, who have been a constant advocate for ensuring that we have justice equity—justice equality. And so this is leadership, and this is leadership in its finest. As my colleague Megan Woods said, what it takes to become a leader in terms of climate change is it requires all parties to come to the table. Thank you for corralling all parties in this House to get to a point where we can collaboratively agree to set the emissions budget under the Climate Change Response Act. And I implore our colleagues across the House—I implore all of our colleagues—we aren’t all just climate-change individuals, climate-change parties; we are climate-change parliamentarians, as my colleague said, and I implore this House to come together to collectively agree the route that we must take as a nation to ensure we reach that net zero carbon target.

Now, you’ve heard from my colleagues this is an incredibly special day for Aotearoa where we agree to set the emissions reductions budget. Today, in particular, though, I want to talk about just how critical it is that we take these actions through a two-tiered lens: the crisis of climate change and the crisis of biodiversity. These two are intrinsically linked. Not everybody understands the threat to biodiversity and how intimately connected these things are to climate change, but we only need to look at the wetland fires down in Awarua, the wetland fires up north, those carbon sinks, those incredibly important carbon sinks, to understand just how critical it is that we do our part to change behaviour to put us in a position where we can tangibly achieve a net zero outcome.

So, today, I want to acknowledge how things like the extreme weather events across the country—rising sea levels, rising temperatures—are putting increasing pressure already on incredibly threatened wildlife and wild places. There’s 4,000 species currently that we know of—there’s probably a whole lot more—that are in a threatened state or at threat of extinction, and we have to take action today on climate change to ensure those threatened species survive, that they thrive, and they are a taonga that we hand on to future generations. Climate change poses risk to nature and the very things that make this place, Aotearoa New Zealand, special. Many of our plants, our birds, our bats that my colleague Rachel Brooking’s wearing the earrings for—bats that are mammals and are not birds, but that’s for another day, that discussion on whether or not they should have been Bird of the Year. But, anyway, many of New Zealand’s plants, our birds, our bats, our insects, our reptiles, our fish—they cannot be found anywhere else in the entire world, and this is part of the legacy that we’ve inherited when we split off from Gondwana all those years ago.

Climate change poses many risks to nature, from entire habitats being lost during extreme flooding or fires to change in the range and distribution of pests. Iconic coastal, alpine, and wetland ecosystems risk being degraded, squeezed, and eliminated from our landscape if careful adaptation is not taken now—right now. We only need to cast our eyes up to places like Te Tai Rāwhiti or up to the coast to see that climate change is having a real impact on real people’s lives, right now. We’re seeing the erosion of those coastlines, and if we do not change our track, I am nervous that we will not genuinely be able to hand something on to future generations.

Look, I have to make mention of this: it was a one-time former leader of the National Party Judith Collins; she said she was in favour of glacial action, but on their zero carbon Act she said, “But New Zealanders do not want to be first, fast, or furious; they want a fair go.” We cannot give people a fair go unless we take urgent action, and this is what this plan sets down. We cannot hand on this precious place that we have to our future generations if we do not take action right now. So, to this House, we absolutely implore and commend these budget targets to the House.

The National Party supports the emissions budgets proposed in this motion today, and we do so based on our proud history of making responsible commitments to reduce New Zealand’s emissions in line with our global obligations. We were the Government that signed up to the Paris Agreement. We were the party that worked across the House to support the zero carbon bill and to support the emission reduction that those two agreements imply. We support the nationally determined contributions under the Paris climate agreement, and we support the targets set under the zero carbon Act. So the discussion that New Zealand is having as a country about climate change is not one in which we debate whether or not action is required. The debate we are having is how we best take action and what the steps are that will best achieve our emission reduction goals in a way that is both economically responsible and takes our people with us.

National can see the very clear moral and environmental imperative for global emission action and global emission reduction; we see that very clearly. We are all, on this side of the House, conscious of our children and grandchildren and the world that they will inherit, and we feel a conservative urge to conserve those resources which the world has today so that we can sustain our livelihoods into the future. We also see very clearly the economic and trade imperative for New Zealand to be doing its bit as part of these global efforts. We are very conscious that our trading partners are watching New Zealand to see whether our actions match the rhetoric and the declarations. And we know that in the future our farmers, our exporters, our tourism service providers will want to rely on an international reputation for New Zealanders having taken effective and concerted climate change action. And with all of those things in mind, we support sensible emission reduction.

I want to be very clear, however, that in supporting emission reduction that does not mean that we will support every emission reduction proposal that the members opposite put on the table. Because while we support the ends, in terms of the overall emission reduction that should occur in this economy, we will not always agree with the means by which others suggest that we get there. The “how” really matters, and I propose to members of this House an analogy. If we think about the significant reforms that New Zealand has gone through in its past, I would suggest to you that emission reduction, decarbonising the economy, is perhaps the most significant economic reform that our economy will have to go through in the coming decades.

We have experienced as a country in the past what happens when economic reform is done in a way that is too fast, that is too furious, that doesn’t take people with it. And what we have seen is that if we aren’t conscious to ensure that we are fair, that we are efficient, that we are effective, then in fact we can cause a lot of harm on the way. So we stand very proudly for a view that the way in which we reduce emissions must be done carefully and rationally. As with all Government policies and spending, we need effective and efficient climate change policies, and so while we agree with the goal, we will not always agree on the path. We have choices about how we reduce our emissions, and some choices will be better than others. We want to do what works and what works best for the climate. That means every climate change policy must be tested. We won’t sign up to climate change policies on the very basis that they make for a good press release and make people feel good, because we are focused on achieving goals effectively.

So while we may disagree with the emission reduction plan that is released next week, or elements thereof, that will be because we are committed to lowering emissions in the most effective way possible and in the most responsible way possible. That means, for example, that we’re not going to plant our way to net zero. National won’t stand by and allow the country to be covered in exotic pine forests out of a sense that this is the best way to reduce emissions. Clearly, it is not.

We actually have to protect future generations by reducing emissions but also by ensuring we can continue to be productive producers of food, because, actually, for the world, that makes sense. It makes no sense if our farmers are unable to produce food in a sustainable, low-emission way for the world because of emission reduction restrictions, and then we have that food produced by other countries with a higher emission footprint, or we have, actually, our global food stability imperilled. National wants to take a sensible approach to that.

We won’t, in good faith, support actions and policies that will raise global emissions by shipping jobs and production overseas, or any policy that is prohibitively expensive. We believe that New Zealand must play its part on the world stage by taking policies and actions that deliver genuine reductions in net emissions. Anything else, anything less, betrays future generations, actually, because it takes money from taxpayers today and in the future on false pretences.

Just like policies in every other area, emissions policies should be robustly analysed. How many emissions will they actually reduce, and is that the best use for the dollars that are committed to achieve it? We should have transparent measures for what they will achieve, and we should back them up with practical, credible delivery plans. Achieving these reductions in emissions will be challenging, and so we owe it to New Zealanders that we can assure them that where we are taking action, we are doing the things that will have the most impact and that will make the biggest difference.

We continue to believe that the emissions trading scheme will be a very important part of how emission reduction is achieved. We also acknowledge that there will be a very important place for complementary policies alongside the emissions trading scheme—for example, catalysing the market around networks such as in electric vehicle charging, and potentially in other areas. But, again, these things need to be done in a way that doesn’t spend excessive taxpayer dollars on things that the private market may be prepared to come on board with as well.

We would point to the example of National’s investment in the broadband infrastructure network, whereby we effectively used Crown capital and intervention to catalyse the investment in a very effective, globally world-leading broadband network. We want to take a similarly rigorous approach to investments in the climate change area.

We see a hugely significant role for investment in R & D. One of the best things that New Zealand could possibly do for the global future of climate change is come up with solutions that allow farmers around the world to reduce their biogenic methane emissions. So let us lead in the research and development, not lead in the wearing of hair shirts, because actually that won’t help stave off climate change for future generations.

