Graham Kennedy: Climate Change Response (Removal of Transitional Measure) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Climate Change Response (Removal of Transitional Measure) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I presume that our National colleagues are free to select their own pronouns between the adjectives and the nouns that they are given.I want to just mention three points in this third reading debate. The first point is that this debate yesterday and today marks essentially what I think is a new start—hopefully it certainly does. We are lost if it does not. But let us assume that this marks the start of a new phase. Taking from the Paris Agreement which reflects a new global approach to climate policy the focus has now switched from the universality established in Paris in December to domestic action. The challenge now for all 196 State parties is the domestic action. Let us regard this Budget and the bill that is in front of us as the beginning of that domestic action to implement the new universality that comes out of Paris. The work starts now.I pick up on Denis O’Rourke’s point—we have been making it James Shaw and I and Labour colleagues—of the need for a consensus. We are genuine about that. We will dialogue and we will listen but we will make our points. On our part—the Green Party—where we differ is as I think Mr Simpson said in the sense of urgency. I promise you that we will convey the reasons for the greatest sense of urgency on our part in that dialogue but let the dialogue begin. Quickly in response to Mr O’Rourke about agricultural competitiveness and the need to go carefully of course we take the point. I just respond with the fact that competitiveness works both ways. With the opportunity cost the omission of the counterfactual that was there in the lead-up to New Zealand’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions it is the same with agriculture. If we do not move including on agriculture we lose our competiveness in the medium term if not the short term. So we have got to move on agriculture as well.Maybe New Zealand First is aware of the 2013 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations report that said Oceania can reduce agricultural emissions—livestock emissions—by 14 to 17 percent. Maybe New Zealand First is aware of last week’s global report which says global agricultural emissions can drop from 5 gigatonnes to 4 gigatonnes by 2030—but let us find out. We will have a dialogue and see whether it is aware of the double side of the competitiveness argument.Paris is the real test. We now move to domestic action. What does that mean for us? It means institutional change. It means that we do need to emulate the British: we need an independent climate commission that can talk independently of politics and independently of the politicians’ and party views composed of experts and well-recognised authorities who can speak with authority to the Government and to Parliament. Let us establish that. Let us establish a forum—not unlike the Land and Water Forum but taking into account the lessons learnt from that—and involve business and civil society that again is independent of Parliament. Let us have those two institutions set up now and moving fast. Let us think about reforming even our own parliamentary structure on climate change. Climate change is an orphan because it is cross-sectoral—sectoral—Hon Members: Ha ha!Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: —and it does not sit nicely—I need another minute Mr Assistant Speaker as a result of that—in the select committee structure so we need to look at that. The transformational pathway that we need to focus on will begin with a new recognition of our national responsibility level dividing the global carbon budget up according to the principles of equity in order to find out what we are actually responsible for as opposed to the second point which is what we are capable of in terms of domestic mitigation. They are blurred those two concepts and quite often deliberately so by Governments. We need to be at least intellectually honest and politically honest and recognise the distinction between those two concepts. That then takes us once we know what our national responsibility level is and what our domestic mitigation potentialis to a point where we move to what the effective policies are—and let that discussion begin.