From Hansard 

I am delighted to speak in support of the Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill. I offer my congratulations to Dr Kennedy Graham and Russel Norman on putting forward this measure.

Given the size of the wider State sector proportionate to the New Zealand economy—it is about one-third in overall terms—it is a very good move for the Government and the State sector to show some leadership across areas of society. Transport is an excellent place to start. We need to decrease the emission of greenhouse gases, and requiring the State sector to purchase or lease only energy-efficient passenger vehicles is an excellent way to start that. It is good to see a bill that would require such vehicles to have a better than average emissions performance of 170 grams per kilometre of carbon dioxide, which is basically, as we heard from Dr Norman, the same efficiency standard set out in the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy 2007 for the New Zealand vehicle fleet as a whole.

The reality is that emissions from the transport sector are our second-largest contributor to the greenhouse gas problem, and they are growing—20 percent of our total emissions come from this sector. In 2007-08 the Labour Government came up with a suite of measures to deal with our emissions problem. I will take a moment to reiterate those measures, because we regularly hear from members opposite the Crosby/Textor spin that Labour did nothing in this area. Well, let us remember the facts for a change. The New Zealand Energy Strategy set out a very clear pathway towards a 90 percent renewable energy generation target for baseload generation by 2025. It set out a very clear pathway, over a number of years, to get to that goal.

Shane Ardern: How well were we going on it?

We were going very well on it. Well, we would be going really well if Mr Ardern’s Government had not, under urgency last year, repealed the strategy and got rid of the target, which was a key part of getting to where we need to go in respect of energy emissions. We had the New Zealand Transport Strategy, on which I will speak more in a moment. Then we had the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. And, of course, the emissions trading scheme was legislated into being in September last year. Unlike the scheme we are seeing emerge from the interesting negotiations between National and the M?ori Party, that scheme actually would have been fit for purpose.

What has happened since? As I said in response to an interjection from Mr Ardern, the New Zealand Energy Strategy was effectively repealed in respect of the 90 percent renewables target. The emissions trading scheme has been gutted. What has happened to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy? It was just scrapped one day. There was a notice in the New Zealand Herald from Mr Brownlee, the Minister of Energy and Resources. We do not have an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy any longer.

All that is left of that suite of measures is the New Zealand Transport Strategy. It is useful to recall the elements of that strategy. It sets out an overall target of reducing transport emissions—which, as I said before, cause 20 percent of our emissions and are growing—by 50 percent by 2040. How would we to do this? Firstly, we would invest in rail, and, secondly, we would invest in coastal shipping. Those two areas are absolutely key in terms of getting big amounts of freight off roads; we know how destructive it is to roads to transport huge amounts of freight on them. We would have had the biofuels obligation, but that has been repealed and, instead, $36 million of our scarce resources is to be spent promoting biofuels. We would have had a massive increase in public transport investment—ten times what was being spent in 1999—and would have supported electric vehicles. That is how we would have got there.

This bill contains the sort of complementary measure that we ought to see being put in place under the New Zealand Transport Strategy. The criticisms of it that we have heard from members opposite are completely invalid. It is a pleasure to express the Labour Party’s support of this measure. What a shame that the comprehensive and sensible suite of policies that was put in place by the last Government is not still in place!