Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): As it's my first contribution in the House this year I just want to take a moment to acknowledge all of those who've been affected by the severe floods in Auckland and Cyclone Gabrielle right across the country. I know that there's a whole lot of people whose lives and livelihoods have been severely affected by this storm. My heart goes out to them. I want to acknowledge that we have a responsibility—I know everyone would agree with this—in this House to make sure that those who are the most vulnerable and who are the most affected receive the support and the help that they need during this difficult time. Ultimately we know these storms have been exacerbated—the impacts were exacerbated by human-caused climate change which is something that the Green Party has been talking about in this House for well over 25 years now. We need to do something about it. We need to tackle all of our challenges our economic challenges and our ecological challenges together. Otherwise we are not going to solve the problem.That's why the Green Party does not support this bill. We need long-term investment to ensure that our transport system is not so reliant on fossil fuels. If we had had that for the past 25 years as the Green Party had been calling for then we wouldn't need to take these measures because people wouldn't be so affected by fluctuations in the price of fuel. Unfortunately if we keep taking a short-term response which is trying to address short-term challenges with high prices of fuel as they are doing in this bill and of course with the reduction in fuel excise duty (FED) we never do anything to get a transport system that is less reliant on fossil fuels that's more energy-efficient that has significant productivity benefits for New Zealand but most of all that enables New Zealanders and the natural world that we live in to thrive. That's what we need to do. We can't just keep taking such a short-term approach.I know one of the reasons that is cited by the Government for this approach is that it was able to be rolled out quickly. But this is what the third or fourth extension? It's now almost a year since this measure was first considered. Certainly as officials recommended and the Treasury recommended the Government could have by now implemented a different approach that would have benefited low to middle income households in a much more direct and supportive way. As the post-implementation regulatory assessment says the poorest households are spending considerably less money on petrol and diesel on fuel than the highest-income households. So the cost of this policy which is well over $1 billion just on the reduction to fuel excise and road-user charge (RUC)—more of that is going to the very highest-income people who are the least affected by high inflation. They are the least affected by cost of living pressures.So the Government could have afforded to give at least as much support perhaps more to the households who need it most at this time and they could have done even more than that. They could have you know extended subsidies for public transport made it free for key portions of the population and increased the services in public transport. The cost of half-price public transport is like one-tenth of what the cost of the RUC and the FED discount is.It's hard to explain how ephemeral this benefit is. It's basically money that we're putting out there and it just disappears. It does nothing to help us combat the climate crisis. It does nothing to help households transition to lower-carbon ways of getting around. It does nothing to save money on fuel in the future. It's only for this very moment in this period of time that—and at this moment in time we have to acknowledge that the oil companies are making record profits globally and that's how broken our economic system is that in 2022 the major oil companies made basically $100 billion in after-tax profit. A lot of that money was put towards share buy-backs which increased the wealth of their shareholders. So in the sense of the global economy people are being financially rewarded for corporate behaviour the very activities that are causing the climate crisis that are causing floods and storms that are affecting ordinary people and taking their lives and livelihoods. It's deranged and it's something that we have the power to change.We don't have to accept this. In New Zealand the corporate profits of fossil fuel companies are not as egregious as they are in the global scale but in the past year they have posted hundreds of millions in profits. So at the very time that the public is paying trying to alleviate cost of living and high price of fuel Z Energy and Mobil and BP are earning hundreds of millions in profits.So clearly something is out of alignment and we need to have just a slightly longer-term view on how we solve these crises. They need to be motivated. Our solutions need to be aligned with the values that people hold most dear. People care about nature. They care about the planet. They care about where they live. They want to do the right thing. They want to have options to get around to earn a living to see their family and friends to live in decent conditions. All of that is possible if we don't prioritise protecting privatised profits of big corporate fossil fuel companies and if we prioritise the wellbeing of the people in this country.So I know that the Labour Government talks a good game on wellbeing. But the reality is that this policy falls well short. It's counterproductive. It's making emissions worse. Not only is it benefiting the highest-income people most but some of the benefit will be perceived by petrol companies and it will be reflected in their profits. So at some point we need to stop privatising the profit and gain and socialising the losses and we need to take a medium and long term view on how we can help people.Is it true that not everyone can take public transport? Yes absolutely. And that is always going to be the case. But you know if we had prioritised more investment in public transport and active transport then more people would be able to get around without having to spend so much money on oil and on fossil fuels. So it is true that not everybody will benefit from half-price public transport but we could spend money supporting the lowest-income people—the people who need it the most—we could give them more money on a weekly basis rather than spending this money subsidising fossil fuel use of which the greatest share of the benefit will be perceived by the richest New Zealanders and the fossil fuel companies. That's why this policy doesn't make sense. The Green Party won't be supporting it. We will continue to support sensible investment in a transport system that isn't so reliant on fossil fuels that gives people real options and real choices. One of the ironies of I guess the political debate on our transport system here in New Zealand just doesn't recognise that essentially decades of planning only for cars forces a huge cost on to households. It's not about freedom. Like at this point if you have to use a car and you have to own a car to get around because Government hasn't sufficiently invested in an efficient and reliable public transport system that is a huge tax on New Zealanders because they have to spend thousands of dollars every year owning their car parking their car fuelling their car insuring their car—Simeon Brown: I love owning a car. I choose to own a car.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Simeon Brown says he chooses to own a car but I hate to tell you this Simeon: not everybody is in that situation. There's a whole lot of people who don't have a choice and it's because of decisions made by subsequent Governments. What the Green Party is advocating for is choice. It means a community where children can get around without having to be ferried everywhere by their parents in a car where they can walk and cycle safely.Simeon Brown: We've got two cars in our household.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yeah that's a tax on your household Simeon.Simeon Brown: No it's not. We choose. It's our choice.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is. You don't even realise that.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I'll just ask—the member is straying dangerously into barracking and if the member could please address that member by his full name. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think it's very endearing—it's very cute—the way that Simeon Brown and those on the right believe that it's their freedom of choice to spend thousands and thousands of dollars that benefit automobile manufacturers and oil companies. That's the great trick that the oil industry and the automobile industry played on society for 50 years which is It's your choice it's your freedom to spend 25 to 40 percent of your income on a vehicle and fuel to get around" when in fact if the public invested in a high-quality public transport system you would have choice. And of course some people will still use cars and that's fine but we need low-carbon choices for people."