Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I just popped up didn't I?Kieran McAnulty: She's delighted.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I am delighted. Look I want to talk on a couple of matters—Kieran McAnulty: Go Angie!ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Thank you—I will go Kieran McAnulty. The first is the Supplementary Order Paper 404 in the name of Todd Muller. I appreciate the Minister for Climate Change's explanation about the 70000 hectares did you say sir that has been deforested versus the 10000 to 30000 hectares potentially being planted. It's a really interesting point and a perfect example I believe of why we have created this piece of legislation in the way that we have. You see the way that we've created this legislation is to enable science to enable changes to enable the reality of the day-to-day lived experience of people to be built into this piece of legislation.We—and I said this in my second reading speech—don't know what the future will hold and what technology is available and what things may come into play. As a consequence we had a very detailed conversation a very detailed conversation because we heard lots of people concerned about afforestation and what impact that was having. So we had this very detailed conversation about: should we put some hard-and-fast rules in this legislation? Should we do that? Should we ensure that we don't want an adverse or unintended consequence to occur? We came to the conclusion that the experts should do that. We came to the conclusion that actually there is a whole pile of things coming at us that are exciting and interesting but they are not necessarily things that we should put in primary legislation.I note in here that in new section 5ZIA(2)(b)(i) he's talking about—oh I'll say (b) and then I'll go to point (i): scientific and technical research into the warming and cooling impact of radiata pine forests and any other relevant forest species including but not limited to—(i) changes to the earth's albedo". Now these are very specific things that he is asking for and the reality around that is that we don't want to lock this legislation down in this way. We don't want to have this legislation at the point that we're asking for specific things because technology is shifting and changing all the time. We heard some really interesting science around terpenes. We heard some really interesting science around pine trees and the nature of pine needles. We heard regenerative farming methods. We heard all about different options. We decided absolutely not to put that stuff into primary legislation because our experts our commission will take into account those things.So that is why I do not agree with the Supplementary Order Paper 404 in the name of Todd Muller. Again I acknowledge that genuinely he has wanted to make a very good contribution but unfortunately he missed the detailed and thorough conversations that we had about this in the Environment Committee as to why we got to where we got to. But I do thank him nevertheless for his participation.The second matter that I wanted to talk to is Supplementary Order Paper 401 in the name of the Hon Scott Simpson. He has put in an amendment that essentially talks around that this should not occur in order to threaten food production. I wanted to just bring a little balance to the conversation. The member Dr Deborah Russell had said quite clearly that perhaps we don't need to continue to create as much food or produce as much food. I take a different view on that and my view is this: 40 percent of all food produced in this world goes to waste. It goes to landfill."