Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. The National Party has made it clear throughout the progress of this legislation that in fact what has occurred is an attempt—an honest attempt I think—on this side of the House to engage with the Government in terms of a true bipartisan cross-party process. Having said that notwithstanding the negotiations that I and my predecessor Todd Muller have had with the Minister for Climate Change and others in the Government there are still some outstanding issues that we seek to resolve at this stage of the legislative process—the committee of the whole House—by way of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs).It is not the intention of the Opposition to filibuster to load this debate up with a myriad of SOPs that achieve little but time-wasting. What we have sought to do is to bring to the committee by way of SOPs five thoughtful considered changes that we think will not only add value to the bill but add comfort and security to the wider New Zealand public to businesses and to communities. One of those areas that is of great concern to us is the establishment and setting of the methane targets in the bill. We accept and acknowledge the wisdom of a split-gas approach and we're very happy with that but what we do have difficulty with is the 24 to 47 percent target for 2050 reductions.It's been our view right from the outset that the best way to handle this is actually to use the advice that is available and will be accessible to the Minister in making recommendations about targets and will be available from the newly established expert-led panel of commissioners that we are about to appoint if this bill is successful and makes its way through the House. So we think that at the first opportunity that the Climate Change Commission has they should actually apply their minds and their thinking to the 2050 methane target and then make a recommendation to the Minister who should then consider it and adopt it. We think that it's the science-based independent expert-led commission that actually is in the best position to provide an analysis of what the methane target should be for 2050 which of course is a long way out.One of the things I suspect we know as legislators is that anything any number that we legislate in this bill this year come 2050 that number is almost certainly going to be different from the number that enters the legislation today or this year. So my Supplementary Order Paper 405 provides an opportunity to make some changes that would allow for the provision of the commission to set a recommended methane target for 2050 and that the Minister could then consider it and adopt it. We note that in new section 5P(1)(b) inserted by clause 8 there is an opportunity for the Minister at any other time to request a review. Now the problem with that provision is that by setting a review the Minister then would have to come back to change the target by way of legislation. So what my SOP does is provide an opportunity should a situation like that occur for legislation not needing to be amended but actually for a change to be put in place by Order in Council. We think that would be a suitable adequate and efficient mechanism for achieving the objectives of SOP 405 in my name.During the course of this debate my colleagues will speak to the other SOPs that we have but we want to emphasise again that these are not political point-scoring SOPs. They are the kinds of SOPs that we think add value to the bill and we put them forward on the basis of genuine good faith but we also hope that the Government will take notice of our clear intent in producing and preparing these SOPs. It's likely that if the SOPs that we put forward are not accepted by the Government then the potential for change at a future date remains high and I'm sure that's not the purpose of the Minister's intent in trying to get cross-party support. So on that basis I will finish this call here and allow my colleagues and the Minister to respond.