Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise in support of this bill on behalf of the Green Party. It is really really important that we do have adequate regulation and the requirement for disclosure of information and that that is properly enforced for areas that are strategically important to us like aspects of our energy and electricity system. I do want to respond to some of the comments that were made by other speakers in this debate. I think this is really really important because I have seen discussion out there on Twitter and elsewhere about what's happening with electricity prices right now and why we've increased imports of coal. I think that firstly we've got to be very clear: the investment in infrastructure is something that has years and years if not decades of lag time and there is no question that there's no way that the policies of this Government have in any way contributed to the fact that we're importing more coal this year. What it is directly due to—and I would find it hard to believe that the National members claiming this actually believe it because they are intelligent adults and I'm sure they're able to understand this—is that from the end of 2008 until the end of 2017 when the National Party was in Government absolutely no planning or investment or incentives were put in place to transition us to sustainable renewable electricity. There was no long-term planning done there was no framework put in place and there was no direction sent by that Government that there would be a transition away from fossil fuels until of course now in 2020—Barbara Kuriger: What about John Key's cycleways?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That's ridiculous. Those weren't even about transport. The cycleways which the member is referring to were about tourism. They were about tourism because they're not actually in towns and cities—they're about recreation. But I mean the Green Party supported it and worked with them on that but the point is that the previous National Government's entire economic development strategy was based on things that increased pollution and increased carbon emissions. So we can take it from those members that they don't actually believe in climate action. They don't believe in climate change. There is a window of time that is running out for us to respond to climate change so that we can avoid an economic health and humanitarian catastrophe for ourselves and future generations. We only have nine years to drastically reduce emissions. Barbara Kuriger: So we're burning coal. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes it would have been much cheaper and easier and we would be much further ahead and advanced on this journey and we would not have to be importing coal this year if the last National Government had done one single thing to set a direction of transition to renewable energy. But they did not and so how dare they believe that voters are stupid enough to believe it when they claim that the Labour Government's policies have anything to do with importing more coal during a dry year when we all know it takes many years to plan and build and develop the infrastructure that will enable us to have security of supply from a renewable source in a dry year. Yeah we could have been 10 years advanced on that journey thanks—no thanks—John Key's National Government. So then the most ridiculous thing that they're claiming is that somehow sending a very clear signal to business and to the rest of the sectors of the economy that we are transitioning away from fossil fuels and therefore we're not going to be releasing new permits for exploration for oil and gas offshore because we already know about more oil and gas than we can afford to burn and have a habitable climate and habitable planet. So it just seems kind of insane to be looking for more of something that we cannot actually afford to burn and have a habitable climate. You would think anyone that understands basic maths science and physics would embrace this and in most parts of the developed world the right-wing Governments have embraced this knowledge of climate change and have worked on a transition. If we look at Germany for example they are well advanced in a transition and they have made significant progress while the right-wing parties in New Zealand are in total denial about the fact that we actually need to change what we're doing. But not only that they had this lottery approach to economic development where they're like I know how we can get some more money. Let's go out there and invite all these companies around the world to come look for oil and gas offshore in our incredibly sensitive marine environments and if they find some oil and gas we can sell it and we'll make some money out of it. That's how we'll get rich quick—that's how we'll get rich quick." except what these guys don't realise—and I mean they are pretty poorly informed on most issues admittedly. My father-in-law is a petroleum geologist; in fact so is his wife. They're absolutely experts in this. They haven't lived in New Zealand for 45 years because they had to leave to get jobs after they got their PhDs in geology in the late 1970s but they put in very informed submissions on the Government of the day's plans on oil and gas exploration back when the National Party was in Government in 2009 or 2010 I think. They said "This crazy. These plans are absolutely crazy. We do not have the infrastructure." They weren't proposing even raising the level of royalties that would have made it worthwhile for New Zealand. Firstly there were very poor chances of finding any oil and gas in deep water in New Zealand and very low chances that it would be economic. It turns out that my in-laws were absolutely right: of course nothing was found over nine years of exploration. But it's completely ridiculous to assert that sending a signal in 2018 that we're not releasing new permits for exploration has anything to do with a shortage of gas right now because there is no way that if additional permits had been released in 2018 or 2019 we would have magically found a bunch of gas and had it up and ready for production by 2021. These are people who know absolutely nothing about the industry and make the most ridiculous statements. It just drives me crazy having to listen to it because they take themselves so seriously. OK so let's just go back to the actual facts about what's happening here—all right. Almost 40 to 50 percent of our actual gas supply in New Zealand is used by Methanex and exported overseas for let's see—we have no royalties. I don't believe we get any royalties from them. They pay almost no tax in New Zealand and they employ fewer people than a supermarket. So how is this of benefit to New Zealand that a strategic asset which is the gas that they're using and then selling products overseas that don't benefit New Zealanders—they barely pay tax in New Zealand—Simon Court: About 80 percent of their products are used here.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No. They barely employ people—Simon Court: Paints resins. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Oh so we buy them back? Great! No. If the strategic best use of that gas is in electricity production or in people's households we do have to ask ourselves the question: why is 40 to 50 percent of it going offshore to produce products that are not directly benefiting New Zealand? So if we are going to address the climate crisis we have to have a rational costed plan for how to do that and sending early signals to the industry makes sense. That's what Barbara Kuriger said earlier in this debate: industry needs certainty. That's exactly what the Government has given them and absolutely we're going to have catch up on the lost decade in which no policy was developed no planning was prepared for us to actually transition to sustainable renewable electricity.So I'm just tired about hearing the very high-level talking points from the National Party and others who are totally disingenuous in their debating points claiming that the Government is somehow responsible for a dry year and the fact that 10 years ago when the UK had established its climate commission—no more than 10 years ago. It was 2008. From the time the National Party was in Government from 2009 to 2017 there was no climate commission no evidence-based plan. In fact they were just like "Let's go full hog on increasing agriculture emissions trying to look for oil and gas that wasn't even there that wouldn't have been economic to produce in the hopes that we get rich quick by producing more fossil fuels that will burn the planet."Clearly my explanations are never going to get through to them. But I know the people watching at home understand that they're not right because just before me we had the Labour member for New Plymouth speaking and so clearly if New Plymouth was truly upset at the Labour Government—that's why they elected a Labour MP. So I think the National Party is deeply in denial about the level of just how popular they are with one out of four voters at most having confidence in them. But I think that's dropping quickly the more they open their mouths and express their absolute ignorance about how we're going to respond to climate change and their total lack of care for those who are worse off in this country and their ignorance about colonisation. That's all I have to say."