Bennett Paula: Climate Change Response (Removal of Transitional Measure) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett Paula: 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:11376. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I move That the Climate Change Response (Removal of Transitional Measure) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I think we covered quite a lot in that first reading as far as being quite clear about how the transition is happening and why we are kind of phasing it in goes.We looked at a whole lot options to be fair on that. In some respect we looked at the price of fuel at the moment and the fact some of those costs might be passed on and we felt at that time that actually households were in a situation where they might take that bit of a lift. Would we look at 100 percent? But we then looked at businesses and certainly read those submissions we got and equally I think most importantly we looked at farmers. The additional cost that potentially goes to our farmers from the emissions that Fonterra itself emits and then of course its increased costs with the amount of fuel and electricity it uses—we did not want to be putting an undue burden on farmers at a time when they could probably least afford it with prices at the moment.So what we got from businesses the most was that what they wanted was certainty and the opportunity to do their outward projections obviously and take this into account. There were things like local government where they had already looked at what their spend would be. This has an effect on them particularly in their waste and so actually they would not have the money to pay for the additional cost if we actually rushed it in too quickly when they had already done their accounts and things as you can imagine. We needed to bring it in over time.I think when it comes to climate change for me I reckon—well for anyone who doubts it—I just do not think there can be any doubt at all. With all respect you do just need to look at some of our Pacific neighbours and it is pretty stark. You can see what is happening there. Equally I think this response through the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and us reducing can play a big part. It plays a part in respect of upping the price obviously for those businesses that are exposed to the ETS and as a consequence cost does affect behaviour. Our main reason for actually removing the one-for-two measure is that we believe it will actually affect businesses and how they are looking at their own emissions and the cost of them and we want to be encouraging them to work towards that lower-emission economy. It makes a big difference to us.The other aspect of it is that in putting in this cost and imposing it more back at business we wanted to do it in a way that did not affect jobs. I heard in the first reading people sort of talking about how we should have never brought it in. Well actually those were also people who were saying that jobs at that time were most important and there was a real risk back in 2009 that if we were having imposed costs that were beyond what people could actually cope with then they would be laying more staff off. That is certainly why it was introduced but we are at a very different—if you just look at the Budget today. What a fantastic Budget. If you look at the forward economy and what is happening if you can see the 3 percent growth coming our way if you can see another 170000 jobs coming in—Grant Robertson: What about the bill?Dr Megan Woods: The bill.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well that is exactly the point—the 170000 jobs coming in mean businesses can actually afford now to pick up a bigger share of their costs of what they are doing and I reckon that is equally important in why we are looking at this measure.To say it is good for the Government’s books is pretty obvious. We are budgeting $356 million that is positive for the Government’s books over the next 4 years. But as I say that was based on $12 a unit which is what it was when we set this in place a few months ago. Well we are already at nearly $15 a unit today and everyone you speak to says it will not go back.The other point I am not sure has been made and another reason for removing the one-for-two measure is the fact that you have got 140 million New Zealand Units (NZUs) that are currently stockpiled. To be quite blunt with you I want to see some of them spent and this will mean some of those businesses that are stockpiling NZUs will actually spend them to pay for their share of the cost and that sort of thing. As a consequence that will have I think a positive effect on some of that behavioural change and put some challenges to us.I just want to say that on climate change as I sort of said my opinion if anyone is kind of doubting whether there are effects and if they are doubting that this will make a difference is that it will. But equally I reckon this is about our identity. Our identity actually is set in our land. It is set in our mountains in our beaches and in who we are. It does not matter if you are Māori or non-Māori. Actually that is for me what my identity as a New Zealander is quite encompassed of. So we need to look after this land. We can argue that our contributions globally are at you know 0.15 percent but actually this is about our economy. It is about who we are as a country and we have to be putting things in place further than what we already have. I really note the Minister of Transport and the difference he is making with electric vehicles and introducing other transport ways.This ETS removal of the one-for-two measure is one step and I do not say it is the answer but it is an important step in really letting businesses and the public know that change is coming and that we want to see that continuing as it does. I commend this second reading to the House and thank you very much.