Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate, which is on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

I intend to take only one call in this final part of the debate, and I’m taking the call just to speak to two amendments that I’ve put in suggesting alternative titles for this particular bill. One of them is, well, let’s see—let’s go with the easy one. I propose, instead of being called the “(2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”, it should be the “(Reducing Methane Target and Other Matters)”. Look, this bill doesn’t actually concern itself with the entire 2050 target—the 2050 target is currently 24 to 47 percent to reduce methane below 2017 levels and net zero carbon on all other greenhouse gases. That is part of the 2050 target. In actual fact, this bill concerns itself only with the methane target. It would be rather more accurate to describe this bill as the “Reducing the Methane Target” bill rather than the “2050 Target”. It’s just a little bit too broadly set to be an accurate title. That is the first amendment I’ve got sitting there, just to get a somewhat more accurate title for this bill.

The other title I’ve proposed for is perhaps, well, it is more tendentious, but I think it accurately summarises what this bill does. I propose that instead of being called the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, it should be called the “Climate Change Response (Backtracking on Climate) Amendment Bill”. I’m quite serious about this. What we have seen under this Government is a whole series of actions that have walked our commitment on climate back and back and back and back and back and back and back some more.

Hon Member: Repetitive.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It’s just gone on and gone back—literary effect. That is exactly why I want to call it the “Backtracking on Climate” bill. It’s an important point. For a long time, there has been a bipartisan consensus on what to do about climate in this House. There was a hard-fought bipartisan consensus in the 2019 zero carbon Act. But this Government, frankly, has walked away from that bipartisan consensus. For a long time, we hoped we could hold it, but this bill is the nail in the coffin on that, and so I think that this bill should be called the “Backtracking on Climate” bill.

I’ll have a little more to say about that in a third reading speech, but my first proposed amendment is a more accurate title; my second proposed amendment captures the spirit of this bill. This Government is backtracking on climate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, only intend to take one call in this part of the debate. It’s really on clause 2, on the commencement of this legislation. I have some questions for the Minister.

During scrutiny week, the Ministry for the Environment officials told MPs that they advised the Minister on ways that the legislation could be passed and give the public time to have their say. I’d just like to know from the Minister why he elected to ignore that advice from his officials and use urgency as the way to do this.

Of course, that goes directly to the commencement date. It is not clear, either, why these major policy changes have to be passed by the end of the year. There are some minor technical changes that you could argue need to be done by 31 December, but it would have been entirely possible to separate out the methane target change and the carbon market delinking—that have no inherent timelines or deadlines within there—and separate that out and have separate pieces of legislation and, therefore, separate commencement dates for those pieces of legislation. I’d just like to ask the Minister why he didn’t separate out and why he didn’t allow for proper scrutiny of such fundamental changes to law in New Zealand, if there’s things he had to do before Christmas.

I mean, it can’t have been a drafting issue. It’s about a four-page bill that we’ve got before us. Why is it that it was it announced some weeks ago that this is coming? Why, now, is it being rushed in the second-to-last week of Parliament through urgency? Why didn’t he follow his officials’ advice and allow some time for some public scrutiny?

Thanks, Madam Chair, and thanks for the questions. I’ll start with the one in regards to the commencement date and what the rationale is. Well, as the member may be aware, we’re a very busy Government on this side of the House. We’ve got a lot of legislation that is working its way through, and one of the changes has a requirement that needs to be in place by 31 December 2025. The reality is we have a certain number of sitting days between now and then, hence why we’re here doing what we’re doing. I make no apology for that.

In regards to the title suggestions made by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, the Government won’t be considering those amendments.

The answer to why we’re in urgency is because we’re a very busy Government—and he’s nodding. Who cares about consultation or anything like that? Who cares about democracy? Yet we had a Minister in that chair ask why the Opposition were making this political. That was remarkable and goes to some of my suggested title changes that would be more accurate than this “2050 Target and Other Matters”, because this change—this target change—is totally political. That could be it, the “2050 Totally Political Target Change”, and that would be more honest, Minister, don’t you agree, about why we are here in urgency—because you’re a very busy Government?

We haven’t had that. We’ve had all these weird excuses: something about science, something about being pragmatic, realistic—“realistic” is the word used, but being realistic here is a “Head in the Sand Approach”; that’s another suggestion. It’s also a sign that this Government is giving up on international agreements. We’ve had no comfort given by the Minister that in response to reducing the focus on methane, there will be an increased focus on carbon and reducing that carbon down—nothing there. Again, it’s “Giving Up on International Agreements”.

