Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair for this opportunity to take a call on this Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill after that contribution about the name in this committee of the whole House. And it's very poignant that I take a call at this point having just come out of a meeting with the New Zealand Aluminium Smelters. This bill has significant ramifications for the province of Southland. We are already seeing the significant ramifications of this Government on the province of Southland and they are extremely uncertain times for the people that I represent.So while I commend and rise in support of the contribution of all of my colleagues and especially the Hon Dr Nick Smith that it was a National-led Government that signed us up to the Paris Agreement that it was a National-led Government that moved us forward with regards to reducing our greenhouse gases in this country I do support the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) of my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson that we have a Climate Change Commission that is expert-led and that is empowered to set targets based on good research good science and understanding the technologies that are available to us with respect to industries with respect to agriculture moving forward and that we do this moving to reduce our emissions and offset the greenhouse gas profile at a pace that is fair that is reasonable.Just to recap with respect to the uncertainty that is going on in Southland: a thousand jobs at Tīwai Point two thousand indirect 6.5 percent of Southland's GDP producing some of the cleanest aluminium in the world. And yet it seems at this point especially throughout the select committee process that this Government wants to pick winners and losers right now. And I don't believe that is fair. I would rather be exporting clean aluminium than exporting jobs and livelihoods offshore. I think it is prudent that the commission is tasked with looking at technologies that are currently available that the modelling has to acknowledge what technologies are currently available and that this way of life—our livelihoods in Southland—needs to be at least protected for a time until sufficient R & D is put in place to make sure that we can reduce emissions in that field; like I say at a pace that will protect jobs and livelihoods. It's a very uncertain time for Southland at the moment and this bill adds to that uncertainty if it truly is not going to be a fair and just transition. That brings me on to Mr Muller's SOP 404 which is with respect to the review and use of forestry offsets. And certainly what was raised throughout the Environment Committee process was that that really is the panacea among what we've got to reduce our emissions profile—to offset it. I want to support Mr Muller's SOP in particular that the commission must review the use of removals from land use and land use change in the forestry sector. It must consider the social economic cultural and environmental impact of activities undertaken for the purpose of generating offsets. My contribution in the second reading very much focused around this. It very much focused around this drive to plant our arable land in pines so as to meet these targets that are in the primary legislation—1.7 million hectares to be planted prior to 2050 and an extra 1.7 million before 2070 to attempt to maintain carbon zero. The social effect of this as we looked at in the modelling was to plant out the size of the province of Otago in pine trees. The Paris Agreement obviously talks about the protection of food production. Again there needs to be absolute consideration given to land-use change to putting caps on forestation and thinking about communities moving forward. As I said in my contribution last night not everybody wants to live in cities. Not everybody wants to live in high-rise buildings. There are people that want to live off the land. There are people that want to live in the provinces and enjoy their way of life but equally they should be given the opportunity to create jobs and livelihoods for their families. I mean if we look at the agricultural sector: $45 billion worth of export revenue for this country; a significant industry and employing over 350000 individuals. That's significant and it is a way of life. New Zealand is known as a reputable food producer; we are a safe food producer and interestingly not all of us want to be vegan either. Sheep and beef dairy—they still will be part of our future. I deny that it is a sunset industry and I think that our farmers need to be applauded for the environmental efforts that they've put in place already. So I think that we need to add in this SOP of Mr Muller to the primary legislation. I think that we need to make sure that there are clear guidelines that the commission must follow with respect to the offsets that are available at the moment through forestry with respect to the technology available at the moment and make it clear that the social economic cultural and environmental impacts of the activity are taken clearly into account using good science and measuring it in an appropriate and critical way. So while we supported the bill at second reading and we support a commission and this architecture framework that looks to lead us forward with a robust group of experts looking at the science this bill does need to be strengthened by adopting the Hon Scott Simpson's SOPs and Mr Muller's SOP to make sure that it is robust and to make sure that many New Zealanders' way of life is still secured moving forward that food production is secured moving forward and that the so-called just transition is in fact just moving forward.