Genter Julie Anne: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4741. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
Tena koe. It is with great trepidation that I rise to speak on the first reading of this bill the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I have to mention that the bill should probably be renamed the “Climate Change Inaction Bill” or the “Extending Subsidies to Climate Polluters Bill” as that would be much more accurate. 
I would like to thank the Hon John Banks and the member Todd McClay for raising a really relevant statistic which is that New Zealand’s emissions are 0.2 percent of global emissions. I think it is probably relevant—and I will help the Hon John Banks with some maths here—that actually the New Zealand population is 0.06 percent of the global population. So that means that our contribution to emissions is over three and closer to four times greater than our size. Surely that is the relevant test as to whether or not we can make a difference and whether we should make a difference. We need to look at it on a per capita basis and we are the fifth worst in the world right now. 
This bill is a disaster. It is another example of National’s economic mismanagement. What is the point of an emissions trading scheme? It is to put a price on carbon because that is how economic instruments work. I admit it is not the best way. The best way would be something much more direct and transparent that would give certainty to business. That would be something like a carbon tax and a fee and dividend in which case businesses could plan ahead for the increased cost of carbon and citizens could receive that money back directly and make different choices with their purchases and they could benefit. 
I know that members on the Government side of the House particularly the Hon John Banks do not have a real handle on economics but when you study economics as I have you learn about something called externalities. Externalities are costs that are not included in a transaction. Human-induced climate change which is absolutely undeniable right now—no thinking educated person could possibly deny the evidence that human activities are leading to dangerous climate chaos around the world—is going to be very costly. It is going to be very costly. It is going to be extremely bad for the economy. Even worse it is going to be bad for people. 
There is no way that New Zealand can escape the high costs of climate chaos which are already being felt across the world. National Party members know this—or they claim to understand this reality—but what this bill demonstrates is that not only are they not going to do anything to help New Zealand’s economy transition to a smart resilient footing; they are going in the absolute opposite direction. They are laying out the red carpet for the fossil fuel industry. They want them to come and drill and frack and mine and do whatever they want to do to the precious places that New Zealanders love. They are subsidising this antiquated extractive approach so that a few foreign companies can turn a tidy profit under the big lie that somehow this is going to make ordinary New Zealanders richer or give them more opportunities. It is not the case. 
The impacts of this Government’s emphasis on a dirty fossil fuel economy are already being felt in the loss of clean renewable energy jobs. I spoke to someone who works in wind energy today and he said that with the gutting of the emissions trading scheme it is clear that there are not going to be opportunities and that nobody is planning for future wind generation. That is the cost. That is the cost of not putting a price on carbon. Anyone who understands the basics of economics could tell you this. 
The Minister for Climate Change Issues has said that this bill is about reducing costs to business and households but what it is really doing is reducing choices for business and households. If the price of carbon is not direct then no one can benefit from reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Innovative clean green business cannot compete because it is not a level playing field. 
National claims to be the party of economic credibility but in fact it is completely ignoring the fundamental way in which economic instruments work. This bill guts an already ridiculously weak emissions trading scheme. We have a choice. The path is diverging and we must choose one. We cannot develop a clean green economy with opportunities for all New Zealanders if we are simultaneously subsidising dirty industries. This Government has chosen to put off—