My final suggestion is, I think, the most upsetting, and that goes to bipartisanship. When I came into this House with that Minister in 2020, we learnt about the GLOBE New Zealand group of MPs who’d worked across the House to get this legislation through. Now, what we’ve had is this Minister announce the changes, not try and engage in any bipartisanship about the changes—any formal bipartisanship—and so we just get this changed. I hear all those members, those backbench members, muttering, and they were not here last term, just as I was not here in the term before where members got this across the line. It is just so disappointing that this Government just wants to take an arrogant, shortsighted approach once again. My final suggestion is that it is the “Climate Change Response (End of Bipartisanship) Amendment Bill”.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by just asking the Minister a couple of questions on an often ignored clause in any legislation, and that’s the principal Act. I want to start with section 3, “Principal Act”, which understandably says, “This Act amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002.” However, as the Minister and many members of this House would know when it comes to statutory interpretation, we often, for any principal legislation or primary legislation, look at the purpose clause.

If we are to amend the Climate Change Response Act 2002, I want to check with the Minister on a couple of questions first, which are: does the Minister think that this amendment bill fulfils the requirement of the purpose of the principal Act, which is the Climate Change Response Act? Particularly if we’re looking at purpose, which is section 3 of that particular Act, it talks about, in section 3(1)(aa)(i), “limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels”. We have seen in the Minister’s own regulatory impact statement that that is not going to happen with this piece of legislation; therefore, we are already going against one clause of the purpose of the principal Act. It also talks about, in section 3(1)(b)(ii), “assisting New Zealand to meet its 2050 target and emissions budgets”. I don’t think that this is going to achieve that, because, again, the Minister has changed that 2050 target.

Finally, I think what’s more important for the Minister—and just checking that the Minister in this case would be concerned about any judiciary challenge on this piece of legislation, which is in section 3(2) of the principal Act, which is: “A person who exercises a power or discretion, or carries out a duty, under this Act must exercise that power or discretion, or carry out that duty, in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of this Act.” Does the Minister himself think that he has achieved that or has fulfilled the requirement that is his duty under the principal Act with the introduction of this amendment bill?

With that, I move on to the other clauses. Clause 2, as we have heard previously from the Hon Dr Megan Woods and Hon Dr Deborah Russell, there is no reason for us to have to introduce this after Royal assent. I think that if the Minister is truly wanting to bring something to the House under urgency, not going through a select committee stage, jeopardising our international reputation as well as international obligations, the most prudent thing it could have done is to actually delay the implementation of this even by a little bit, just to show that we are going to give it serious consideration and there are other things we want to tease out before this needs to come into force. I do have an amendment on this particular clause I want the Minister to consider, which is to make this come into force either by Order in Council or giving a specific deadline. I think the date that I put down was 1 January 2030.

Finally, on to the title of the clause—I actually don’t want to dwell too much on the title of the clause, because I think the previous speakers have made excellent contributions on alternative titles. But I do want to check with the Minister on the other factors that, potentially, will be considered. I wondered why the Minister decided to choose “2050 Target and Other Matters”, not “Biogenic Methane Emissions Reduction and Other Matters”, which is one of the proposals I’ve made. But also, I think, in terms of other titles, it is important for the title to reflect the amendment bill itself. What risk are we putting into, actually, our natural environment, but also to our farmers—the other side of the House likes to talk about that. What’s going to happen when we see an increased risk of natural disasters as a result of global warming? Maybe a title will be “(Increased Natural Disasters and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”. Maybe the title could be “(Insurance Will Price Themselves Out So No One Can Ever Insure Anything Again Against Natural Disasters) Amendment Bill”, because that’s going to be a huge liability—or even as simply as “(Insurance Liability and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “Reducing Methane Target and Other Matters” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “Reduction of 2050 Biogenic Methane Target and Other Matters” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “Emissions Budgets, NDC Decoupling and 2050 Methane Target” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “2050 Biogenic Methane Target and Other Matters” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “2050 Methane Target and Other Matters” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “2050 Methane Target Revision and ETS Decoupling” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “Emissions Budgets, Methane Targets and Commission Changes” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “Climate Goals and Climate Commission Functions” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “2050 Target and Other Matters” with “Biogenic Methane Emissions and Other Matters” be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s remaining tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Francisco Hernandez’s eight remaining tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement to “1 April 2026” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement to “1 January 2027” be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement to “1 April 2027” be agreed to.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement to “the day after a pricing mechanism for biogenic methane emissions in agriculture comes into effect” is ruled out of order as referring to an indeterminant event and not providing sufficient certainty.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to change the commencement to “after the 2050 target review for biogenic methane emissions reductions” is ruled out of order as referring to an indeterminant event and not providing sufficient certainty.

Francisco Hernandez’s remaining three tabled amendments and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s two tabled amendments to clause 2 to change the commencement to “a date after 2027” are ruled out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading