McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Listening to the Minister's speech and I'm so excited by the legislation! We've done so much. New Zealand's playing its part we've fixed climate change—until we read the legislation and actually if the intent that comes from the speech was in the bill we would be achieving much much more than we are here today.I remember when I was studying when there was enthusiasm for a cause when one showed leadership when one actually got up and made the case they would want to give a reward and it would often be a chocolate fish and I was going to offer the Minister this chocolate fish that comes from the whips a seat behind me until I heard at the beginning of his speech him say This is a landmark day for this Parliament." I've decided to keep the chocolate fish and eat it myself in a moment. The reason for this is actually it doesn't do anything in as far as the companies are concerned that are covered by the legislation in how they act when it comes to climate change. It doesn't make them change the vehicles that they drive. It doesn't mean they should fly less if the Government decides flying around the world or just within New Zealand is bad for climate change. It doesn't do any of those things. It doesn't encourage them to meet the Government's commitment of the country being carbon neutral by a date in the future. What it does is gets them to spend a lot of time looking at the effects upon climate change upon their investments and whether or not that may have some impact upon them in the future or not. Doesn't say if climate change does have an impact upon them that they have to or should change what they're doing; merely that they should actually go out and have a look and assess these sorts of things.In that respect it's not a harmful bill because I suppose the Government has a view that these companies have lots of spare time on their hands. But when the Minister says this is a landmark and that it shapes the future and all the other things that he said actually I'm not allowed to say that that's misleading but it's certainly not giving the clearer picture of what this bill does.We have spoken at each stage of this about our concerns—National is supporting it but our concerns are about getting it right about not overburdening enterprise unnecessarily. That does not say we don't support this nor that actually the entities that are covered by it shouldn't go through a procedure to report. But the problem we have here is that procedure for how they will report is not available yet. The Minister said that yesterday he and James Shaw launched a consultation process. There's a lot of achievement this week! A consultation process on what the reporting standards may be in the future. But actually as this has to happen within 12 months of entry into force we made the case at other stages and make it again that actually for a number of these entities—which are very large businesses—the time frame with which they'll have to report actually is likely to be too short. I hope the External Reporting Board will take that into account and do its work quickly because actually yes it's important that they meet what the law will say that these enterprises these companies have to. We also want them to be doing what they need to which is actually employing people growing their businesses helping the Government repay some of the debt that they've racked up over a period of time just as a result of COVID.Regulation is not bad but bad regulation is bad and too much regulation does have an impact it does have an effect. We also made the case all the way through that the public sector and the private sector should be the same. The Government has given a carve-out an exemption to its own entities and its own companies and that actually sends the wrong signal. Now Mr Shaw said in the committee stage "Actually they're covered later on in a different way. We might do some more." But the signal it sends to the private sector is: one rule for you a different one for us when it comes to what the Government does. The Government says that well they can instruct these companies as to what they want them to do with their letters of expectation but actually what it says in this document in this law when it's passed: if a company doesn't meet the requirements of the law they break the law. And the Government is really saying to the private sector: one rule for you a different one for us we know best. I think it sends the wrong signal.The final area that we thought actually there needed to be a change—and we put in proposals for this the House didn't agree—was around the need for those who have no impact on them at all from climate change to still have to go through a lengthy period or process to be able to report that it has no impact upon them. We think actually they should have the ability just to explain if it is the case that climate change doesn't have an impact upon their investments—not even their investments on their business then just explain the reason why and that would be enough but they have to go through a process. It could be lengthy it could be very very expensive to say "Nothing to see here." In the case that a company did that explained it doesn't have an impact upon them and it does they've broken the law. These are very large companies many of them listed. Actually they take their responsibilities seriously. We are burdening some that this legislation shouldn't apply to but that's just very much the way of this Government I suppose.National supports reasonable law when it comes to New Zealand doing our part as far as climate change is concerned. It's a shame that Minister Shaw is jumping on a plane with a lot of other people to fly to the other side of the world and this is all he really gets to wave at them—that New Zealand has passed a law very very quickly that doesn't actually make companies change what they do in as far as their own footprint is concerned but all they're going to do is report. In that respect it's a shame because the Government could have done much much more here. We will be supporting it because it sends a signal but merely sending a signal does not mean that this is a good day for this Parliament or that there's a landmark deal. And I'm sorry Minister I'm having the chocolate fish."