Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): This is the first time I've had the opportunity to stand up since the events of 15 March so I would like to acknowledge the appalling loss of life the courage of our police officers the commitment of our ambulance and hospital staff and the love and care of not only Christchurch but of the wider community including Tauranga in the response that has occurred. There has been a remarkable response in this House too. Can I acknowledge in my view the exemplary response from the Prime Minister. Can I acknowledge the Christchurch MPs who yet again when their community are confronted with an extraordinary amount of pain and loss have led collectively a response which this House is proud of. They do themselves and this House proud.This spirit of bipartisan response has continued on in the gun reform laws that we're reflecting this week. Can I acknowledge Simon Bridges and our caucus for playing a particular part in ensuring that we have a bipartisan approach to what is clearly a critical issue in this country. I think what it does is it brings into acute relief the fact that there are certain issues that because of their scale global complexity and challenge call out for a bipartisan approach if at all possible to the dealing of them and the managing of them. I'm involved in one of those issues at the moment: climate change. I would like to say that we have been involved very closely in a process over the last few months in working with my opposite James Shaw to see if we can collectively design an institution a climate change commission that would stand above the day-to-day politics and advise successive Parliaments in terms of how you wrestle down the emissions. We are still in that conversation. We are certainly closer to the end than the beginning and I remain confident that we will be able to land an outcome that meets the public's expectation of bipartisan approach to an issue of that substance.But I think the real test will be beyond the establishment of an institution in climate change and as to whether there is any capacity for this House to have an alignment in respect to the policy responses that ultimately have to be considered when you reflect on climate change.I'll give you three examples. The first example is the application of science—not just some science but all science—to what is described as one of the great challenges of our generation. We have scientists now based in Palmerston North that are on the cusp of some fantastic innovations that can be applied in the medium term to be able to manage our response to this issue. I think the test from a policy perspective is: are we going to run to our particular corners around opposing aspects of science because they don't deliver against our historic political narrative or actually are we going to see the opportunity collectively to apply all of the science and innovation of tools that are at our disposal to actually manage this particular issue?The second example is how we approach agricultural emissions. However you look at this there is ultimately a judgment around sequence and pace. Firstly you need to be able to measure effectively. Then you can manage if you have that clear picture and then if you have tools available to be able to mitigate you can bring those two approaches together to make some difference. There is opportunity potentially for some alignment around how we do that but that requires some consideration around what is the appropriate sequence and pace.The third example of an issue that I think needs to be relooked at is the oil and gas ban—$27 billion worth of economic impact. I think many of us know in this House that that was predominantly a position that was driven by political rhetoric and optics. There is so much oil and gas contribution to the global economy that is expected to still be front of mind over the next 20 30 and 40 years. So the question should be: do we collectively have the capacity to look at an issue like that and acknowledge that if you have made a political statement that will ultimately cost an economy a huge amount of money do you have the capacity to revisit it under the framework that is being proposed so that when we look at issues as material and significant as climate change we bring the best of our thinking collectively to the issue of managing it in the future? Thank you.