Simpson Scott: Climate Change Response (Removal of Transitional Measure) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: 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:11378. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to take a quick call in the second reading debate of the bill which is designed to phase out in a very pragmatic very balanced very measured sensible and reasoned way the one-for-two transitional arrangements that were set up back in 2009 in the very depths of the global financial crisis. That was a policy that was set about quite deliberately—very carefully with a lot of considered thought—to ensure that businesses and jobs were protected.I know that it upsets Opposition members to talk about being pragmatic and being sensible and being balanced but that is the nature of good governance and good government and that is something that we have seen today expressed in Bill English’s eighth Budget. He has done it very very well in my view—pragmatic balanced and sending the right kinds of signals.The phasing out of the one-for-two emissions trading scheme (ETS) structure is actually really important. What is more it comes with the support of a very wide range of businesses. Last year there were some nationwide submissions consultative meetings that took place around the countryside. They included iwi and a whole wide range of interested parties and at those meetings 75 percent of submitters were in favour of phasing out the one-for-two.Paul Foster-Bell: How many?SCOTT SIMPSON: Seventy-five percent of submitters were in favour of phasing it out. So the Government did have options in terms of how that transition might take place. It would have perhaps been possible to simply start from where we were in 2009 and literally go cold turkey but we are not a Government that wants to do that. We are very keen to ensure that businesses and others have time to make the adjustments that are required and that is what this bill is about. Gradual phasing-out of the one-for-two is a really significant step in meeting our target to reduce emissions. I know Opposition members do not like to hear that but the simple reality is that that is so. Our target is to reduce emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.Earlier this year we were very pleased to sign up to the historic Paris Agreement and at the time parties from around Parliament thought that was a very good idea. That was because the Paris Agreement really does amount to what is the first global agreement on climate change. New Zealand was actually one of the very first countries outside Europe to set up an emissions trading scheme and this bill is about reviewing it about changing it—transitioning it to make it stronger to make it more effective—and about strengthening our ETS. If we can as a result of this legislation make the ETS more robust and help reduce emissions even further then that is a good thing and it does assist us to get to where we want to be in 2030. But in this space we have got to be smarter than other countries. We have to be more nimble and more clever and the reason for that is that already 80 percent of our electricity comes from renewables for instance. So our emissions profile is quite different to that of most other countries in the world; 80 percent of electricity coming from renewables is very very impressive. We would like to get it to 90 percent and I am confident that we will get it to 90 percent. We are committed to getting it to 90 percent but in Europe only about 12 percent is generated from renewables—only about 12 percent; only about 12 percent.So our emissions profile is completely different from that of most other developed countries. Ours is made up of agriculture for instance at about 49 percent as good as 50 percent; other energy at about 40 percent—non-transport at 23 percent transport at 17 percent—industrial processes at 6 percent; and waste at 5 percent. So our make-up is a different sort of model and style to other countries. That is why we do have to be more nimble more flexible and more smart actually in how we meet that target for 2030.This is a good and practical pragmatic reasonable balanced bill. I know that Opposition parties do not like that. They are going to be heartily sick of us talking about these things because we are a sensible reasonable pragmatic Government. I commend this bill to the House.