We also believe in planning reforms to unleash further investment in renewable and other green technologies, and we do think that cutting red tape will be a big part of that. It does not escape us that the Resource Management Act today actually prevents and stifles investment in things such as wind farms. So we have to get serious about looking at the barriers that are currently in the way of good private sector adaptation and investment.

When we think about how we can do more in the future, we also see the need to extend the potential for carbon removal and offsets in the emissions trading scheme. Right now, the emissions trading scheme recognises removal by trees but not other technologies, including blue carbon, carbon capture and storage, carbon mineralisation, and robust offshore mitigation. In principle, we need to be willing to consider these forms of removals, regardless of the particular technology.

It’s very important when we talk about climate change that we have sincere political debates, and the sincere political commitment that National has made is towards meeting these targets and reducing emissions. We entirely reserve our right to have a very robust debate about how that is achieved best for New Zealanders, and we look forward to that debate in the coming weeks, months, and years. New Zealand should learn from its history. When you make reforms, you must take people with you and do it in a way that is efficient and sustainable.

Simon Court—a five-minute call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If our nation aspires to be carbon neutral by 2050, then these emissions reduction budgets are the worst possible way we could do that. These budgets are nothing more than a fashion parade of green policy, which will cost New Zealand families and businesses billions. But they won’t do anything to reduce emissions any faster than the emissions trading scheme (ETS) already allows us to do. That’s why ACT opposed the zero carbon Act and why we oppose these totally unnecessary budgets. In fact, ACT was the only party in this Parliament to oppose the zero carbon Act. Every other party in this House believes that a Minister of climate change should have the right to direct your family as to what fuel they use to heat their home, what kind of car they should drive, how many cows or sheep you should be allowed on your farm, and what you should be allowed to do with your land. These policies have the potential to wipe out jobs, entire sectors in regions that depend on energy to support our economy. Yet this Minister claims his policies will create new jobs and lower your heating bills. Well, I can see the Tui billboard now: “Zero carbon Act equals lower prices. Yeah, right.”

There is a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will allow us to grow a healthy economy and develop thriving communities. Don’t believe the Minister when he tells you how hard it is to reduce emissions. He only says that to his green fan base and to keep the Prime Minister onside with his policies.

It’s not that hard, and I will tell you why—there is already a way to reduce emissions and that’s the cap under the emissions trading scheme. This Minister could say, “I’m reducing the cap”, but he’s chosen not to. The emissions trading scheme puts a price on the emissions of every sector in New Zealand that uses carbon. For truckies, like the operator of a Kenworth logging truck, which uses around 500 litres of diesel a day, it means that at 20c a litre, which is what the ETS is currently costing them, that’s a hundred bucks a day they’re paying to mitigate emissions. If that truck works 300 days a year, that’s $30,000 a year they’re paying to combat climate change and mitigate emissions. So whether you’re running a family car or a logging truck or a business, there’s never been a better incentive to reduce your emissions under the existing emissions trading scheme. It’s a simple system. The incentives are clear. The costs are clear. That’s why ACT says that no other system is necessary.

But ACT has found a way to make it even better. The first thing we’d do is share the enormous revenues collected from New Zealand businesses and consumers under the emissions trading scheme with New Zealanders. We would give them a carbon tax refund out of the emissions trading scheme rather than spend it on vanity projects like climate Ministers. Between the last election and March of this year, the tax on a 50-litre tank of petrol went up by around $20. Much of that is caused by price rises under the emissions trading scheme. During a cost of living crisis it’s pretty rich for a Government to lecture us about emissions when actually it’s stashing the cash from the ETS in its back pocket to use on vanity projects. ACT believes that Kiwis would have far more confidence in climate policy if they were materially benefiting from it.

The second thing is we’d ditch the zero carbon Act. That’s the Act that allows climate Ministers and other Government Ministers to hand out money to pet projects. I give you an example. A few weeks ago Fullers ferries in Auckland invested in a new hybrid ferry that can range around the Hauraki Gulf. Days later, another Government Minister announced they were going to spend $24 million on two competing electric ferries and hand them over the Auckland Council to run in competition. Completely unnecessary; won’t reduce emissions. We would end those schemes.

