Clark David: Climate Change Response (Removal of Transitional Measure) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: 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:11407. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I was heartened to hear Minister Bennett speak of the failures of the system in an honest way in the Committee stage and heartened also to hear her speak about the certainty that an emissions trading scheme should provide for business. That was something that the Minister spoke about and it showed an understanding of what needs to happen next. As my colleague Megan Woods has already said we on this side of the House want to see more action and we want to see it soon. We want to see more than this timid step which is a U-turn on a policy that National put in place some years ago when it came into Government and gutted the previous emissions trading scheme which did already give certainty to business. To hear that it is back on that track is heartening but with my colleague Megan Woods I want to reiterate the concern that things are sped up and that the action and the plan is put in place.For a long time we have called for the removal of this one-for-two provision. For years the Labour Party has called for this action that is happening in the House tonight and now it is happening. We support it—we support it—but we want to see more. We have called for other things that would be sensible steps like putting in place an independent climate commission to set up a carbon budgeting process so that we can actually achieve significant emissions reductions targets—so that we can have targets and then have a plan to meet those targets. It is not rocket science; it is the logical thing to do if the Government believes the things it is saying in this House. It needs to put a plan of action in place because we know that New Zealand has per capita emissions that were the fifth-highest of 40 developed nations when they were measured in 2012.If New Zealand cannot do this who on earth can? Our electricity sector has the potential to be completely renewable. The last Labour Government put in place a ban on new generation coming from fossil fuels because we knew that that was quite possible to do. The last Labour Government put in place a biofuels sales obligation because we knew that it would cost nothing extra but it would give an emerging biofuels industry certainty. And we put in place the first “all sectors all gases” emissions trading scheme in the world because we knew that that would be good for New Zealand business long term. We knew that the small extra cost the few cents extra on a block of butter would be well worth it in marketing that butter as a premium product from a world-leading country that actually cares about its environment.Instead we have had 8 lost years—8 lost years. It has been 8 lost years until the Government finally agreed that giving business some kind of pathway and certainty is the answer and that actually having some meaningful action in this space is a good idea. Yet it is not really certain yet. We have heard the Minister tonight say that there needs to be more—with no plan no indication of what that is. How can business plan in an environment where things change from year to year? It claims to be a business-friendly Government but it changes its plans all the time. It is very hard for any sensible business to plan in that kind of environment. What business can go off—and unfortunately what it has been going off—is the kind of tacit nudge that the Government is not really that serious about it. We are reaping the consequences of that as our emissions rise and rise year after year as foresters choose not to plant because there are disincentives in place and as people choose to burn fossil fuels because there is a guarantee that there will be no cost above $25 per unit.This situation that we find ourselves in is one of the Government’s making. We commend it for taking a small step in the right direction but the problem that we find in front of us is one that the Government could have addressed long ago. It could have outlined a more bold plan. It could have outlined a plan that was in line with the aspirations of ordinary middle New Zealand. Those people out there battling every day who would like to see a little increase in their take-home pay who would like to see their education be of a world standard instead of dropping who would like to get to hospital and know that they do not have to pull out a chequebook—all of those things of course we have seen deteriorate in this Budget.We have seen a Government that does not have priorities aligned with middle New Zealand and that is unfortunately where this Government sits. It seems content to manage New Zealand’s decline. We have heard it talking about paying off debt—it is a Government that has borrowed more than Muldoon. Here in the space of climate change we know that it is borrowing from future generations. It is a pattern under this Government: borrow and hope borrow and hope. It has done it with our money. It has borrowed more than Muldoon. Here it is doing it with our future by borrowing emissions that do not allow for such a gentle transition in the future.This is getting more and more urgent and there is no excuse for it. The facts are clear. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says that without additional mitigation we are now facing average global temperature rises of 3.7 to 4.9 degrees Celsius—that is compared with pre-industrial levels—by the end of this century. We know what the issue is. We must have targets that are more ambitious at least in line with the EU and its overall target of a 40 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030.We know there is space for ambition. We know there is space to expand New Zealand’s brand as a clean green country if we just do the right thing. It is not hard. If we just do the right thing it will be good for our businesses as they spy the opportunity in becoming high-tech clean and future-oriented. If we make polluters pay rather than every other citizenbearing the costs—if we do what is right it leads to a more prosperous future for our country. We hope that the Government after taking this first tepid step forward will look more closely at this picture. I take some hope out of what the Minister said that she intends to do that. I only hope that those words will be followed with action.