Graham Kennedy: Budget Measures (Miscellaneous Fiscal Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Budget Measures (Miscellaneous Fiscal Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 15 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:18041. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): In this second reading I want to pick up on the concern expressed by Grant Robertson about the lack of due democratic process in the passage of this bill the Budget Measures (Miscellaneous Fiscal Matters) Bill particularly as it relates as Moana Mackey has said to something as important as Part 2 of the bill and the proposal to eliminate the arbitrage against post-1989 foresters.Given that the public of New Zealand are not going to have any possible input into the passage of this legislation let us speak on their behalf as faithfully as we can. Rather than presume to input their views let us ask some questions that simply hang in the air because of the import of this draft legislation. The questions have to be asked. I think there would be five questions the people of New Zealand would wish to have answered. Given that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Finance are here but the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams is here let us ask Minister Adams or her colleague who happens to wander into the Chamber and sit down in the chair to address these questions in Committee. Let us see what the answers are to these five questions.The first question to the Minister the Hon Amy Adams is: do you think that climate change is just another economic problem or is it a qualitatively new unprecedented threat to human society? If it is (a) just another problem where can we find it in your four Budget priorities which are: responsibly managing the Government’s finances; building a more productive and competitive economy—it cannot be either delivering better public services or rebuilding Christchurch so it has to be one of the first two. Do we find climate change in the responsible financial management of New Zealand’s economy or do we find it in a better productive and competitive economy? Actually the 195 states that are party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change competing among themselves and punching above their weight will fail Minister to solve the global problem. If it is the other—if it is an unprecedented threat to human society which 99 percent of humanity thinks it is—why are you and yourGovernment not calling attention to this and calling for a national debate in the forthcoming election? That is question one.Question two is: the United Nations has concluded that to prevent dangerous climate change the developed countries must reduce emissions below 1990 levels within the range of 25 to 40 percent by 2020. If the Minister continues to look down she can pretend the questions are not here possibly. That 25 to 40 percent is designed to meet a threshold of a 2-degree temperature rise or 450 parts per million volume of carbon atmospheric concentration. That 450 parts per million was actually signed off by your Government Minister in—I think it was—August 2009.Given that there is a range of 25 to 40 percent how can you justify any of the developed countries including New Zealand being outside that range and below the 25 percent? Can you explain the Treasury paper to Cabinet that says that it does not follow that every country has to be within this range when the scientists make it clear that they have taken into account all the common but differentiated responsibilities—all the differences in national circumstances—when they give a range of 25 to 40 percent? If in fact you insist on being below 25 percent which you do with your 5 percent unconditional target Minister will you wish to nominate another developed country to make up the shortfall? And will you or your Prime Minister address that issue to that developed country explain the reasons apologise for New Zealand and then nominate the country and help them perhaps to make up the shortfall?Question three—are you confident that New Zealand is doing its fair share when we set a 5 percent reduction? Are you aware Minister that global emissions at the moment are projected to produce an increase of anything between 2.6 degrees and 4 degrees Celsius? Are you equally aware Minister that New Zealand’s projected increases go above that range of 2.6 to 4 degrees Celsius and are more on track if emulated by every other country to go closer to a temperature increase of 5 to 6 degrees Celsius which in the case the World Bank has described is not dangerous but catastrophic climate change for your children and mine?Question four: are you—or perhaps your colleague the Minister of Finance—able to name and identify the global least cost of carbon as of mid-May 2014? And is it sufficient to avert dangerous climate change of a 2-degree threshold?Finally question five which has been asked repeatedly in this House today and no doubt you or your colleagues will have a chance to answer it in the Committee: why is this Government discriminating against post-1989 foresters in eliminating the arbitrage which in itself is a good thing but is iniquitous in relative terms of equity compared with the other sectors that you and your Government are deliberately and somewhat cynically protecting? They are the five questions Minister. We are waiting for those answers.