The third thing we’d do is we’d allow New Zealand businesses to mitigate their emissions offshore. If a New Zealand company wants to invest in restoring the rain forest in Indonesia under an accredited scheme, we say they should be allowed to do that. If they can mitigate their emissions cheaper offshore than they can here, ACT believes they should be allowed to do it. That’s why we oppose these budgets.

I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—a five-minute call.

Kia ora. On 8 April—last month, actually—media around the globe carried the scientist headlines that we have 999 days to peak emissions. This means the world now has only 976 days. This is the stark new evidence provided in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on just how long we have to try and limit emissions under 1.5 degrees. While some might say we’re all climate parliamentarians, only some of us are active kaitiaki. We are well past time for inaction and clichés; well past time for delay. Papatūānuku is crying out for help.

Rawiri and I met with Minister Shaw and made clear that Aotearoa needs more urgent and transformative action on reducing emissions. Te Paati Māori does not support the proposed emission budgets—it’s disappointingly weak—as we believe that they should be tighter and more ambitious.

In particular, it is crucial that the budgets are updated to reflect the more urgent action that is needed on methane emissions. We are pushing for the Government on immediately putting a price on methane emissions, phasing out synthetic fertilisers by 2025, and putting numbers on cow numbers. Aotearoa has the highest per-capita methane emissions in the world—six times the global average. It’s humiliating. Annual methane emissions make up 42.7 percent of New Zealand’s gross emissions. Farmers need the support and incentives to transition to regenerative agriculture; not false hope that things can continue the way they are. Te Paati Māori would also establish a $300 million Mātai Ahuwhenua innovation and support fund to incentivise farmers to transition to regenerative and value-added farming practices.

In addition—we’ve spoken of policies aimed at reducing methane emissions—we would also target carbon emissions through ending new onshore oil and gas permits, withdraw existing onshore and offshore gas permits within five years, banning seabed mining permits nationwide, and withdrawing existing seabed mining permits. We would establish a dedicated $1 billion Pūngao Auaha fund for community energy projects—solar panel installations on marae, kura, homes, and papakāinga housing developments.

As Te Paati Māori spokesman for climate change, I recognise and stand in support of iwi and Māori forestry opposition of proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme (ETS). The Government has made proposals around forestry credits in the ETS disenfranchising a thriving Māori economy on whenua that is and has always been ours. Changes to the way pines are dealt with in the ETS means that Māori land owners—whether iwi, hapū, or trust—will lose revenue, further marginalising and discriminating against both our whenua and wealth potential, which, in the middle of cost of living crisis, is cruel.

We absolutely tautoko planting indigenous and natives and restoring our natural ecosystems; that lies at the heart of our vision for Aotearoa. However, natives are significantly more expensive and take longer to suck up the carbon. So what could have been announced by Minister Shaw is a plan to incentivise the transition, instead of negatively attacking those whānau who need the tautoko the most.

Te Paati Māori are supporting Māori land owners who are calling for incentives and support to enable a greater uptake in native reforestation. The Minister is giving predominantly Pākehā farmers a free pass while punishing Māori landowners through these changes; that is not a just transition by any stretch of the imagination. It represents a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. A just transition will never be true if it ignores tangata whenua, and that is what you are doing. The fact that the Minister knows it’s weak is concerning. I feel real ahora for our Paati Kakariki, who know better.

In closing, the protection of Papatūānuku and a stable global climate cannot be achieved without indigenous leadership and knowledge of the recognition of indigenous rights. In Aotearoa, that means that whānau, hapū, and iwi must lead and the solutions must be our own. Nothing less will achieve the reductions in emissions needed to keep our mokopuna safe and well. Nō reira, tēnā tātou e te Whare.

Fãiåk se’ea. Noa‘ia ‘e mạuri. It’s always an honour and a privilege to speak in this House, but especially on this special debate, on the Government’s motion on New Zealand’s first emissions budgets under the climate response Act. I want to acknowledge the climate change Minister, James Shaw, for his due diligence in terms of his leadership in channelling this very important issue into the House. I agree with Minister Megan Woods that it is achievable, the emissions budget is achievable.

Before I continue my speech, I just want to remind us what the budget actually is. So Minister Shaw tells us that the emissions budgets will operate as stepping stones that will keep us on track to get to our 2050 emissions reductions targets, first country in the world to declare 1.5 degrees Celsius to global warming. So Minister Shaw reminded us that in 2019, our emissions, in 2019, per year were a megatonne of carbon dioxide, equivalent to State house gas emissions of 77.2 megatonne, equivalent to greenhouse gases. The first plan looks at us reducing that to 72 and then to 61 megatonne. And in 2035, we are hopeful that we will get to 48 megatonne per year.

When we talk about megatonne greenhouse gas emissions, what does that look like? Well, actually, one megatonne is about 8.3 million one-way flights between Wellington and Auckland. So when we put it like that, it looks like that, and what we are trying to achieve it is massive, and it requires action. I want to acknowledge the leadership that we’ve heard today. It’s great that the National Government went to Paris and signed the agreement. We had no plan. So we’ve come a long way to now agreeing to this. So I just want to thank everybody’s leadership in the House.

I stand here today, it is the Rotuma language week, and I want to remind everyone in this House about their percentage of carbon emissions of the Pacific. Saber Salem writes about the Pacific as sinking States. When we talk about the Pacific, we talk about the Pacific in one word: “Pacific”. But actually, I want to put it to the record today that the Pacific is 14 countries. It is the Cook Islands, the federated States of Marshall Islands, Fiji, and in Fiji there we have Rotuma, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Palau, PNG, the republic of the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Last year, the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, and the Minister James Shaw announced $1.3 billion. We quadrupled our support to the Pacific of $1.3 billion for the next four years.

We talk about how finally our lived experiences have caught up with what the scientists have told us. Might I say my kāinga in Tonga and in the 14 island States that I have voiced in this House are only really only responsible for 0.03 percent of carbon emissions. Today I’m wearing, when we look at me and what I’m wearing today, it’s called a tēfui from Rotuma. It stands for the seven districts of Rotuma. The flowers represent the seven districts of Rotuma. The name Tuvalu represents the eight islands of Tuvalu. We all remember the Minister of Finance for Tuvalu standing in the ocean, delivering his speech, because that is the reality of Tuvalu. Everything we do in New Zealand is a stepping stone to the Pacific.

We’ve invested in electric vehicles. We are the market for second-hand vehicles. That second-hand vehicle will be third hand to the Pacific. So everything we do in New Zealand, every action in terms of leadership that we conduct in New Zealand will contribute to the Pacific. Might I remind everybody that we are in the Pacific Ocean and that our neighbours, our families are living, are dying. And I want to say we can go on and say with the other two parties “That’s not enough.” But I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Climate Change. Action is about leadership. We are finally taking action, and I look forward to all New Zealanders being climate change champions. Join the Ministers and we will all be champions. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Scott Simpson—five minutes.

For the benefit of the last speaker, it’s not a bill. It is the endorsement of this House on the budgets as set out by the Minister. But let’s not get into the lack of detail from the previous speaker.

I want to re-emphasise the comments made by the National Party deputy leader earlier in this debate. The National Party supports these budgets. We support the process. We support the framework, as we have done for many years now. The history is important, because those on the other side sometimes choose to forget it. But it is important, because New Zealanders need to have the certainty and the understanding that notwithstanding the multiple changes of Government that will occur in the years to come, the decades to come towards 2050, the direction of climate action and net emissions reduction is set. New Zealanders need to know that, because that gives them certainty in the decision making that they undertake in their day-to-day lives, in their businesses, and in their communities. That certainty is important.

National is committed to the objective of net zero by 2050. We are committed to the zero carbon legislation, the framework, and the independence of the commission that advises the Government of the day, and it’s that advice that we are, effectively, debating today, because the budgets that have been accepted and promulgated by the Government this week are actually very close to those that were recommended by the independent commission.

But as the deputy leader of the National Party, Nicola Willis, said in her address in this debate, notwithstanding that we support the process and the pathway, we absolutely reserve the right, as it is right and proper to in a functioning democracy, to argue the detail—to argue the detail. Because not all emissions actions and policies are equal or the same. They have a variety of costs and impacts on people’s lives, on their businesses, and on their communities. Some will differ. Some will be more effective than others. Some will cost more than others. Some will have more impact than others. Some will potentially bend the curve faster than others, some slower.

But it’s the right of parliamentarians in this Parliament and future parliaments to debate the detail. In fact, it would be wrong—it would be utterly wrong—for any Parliament to merely accept, without question, without debate, without critique, the policies and initiatives and the levers and buttons that any Government chooses to use on this journey we are taking as a nation to decarbonise our economy over the next several decades. It’s a big job. It’s a big mission.

So Nicola Willis has set out the framework in her speech about the assessments that we will be making as an Opposition of the emissions plan that the Minister will release on Monday next. That’s likely to be a long list. We don’t have the benefit of knowing what’s on his list, but I’m suspecting it will be quite a long list. It would be wrong for aspects of that reduction plan to be nothing more than party political pet projects. If there are party political pet projects in that list that are questionable in terms of their cost, their effectiveness, or their emissions reduction reality, then we’ll call those out, and that’s right and proper for us to do so. On this side of the House, we’ll be looking for initiatives in that reduction plan next week that actually bend the curve fast, that are able to move us at a pace which is going to get us to where we want to be by 2050.

I implore the Government and the Minister to consider the comments that Nicola Willis made, particularly in relation to involving the private sector. There are terrific opportunities for a business and entrepreneurial sector within our economy who are dying to be involved. In fact, overseas experience tells us, actually, that in similar jurisdictions like the UK—where we largely did a cut and paste of their legislative and regulatory framework—actually, it wasn’t the politicians who were leading the action. It wasn’t the politicians who were leading the debate in so many of the initiatives that were being taken. It was business, and it has been business. In the UK they’ve actually been able to adopt more aggressive reduction budgets thanks to the benefit of business and the business community getting on board. So here’s an invitation to the Government: don’t discount the opportunities that the business community provides.

The Hon Marama Davidson—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We who are here today borrow the earth from our mokopuna, and that’s a longstanding kōrero particularly heralded by indigenous communities around the world. We who are here today are caretakers of the environment that we also borrow from our mokopuna. We are caretakers today of the humanity we are nurturing for our mokopuna. This is the framework that we all need to adopt as we set pace for the work we need to do when we give our earth back to our future generations. We’re proud to support these emission budgets as another key milestone towards getting to a zero-carbon and a climate-safe future for our mokopuna.

I want to acknowledge the work of the experts at the Climate Commission and affirm that we will continue to be led by the best science and not shy away from taking the action needed to bring emissions down as fast as feasible. We know that the scale of change is daunting, absolutely, and there will be communities who need extra support to transition, and we are committed to a just transition for workers and exposed regions also.

I did want to pick up on the equity lens that will be needed as we progress this work. I want to pick up on how we’ve often heard particularly from the Opposition that we need to take people with us in this work, and we absolutely do. But let’s be mindful that we have already left behind, for generations, many communities, and many groups of people. So let’s not pretend that we are already all starting from the same point. Let’s not pretend that there haven’t already been privileges and oppressions in the economic system that far too many are actually still trying to protect. So I wanted to point out that a rebalancing of those privileges will be necessary, and a rebalancing will be necessary for those who have been consistently disadvantaged.

These emissions budgets carry us through to 2035. By 2035, my mokopuna—Raeya is three this Saturday, and Ariya will be 4½ months—will be teenagers by then, they’ll probably be taller than me, and they will have their own opinions about how the world should work. I fully expect them to hold us all to account for the decisions we’re making right now on climate change. I hope that we’ll all be able to look back and be able to say, “We did as much as we could to bring emissions down and keep global warming under 1.5 degrees.”

Absolutely we are all climate parliamentarians; what we also have to understand is the connection to our environment. As the fabulous Minister of Conservation, Ms Allan, pointed out to us today, we also have to understand that we cannot have system change without understanding the connection to people and to the care for people. People, environment, and climate are all absolutely interdependent on each other and the work that we do.

We do acknowledge the support of movements and advocates for stronger and faster action, and we agree that climate action needs to happen as fast as possible. At the same time, let’s remember we are dealing with around 250 years of an economic system that has continued to push climate emissions up. What we are doing right now in actually setting a plan to push climate emissions down is massive. This is historic that we even are turning in a direction of decreasing climate emissions. So let’s not underplay how important that significant change is. And, yes, when we get a future opportunity to review how we are going, I do hope that we will have absolutely set ourselves at least on the path and then can accelerate even further.

We must absolutely have a Tiriti–centred approach to all of this work. The fruits of the most enduring plans are—and I acknowledge Te Paati Māori and my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—in the leadership of indigenous people all around the world and, most certainly, tangata whenua who are already leading the way. As the Green Party co-leader, I uphold that approach for this work.

We have to remember that this historic moment is significant and that we need to all pull together to ensure that future Budgets are set with even more acceleration in mind. That is the biggest safety protection that we can give for today and for our mokopuna to come. Kia ora tātou.

I call Barbara Kuriger—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Following on from the earlier speeches by my colleagues Nicola Willis and Scott Simpson, National does absolutely support the emissions targets, including the net zero Paris Agreement. As with all Government policies and spending, we need effective and efficient climate change policies to deliver on these ambitious emissions targets.

While we support the emissions budgets and the targets, we will carefully evaluate each part of the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan when it’s released next week, because where we disagree—and we will have places where we will disagree—it is because we are committed to lower emissions. We need to make sure that every step that we take in this process around the policies that are put in place will lower emissions, and I want to just take a rural lens on this for a period of time and talk about New Zealand farmers.

New Zealand farmers are up for the challenge. We already lead the world in the production of low-carbon food and fibre products. There was a KPMG report out recently on an evaluation of 32 countries where New Zealand was ninth out of those 32 countries for zero carbon readiness, and our agriculture sector was at No. 1. Now, that doesn’t mean we can sit on our laurels and say that we’re the best. We have things that we need to do, and we definitely, as a rural community, are up for the challenge.

We need to be striving all the time to reduce our footprint if we’re to maintain our position at the front of the pack, but what we need to see in this process is transitions that are made sensibly, and this means ensuring that all farmers have the tools in the tool box that they need to successfully make the shift rather than simply becoming unviable, because that would be a terrible outcome not only for Kiwi farmers but for all New Zealanders. Where Governments have an important role in all of this is in supporting research and development but also ensuring that the right regulatory settings are in place, and it’s quite concerning for farmers at the moment that there are tools for methane reduction that are becoming available to other countries.

There are certain methane inhibitors at the moment where regulations in Europe have been approved, and here we are with close to, I think, 18 months in this country of having had that particular methane inhibitor sitting on the desk of the Environmental Protection Authority. So National doesn’t want any leakage in any of these processes and doesn’t want to have our food production transferred overseas by making our rules here rather harsh without thinking about how we’d progress the transition, but, equally, if other countries like in parts of Europe are able to use technologies that we have sitting on a desk here in New Zealand that our farmers cannot use, that puts us at a disadvantage.

So that’s where you’re going to see National step in and look for transitions that absolutely do work. We do need to make sure, as in the current discussions, that we’ve got the debate going on between short-lived and long-lived gases, because there clearly is a difference. Yes, agriculture is responsible for a proportion—a large proportion—of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, but agriculture is not responsible for half of what is contributing to warming, and, at the end of the day, stopping warming is what this is all about.

So what we want to see in policies under the Emissions Reduction Plan is for them to be transparent about the true costs in the emissions reductions that will be achieved. We must be able to fairly assess the costs and the benefits of the Government interventions so that we can make informed decisions as we work our way through this process. National wants to lower emissions. We need sensible policies, sensible transitions, and sensible ways to do it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.