O'Rourke Denis: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7932. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First agrees with the Green Party where it says that climate change is the most challenging issue of our time and that how we respond to it will define us and determine what kind of future we leave for our children. We also agree that there is an urgent need to transition our economy to a cleaner more sustainable future. We acknowledge this and that action on climate will require that we move away from the use of fossil fuels.We think that the most effective way of doing that to reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere—primarily of course carbon dioxide and methane—is to progressively phase out the burning of fossil fuels and to move much more towards the use of renewable energy such as wind power photovoltaic electricity from sunshine geothermal energy and yes even more hydroelectric power. A progressive phase-out of fossil fuels is possible if New Zealand develops appropriate strategies and plans. We think that each citizen—even the ACT Party and some people in the National Party will be included—and each country has a duty and in fact a self-interest to work to this end to reduce the damage to our planet that we as a population are currently doing and which is not sustainable.Another consideration is that the major overseas economies that New Zealand trades with will increasingly require proof that our exports are produced sustainably. As a trading nation we cannot afford to sit on our hands in that respect. To do so would be to put our trade and our primary industries at risk. So with all that in mind New Zealand First’s policies oppose the use of direct economic instruments to achieve and move away from fossil fuels and that includes the emissions trading scheme. We think it is counter-productive to pay polluting companies large taxpayer subsidies with no requirements on them to actually reduce emissions. We also oppose the direct taxation of carbon.What we would do is develop those strategies plans legislation and the regulation to achieve the emissions performance that we all seek. We would do that in consultation with all New Zealanders and especially New Zealand business because without their cooperation we would have no chance of achieving emissions reduction objectives of any kind. We would make transport a first target and we would require much more use of rail for heavy freight and for urban passenger transport.New Zealand First has a comprehensive policy which we call “railways of national importance” as opposed to the roads of national significance promoted by National. We would actively encourage the use of hybrid and especially zero-emission vehicles including fully electric vehicles and very soon fuel cell vehicles that are beginning to come on the market as well. We would ensure better public transport including the large-scale introduction of light rail in the main population centres. We would provide local government with clear guidelines and information to assist in its planning functions to achieve a consistent standard throughout New Zealand.But this bill is highly prescriptive. In clause 7 it says “A fund manager must dispose of any investment that the fund has in the mining or production of fossil fuels.” and it has got to do it within 5 years. It imposes very onerous obligations on fund managers about identifying climate change implications and to measure manage report and so on.New Zealand First cannot support the bill for three reasons. New Zealand First will not support it because we do not agree with the imposition of unnecessary and effective costs taxes or impositions on any part of the New Zealand economy or New Zealanders. We do not support these sorts of cliff-face proposals which are seldom practical or effective. Instead as I have already said we would rather see a transitional approach with Government incentives and regulation where that is actually required.So we cannot support legislation of this kind. We do not believe that we should be paying the piper and playing the tune. It is over to those managers to decide how to invest and in fact that includes not just those considerations.