Genter Julie Anne: Climate Change Response (Removal of Transitional Measure) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: 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:11402. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I wanted to stand up and take another call to just reframe this a little bit for the Government perhaps in a way that National would understand better because I think it is very easy—[Interruption]—I am sorry I am not saying that—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes you are.JULIE ANNE GENTER: No I am not. I am not trying to be condescending. I am really not—nobody believes me!In the Green Party it is natural for us to say that we want to protect the planet and we care about future generations. We really care about that. That is a core value. I know that is an ancillary value for some National Party people like the Bluegreens but core values for the National Party I think are doing well competition and being successful in business. If I could just put it this way: climate change is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century—responding to it that is. It is also potentially the greatest economic threat to human civilisation—the entire history of it. You can look at it as a threat or you can look at it as an opportunity but either way if humans are going to continue to thrive in the future we are going to have to change the way that we do things.The economy is not something that we serve; the economy just describes how we spend our time and how we allocate resources. Right? We cannot continue to allocate resources and spend our time in ways that continue to put carbon emissions into the atmosphere. It is just not possible. The scientists have told us that. If we went to a doctor—you go to the doctor and the doctor tells you that you have got to change your lifestyle because you have got diabetes and you are at risk of a heart attack and you are at risk of dying. You might like to continue doing the things you are doing—that might be more comfortable in the short term—but if you want to save your life you are going to have to do some things that in the short term are a little bit difficult but in the long term are going to enrich your life and give you a better quality of life. They are things like changing your diet or your exercise regime or whatever it is the doctor is telling you. Basically it is exactly the same thing right now. Scientists are telling us that we cannot continue to put carbon emissions and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.It is a false dichotomy to say we cannot afford to do what we need to do to reduce emissions. We cannot afford not to. We needed to start 20 years ago but we still can start today. Maybe if you consider it as an economic opportunity—the sooner New Zealand moves the better off we are going to be because we are going to seize this transition to a low-carbon economy. We are going to seize that opportunity because we know we have to do it. We know we have to do it. So why do we not start now? It is not the industries who are going to you saying: “We cannot afford to pay this yet. We are trade exposed. We cannot do this. We cannot do that.”—they are not the ones who are going to lead us into the economically successful future.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We are in the Committee stage. It sounds like a third reading speech.JULIE ANNE GENTER: Completely understood Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): A number of us wish it was.JULIE ANNE GENTER: Completely understood. I just think that within the regulatory impact statement for this bill it demonstrates the kind of to and fro that the Government is having with the business community. The reality is that this bill is not going to reduce emissions more than 0.7 percent which is not enough for us to meet the Government’s weak target let alone the target we need to meet to avoid dangerous climate change. We have got a choice here as a country about how we confront climate change and this bill is leading us down the path of doing nothing meaningful and waiting too long and ultimately we are going to pay the cost for that.