Hobbs Marian: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6134] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Until the previous speaker spoke I felt that this was a day when I felt comfortable in the House. It was one of those rare occasions when I felt that we were really working together on an issue bigger than any of our individual tribes. But that last speech did not really encourage me in that prospect. 
However I will make one particular comment first and it is about Project Aqua. The resolution that occurred in terms of Project Aqua was actually about stopping the subdivision of environmental issues into separate baskets. There is no separate basket called the Kyoto Protocol there is no separate basket called clean air there is no separate basket called energy production there is no separate basket called irrigation and there is no separate basket called the conservation of rivers. When we did the work on the Waitaki scheme we used for once in our lives not an adversarial method but an inquisitorial method that gave people with an interest in every part of the river a voice. It was not a question of saying that some forms of energy are there and some are not. We will solve environmental problems only when we stop separating aspects of them into little baskets. 
I happened to agree very strongly with Jeanette Fitzsimons co-leader of the Green Party tonight when she said that every human being on this planet must act responsibly about greenhouse gas emissions. The issue is not about playing off one party against another or about playing farmers off against viticulturists or against trout fishers but is about saying that every one of us has a responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our lives—and we do not play nations off against each other. Fundamentally in the end that is the basis of the Kyoto Protocol. We must play our part and unlike the previous speaker I know that this Government in the last 7 years has been playing its part. 
I can recall calling together the very first meeting of a number of members of Government departments on the issues around the Kyoto Protocol when I was a very raw Minister. I discovered at that stage that the officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did not know how many animals there were in New Zealand. The ministry had given up on having any way of accounting for them which meant there was no way of knowing what their methane emissions were. That was the inheritance we faced. Not only was that the case but we faced a Ministry of Transport that had no policy on vehicle emissions. That was what we faced. So we faced departments that not only failed to work together as one—it is not only parties that do not work together as one—but actually worked against each other. 
That situation has changed radically. I think about the scheme for clean air environment standards which has an absolute commitment towards reducing vehicle emissions and about the work it is doing in Auckland and the incentive that it causes to bring about energy efficiency in homes so that we have clean air and therefore lower emissions. If we turn to the research work on methane I do find it very hard to listen when a member of the Opposition stands up and goes on about the “fart tax” when what we were really asking for was a contribution from the farming industry towards finding out what was there in terms of methane emissions from animals. I think those members speak from a sense of shame rather than a sense of pride. Instead of going to the farmers we decided we would fund the research in another way because we need to find out why and how methane is emitted. I think that it is irresponsible to play those games. It is opportunist and populist and we should be well past populism if we are really working together on the issue of climate change. 
I believe that this Government has worked particularly hard on a very difficult issue but we cannot argue at the international level around the Kyoto Protocol issues unless we do something more than we are now doing. We must take action ourselves. We cannot go out there and point the finger at India or China unless we start to reduce our emissions. If we look at what is happening in the United Kingdom at the moment which has apparently tripled its carbon dioxide emissions since Tony Blair has been in Government—well that is what has been quoted—we see the United Kingdom is making even tougher rules far tougher than those we face in New Zealand to deal with those particular issues. We need to walk the talk about reducing greenhouse gas emissions before we can start to point the finger at anyone else. 
But we also need to share the technology. The fact is that in the case of the islands that we are talking about on those atolls in the Pacific where the water is rising and lapping up nearly 5 metres higher than previously people burn diesel in order to generate energy. Lord almighty what are we doing if we are not sharing our technology! We have a long way to go on that issue in this particular society. 
I am really happy that National supports this bill—and I am happy about that I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith—because I think we are getting the message in this House that our community is concerned about the issue of climate change. So working together is positive. 
I welcome the fact that Tariana Turia talked about the importance of forest planters gaining benefit from carbon sequestration. When I think about another issue around Lake Taupo I realise that forestry and forestry planting and Tuwharetoahapu being able to claim benefit from that—rather than having to put in dairy farms in order for one hapu to catch up with another—is one way to make sure that we can gain some benefit from that. So there are two values: cleaner water and more variety of land use as well as carbon sinks. The cleverer we are about uniting the different impacts in terms of addressing environmental issues the better we will go. I also appreciate that the permanent nature of the canopy allows for indigenous forests as well as the monoculture of  
Pinus radiata 
 to be planted. That has a real benefit particularly for some of our furniture industries. 
We must reduce emissions though as well as mitigating their effects. So although we encourage permanent forest sinks we have to do work on the other side of the equation by reducing emissions. This bill is only one part of a whole programme that is being promoted by this Government. We should remind ourselves that there is an adaptation programme because this issue is about adaptation to climate change—and those of us who were in Wellington this weekend will understand about that. 
The programme is about our coastal areas and our farming sector but it is also about measures to improve the energy efficiency of our buildings. There is a consultation on minimum biofuels sales obligations and we have to actually be serious about using alternative energies to drive our cars. We can talk about heating our homes and we can talk about industry but we also have to look at the carbon dioxide that comes out of our cars and our vehicles as we move around. We can talk about increased public passenger transport and about better trains but we have to move what is transported by road also and that cannot always be put on trains—[ 
Interruption 
] I am finding it extremely hard to think with that person roaring at me from the other side of the House. There are also options to create links with the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Those are the issues that we need to face when we are talking about our Pacific partners. There are options to improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet in terms of what we import and what we manufacture in this country. 
There are ways in which Government agencies can lead the way in respect of sustainable practices. Today in a select committee I watched a member of the Opposition be very critical of one Government department that was taking Govt3 practice seriously. That concerns the whole notion of sustainable development. The member was querying whether there were too many bureaucrats trying to work things out when that department was buying smaller cars in its fleet doing work to reduce paper usage in its ministry and trying to be sustainable. So again I make a plea: if we are serious about climate change and if we are serious about sustainable practice in this country we must not look at the issue in terms of one-off boxes but look at it holistically. 
I welcome the fact that most members of this House have supported the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill.