Sio William: Climate Change Response (Removal of Transitional Measure) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSio William: Climate Change Response (Removal of Transitional Measure) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11373. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I was expecting to debate some of the crises that we have had and I was expecting a substantial contribution from that particular member Joanne Hayes and so I was surprised when there was not anything about that and then she sat down. On this side of the House we were expecting that we would spend tonight and tomorrow debating urgency legislation that was going to fix the housing crisis and that was going to ensure that everyone who needed an operation in our hospitals would get one and that people who were living in garages or cars would at least have some hope that they would be moved into a decent house. Instead what we are hearing is that they are getting moved out of Auckland and instead of being homeless in Auckland they will be homeless somewhere else.I come to this bill and as my colleague Dr Megan Woods has said we are supporting it. We are supporting it on the basis that those members have finally recognised the error of their ways because—let us be straight up—this Government introduced this scheme of a one-for-two subsidy in 2009. What does that mean? It means that a business can pollute all it wants and instead of paying the full cost it will pay half of the cost. That is what this scheme means—businesses can pollute and instead of paying the full cost they pay half of the cost. That does not show that this Government is serious about climate change—it certainly does not.If this Government was serious instead of phasing out the scheme as they are doing it would take the issue seriously and address it right now. Instead it is not doing anything about it today it will not do anything about it this year and it will do something about it next year. It does not get phased out completely until 2019. It is a signal again—in the same way that those members have treated the housing crisis as if it was made up—that they do not recognise how serious the error of their ways is and how serious climate change is.I do want to acknowledge the fact that the Minister for Climate Change issues has at least taken this baby step. But if the Minister were to take it seriously she would need to consider the fact that a whole suite of other activities need to take place. We have got to take seriously the reduction of our own emissions—of transitioning this workforce into a workforce of green clean climate-changed jobs. That is what this Government has got to do.In recognising that she has taken this baby step I would ask the Minister to go further and work on the fact that we have also got to repair our reputation. Once upon a time we could be proud of talking overseas about a “clean green” New Zealand; we cannot do that anymore. At the Paris meeting last year delegates from the Pacific said that they were disappointed that when New Zealand Government officials turned up they were not supportive of what the Pacific was advocating for. In fact it was only because Obama and some of the other countries’ delegates dragged their feet that the New Zealand delegation then agreed to the 1.5 goal.I say to the Minister: take this seriously. If she had heard the reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment she would have seen that the environment commissioner has recognised and has put up evidence to show that already our coastal regions are under erosion because of climate change. We cannot ignore that—that is serious stuff.Two months ago I had the opportunity of visiting Kiribati and Tuvalu. Those islands are under serious threat. In the international arena their representatives have spoken passionately saying that they are the canary in the tunnel a warning to every other country in the world that what is happening to them is going to happen to us. The United Nations Development Programme report of 2010 identifies that among the most low-lying atolls of the Pacific—which include Tokelau which include Tuvalu which include Kiribati and which include the Marshall Islands—many of those countries will be underwater by 2050.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Come back to the bill.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I am making the point that if this Government were to take seriously the issue of climate change then this step is not enough. It must go further. This issue is so serious that I would not even mind if those members stole Labour Party policy. I would not mind if they were to establish an independent climate commission that would establish a carbon budgeting process. I would not mind if they stole those policies because those policies are sensible and they take the issue of climate change seriously.I heard the member who spoke before talk about business and the value of business. We certainly do value business and I tell you if businesses themselves do not start planning and taking into consideration the effects of climate change on this country they are going to have issues with where they grow their crops. They are going to have issues with transitioning the types of energy facilities that they have now into more renewable and cleaner energy sources. They need the plan but this Government does not seem to take it seriously. It is more than just giving them the legal right to pollute; it has to be much more serious with a whole suite of other activities.I go back to the issue I tried to raise which I think is the key to this: the Pacific is facing this on a day-to-day basis. Here is why it is important for us. I was asked by a young person in Kiribati what New Zealand would do if Tuvalu or Kiribati were hit by Cyclone Winston which hit Fiji. What would we do with those islands—remembering of course that a report was released last month showing that five islands of the Solomon Islands are now underwater? What will we do with those?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Come back. Come back—Su’a WILLIAM SIO: But this is the point Mr Assistant Speaker.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague for interrupting in the middle of his speech but that is the second time that you have asked him to narrow his contribution down to the bill. It is a well-understood convention in this House that when a piece of legislation is dumped on the table by the Government with no notice there is some latitude certainly in the early readings of the bill. The member is speaking about climate change—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for his comments. To talk about the Solomon Islands and Kiribati with water levels rising is a far stretch from talking about the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and this. I did give the member some warning earlier on. I will ask him to come back to the bill.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a bill that deals with climate change. The emissions trading scheme is the Government’s response to climate change.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Exactly—thank you.Chris Hipkins: This is a—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member will sit. Exactly—and this is about the ETS and what is in the bill. It is all very well—and I have allowed the member to talk about the other islands; I understand those issues just as he does—but I have asked to come back. And now I am asking him to come back to what is in the bill.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I will continue to raise that particular point because this is important and it does refer to what this Government is doing based on this legislation. It is not enough—that is the whole point—and if we do not take climate change seriously what is happening in the Pacific will also affect this country of ours. So far this is baby stuff; this is small stuff. This issue will affect New Zealand in a significant way. I am glad that the Minister has taken this step but I ask the Minister now to look more broadly than she is doing here and take into consideration that we need more than just what she has put in this piece of legislation.But here is the point: we have waited with bated breath all of this time for this particular Budget thinking—and we were all thinking—that they were going to take seriously some of the crises that this country is facing. Climate change is certainly a future crisis but it is coming. It is coming and it is here if you listen to the reports of the environment commissioner. Our coastal regions are being affected and local councils are trying to figure out how they pay for the roading restructuring that we need to deal with. This Government does not seem to really care about what will happen because it thinks that it will pass those costs on to somebody else.So again here is the thing: giving business the right to pollute but pay only half the cost was wrong at the outset when this Government introduced it in 2009. It is wrong now to focus on this only when it needs to take a broader approach in addressing this problem. But I tell you that the Pacific is relevant to what this country does because if those islands are underwater I would ask those Ministers and that Government there to show me where the tent city where they are going to house 110000 people from Kiribati should be. Show me where they want to put up the tent city where they need to house 10000 Tuvaluans. If we approach climate change with these baby steps we are never going to get anywhere we are not going to address the issue and it will continue to harm not only our physical infrastructure but also our reputation.