Robertson Grant: Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7814. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise in this debate and further Labour’s support for the Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill. As Dr Norman said when he spoke at the bill’s introduction it represents a small practical step to meet our obligations. No one is pretending that it is the answer the silver bullet but it is a small practical step that could help New Zealand move towards meeting its obligations. It really does feel in this debate listening to the National members’ contributions that they think New Zealand will be able to meet its obligations without really having to do anything—that we will not actually have to change anything about the way we live our lives. 
National speakers said that they do not see the need for any legislation. Well here we are talking about the way that Government purchasers obtain vehicles. We all know that in order for Government departments to go ahead and know with confidence that this is the direction they should be going in we need legislation. Mrs Wagner can stand up and tell us all the examples of private sector companies that do this kind of thing—and good on them; good on them for doing it—but when it comes to giving direction to Government agencies and Government departments this bill is the appropriate mechanism to put forward. I congratulate Dr Norman on doing so. 
Labour supports this bill because under Labour we made great strides towards the goal of halving New Zealand’s per capita transport emissions. Mr Chauvel already spoke about that. What I find amazing is that National from the very first day that I entered Parliament has set about undermining New Zealand’s place in the world on the environmental stage. National is undermining it. The very first things we saw in this House were National rejecting the biofuel obligation and removing the thermal energy ban. National thought those things were priorities to address under urgency before Christmas. Since then we have seen a shambolic performance from National on climate change a shambolic performance led by Nick Smith. I know that the Prime Minister said that he gave Nick Smith the job of handling climate change because he had “a brain the size of the South Island”. The problem is that his brain seems to be about as populated as the South Island is as well. We have seen from Dr Smith a shambolic handling of this process the latest example of which is his $110 billion blunder. 
The Prime Minister said to Federated Farmers today that they need to support the emissions trading scheme because New Zealand needs people across the world to buy our products and if we do not have a robust scheme they will not do that. Well what about all of the other things that National has done—or has not done—to make sure that we look good on the world stage? We have to live the brand. We have to stand up and say that if New Zealand wants to be 100 percent pure we have to set an ambitious target for reducing our emissions. If New Zealand wants to be 100 percent pure we have to set an ambitious target for renewable energy. It was an outrage to see John Key stand up on the Letterman show and proudly talk about our renewable energy when National has no commitment whatsoever to meet the 90 percent goal. 
Nicky Wagner 
: You might not. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I ask Ms Wagner whether that is National’s policy. Are we going to see a 90 percent renewable energy target by 2025? Are we going to see that? She nods; we are. So what will National do to get us there? We do not see any positive action. This bill is one very small practical step National could actually take to say “We take some responsibility. We are currently in Government. We take some responsibility for how the Government procures its vehicles.” It is a very simple small practical step. But no National will not take it. 
We have seen it time and time again. We saw it in the very early days of the Government when National walked away from the Govt³ programme. That is another example of how the Government could have showed leadership in improving environmental performance but instead walked away from that strategy. We have seen shambolic handling—a fiasco some might say—of climate change. This bill is one opportunity for National to do something about climate change but it has failed to take the opportunity tonight. Its members should be ashamed.