Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I'm contributing to this bill on behalf of the Greens tonight at the last minute on behalf of Ricardo Menéndez March who of course is also filling in for our transport spokesperson typically Julie Anne Genter. This weekend out in the electorate a constituent asked me if I thought that the war in Ukraine was going to lead to many countries and negotiators internationally perhaps being less inclined to take action on the reduction of climate-changing emissions. This constituent shared that they had been listening to an academic who had said that in moments when unexpected things happen there is a tendency from decision makers—that is politicians across the world—to play it safe to make no sudden movements and resort to the tried and true rule book. I answer that this is very much a real risk but that we only have to look in fact at the disruption of COVID-19 to see how many nations and politicians will shirk their responsibility for the slow-moving climate crisis when confronted with another crisis. The problem that we've got so clearly is that when one crisis hits the others don't stop hitting. We've seen time and again that this Government can and does respond to immediate emergency but is at serious risk of ignoring or neglecting the proverbial boiling frog. Two years ago this House declared a climate emergency and in the name of COVID-19 last year Cabinet decided to delay the introduction of the emissions reduction plan. To the point—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Can I invite the member to bring her speech back to the bill which sits before the House?CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Absolutely Madam Speaker. So this is not the first of the oil or fuel shocks that we have seen. Over the past few decades we've seen oil shock after oil shock. In 1973 when oil prices quadrupled between mid-1979 to mid-1980 oil prices rose from US$13 a barrel to US$34. In 1990 they went from US$13 a barrel to US$34 a barrel. Then again we saw shocks in 2005 through to 2008 and 2010 to 2014. I dare say to any MP in this House who will contribute to this debate tonight—I dare them to tell me that this oil shock of 2022 is the last one that we will see. It cannot be and none of them can offer that assertion because we know that the oil market and fossil fuels are inherently volatile. You know what is sustainable however? It is renewable energy and that is why the Greens are opposing this bill today. Because whilst we can totally acknowledge the fact that there are increasing cost pressures on New Zealanders—and we have made a real point of the fact that those cost pressures have been disproportionately felt by lower-income New Zealanders who Statistics New Zealand data bears out have borne the brunt of double the cost of inflation in terms of the reality that they are spending the majority of their incomes on essentials on a daily basis—there are real risks and perverse incentives in cutting fuel taxes when in fact we have the opportunity to use other levers such as boosting incomes for lower income New Zealanders. The thing about fossil fuels—which is at the core of this bill in terms of reducing the costs for road-user charges—is that they are formed from literal fossils of plants and animals that lived millions of years ago. Despite decades of commercial and political obfuscation and delay we have known relatively clearly since the 1960s that without a shadow of a doubt burning those fossil fuels contributes to the warming of our atmosphere. We also had an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that came out only this past weekend which demonstrated that we must think ahead and act now. We must make sure that we are not creating perverse incentives and feedback loops such as the Greens are stating are at serious risk of occurring with the passage of this legislation when alternatives are available. What we are debating tonight is an amendment to road-user charges. It's important to specify exactly what those are because the Government's announcement to respond to fuel supply shocks prompted by as has already been outlined by other speakers Russia's war in Ukraine was twofold and it applies for three months. They announced these fuel tax cuts and half-price public transport costs. Those fuel tax cuts come in two forms. They are petrol excise duties which are able to be reduced through powers under regulation. Then there is what we're debating tonight which is for those who drive diesel vehicles a more complicated legislative instrument requiring this amendment. Speaking to those concerns around perverse incentives and in fact around subsidies for fossil fuels I think it is really important to draw the attention of the House tonight to a press release which is available for all to read on the Beehive's website from the Minister for Trade and Export Growth the Hon Damien O'Connor. It's from 16 December 2021. It's titled New Zealand leads the call for Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform at WTO". I think it's really important to give this as context for the Greens' opposition to this legislation tonight so I'd like to just read the opening paragraphs of that press release. The Minister the Hon Damien O'Connor says "New Zealand is continuing its leadership in tackling damaging fossil fuel subsidies through a launch of a Joint Ministerial Statement supported by 45 WTO members. Trade and Export Growth Minister Damien O'Connor announced. In his launching remarks Damien O'Connor spoke to the environmental economic and social costs of fossil fuel subsidies. [He said] 'Worryingly fossil fuel subsidies have continued to increase in the past decade costing governments approximately US$500 billion [of] public funds per annum. These subsidies work against our efforts to address climate change by artificially lowering the cost of fossil fuels and encouraging their on-going use. This is the opposite of what we should be doing' [Minister] Damien O'Connor said."Unfortunately it was only two to three months later that we saw exactly those fears and the leadership of Aotearoa New Zealand with regard to calling for an end to fossil fuel subsidies turned around a little bit. I want to acknowledge that that part of the package was halving the price of public transport for three months because that as the speaker just before me Paul Eagle noted is encouraging in terms of mode shift. But it does not go anywhere near far enough. So to speak to the cost of this package we know that it is around $320 million to $360 million—if I'm recalling correctly off the top of my head—for that three-month fuel price tax cut. That includes those for diesel vehicles for whom this legislation impacts and those who drive petrol vehicles. We also know that the cost of that public transport half price for three months is in the realm of $25 million to $40 million. If we are to extrapolate that to full price free public transport and then to extrapolate that for a year that half-price public transport for everybody across Aotearoa New Zealand would cost less than the three-month 25c fuel tax decrease over the next three months. I don't know how many other ways we can kind of weigh it up in terms of perverse incentives—that is incentivising people to do things that are contrary to the interests of our nation and of the planet—Simeon Brown: But most people don't go on a bus!CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —with regard to climate-changing emissions noting for example Mr Simeon Brown that we have very clear evidence that shows us that even if we were to burn all of the fossil fuels which we have currently discovered and started to excavate then we would blow way past 1.5 degrees of warming necessary for the survival of the human race. We also are faced with some substantial and unnecessary decisions being made about where we should be investing these funds noting of course that these funds—these road-user charges and the fuel excise tax—are hypothecated. That means that they are put forward in the Budget as being spent on other things. Of course this is currently being made up by the COVID-19 response fund but of course again the point must be made that there are opportunity costs to these decisions. That is that other decisions are not being made such as boosting the incomes for lower income New Zealanders. Just finally I would like to put it to members of the Labour Party in particular for whom I do have a substantial political fear for that the reality of this fuel price tax cut for three months is that in three months' time there is going to be a really really difficult political decision to be made where overnight there is a very real risk that you are responsible for—not you Madam Speaker of course; the Labour majority—an overnight increase in the costs of fuel and of petrol in this country. Therefore this response while absolutely is responding to the cost of living issues is not the right proportional or appropriate response. Kia ora."