Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well it's a pleasure to take a call somewhat unexpectedly. I thought I was in another turn after. But anyway it's fine. I'm quite happy to jump ahead and speak on this Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think the previous speaker the Hon Scott Simpson made some excellent points. In listening to the debate particularly coming from the other side of the House what has struck me is that the main point they've all sought to make is that this is going to gain attention all around the world. I just wonder if this bill's main purpose is perhaps to cover for our lack of having a nationally determined contribution (NDC)—Hon Scott Simpson: Don't tell Greta!STUART SMITH: —to announce—that's right. Well yes Greta probably won't worry about it unless someone writes it in a speech for her! We don't have an NDC to announce at Glasgow; it's quite a smirch on our reputation actually albeit that our Prime Minister said this was a nuclear moment for her. Well it is such a nuclear moment for her that she is not able to have an announcement at COP wasn't able to have an announcement last year in fact at a pre-meeting! So this is quite an embarrassing situation for them.But anyway we've got this legislation. We are supporting it albeit that we will be introducing some Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to try and get it into a better shape than it actually is. But I take the Hon Scott Simpson's point: is this actually going to achieve much and if it is what are those things? It certainly will add some cost and it will add cost to businesses who are really essentially under this bill reporting risks. These businesses that are captured by this they are in the business of actually assessing risks—banks for example that's their job. They don't just lend money; they actually assess risks. Like insurance companies they are not in the business of doing a public service necessarily; they are in a business of assessing risk laying off some of that risk for customers and in turn laying off some of their risk with reinsurers. So they are all about assessing risks.What is the real benefit in this? It doesn't actually measure the footprint; it is actually assessing future risks. That is the point of it. It is going to be quite onerous quite frankly. If you could imagine let's take sea level for example. If a hotel chain decides to build a hotel on a beach or a bank decides to fund a hotel that is going to be built somewhere near a beach they are going to actually pay quite a lot of attention to sea-level projections. This bill is not going to make any difference at all to their concerns about whether they are going to build that hotel there or not. They will look at the known studies that are out there what is happening in terms of sea level what are the projections how do those projections that are being made by those entities actually perform when you go back a few years—what were their projections and now at this point in time have they come to pass or not? The projections on sea-level change Mr Speaker—which I know you'll be very interested in—have been much overblown.Certainly in my electorate we've got a 1 metre at least extra freeboard now because the land has gone up by over a metre and a half on most of the coast along the Kaikōura coast. I don't know whether that would have to be captured in this assessment or not but if it is—Hon Scott Simpson: What does the local member say?STUART SMITH: Well the local member says Well if it is what happens if we get seismically induced vertical land motion that goes the other way?" It could always go the other way. Although historically for the last 150 years there's been about three movements and they've all gone up so maybe that is going to be a continuing trend.So I think we go back to the ag sector—how is that going to affect the ag sector with the banks when they are lending money to the ag sector? I think they'll be very engaged at the moment with the way the emissions trading scheme is performing. Given that Keith Woodford who is a former professor from Lincoln University has written a really interesting article. He says that we are on the cusp of the greatest land-use change in 100 years. Does that mean the banks therefore have to assess that as part of their risk in their lending in the agricultural sector? Will they for example not fund the expansion of a sheep and beef property buying a neighbouring property for sheep and beef but they will perhaps have a lower risk rating for someone who is buying the neighbouring property for carbon farming? These are quite serious and perverse effects that are potentially ahead for them but they're going to do that anyway this bill is not going to make any difference.What was also touched on by the Hon Scott Simpson: businesses care about what their customers think. They might not even think it themselves but if the customer thinks something is a risk and they should care about it then they are going to do their best to find out what the risks are either don't take that risk or convince their customers that that risk is worth it—and not just their customers; their shareholders who are also answerable particularly if they are a public company.The whole Government programme—it doesn't come into it I suppose but the Government has a carbon-neutral programme by 2025. Well the Government has only just started measuring; haven't even developed the model for the tool to measure all of their emissions. So this is such a climate emergency that nothing is happening but we are bringing in some legislation which is groundbreaking so that actually shows we're doing something! But look signalling virtue on these things is all very well but it doesn't do anything about climate change. Actually we've got to do tangible things rather than coming up with some little piece of legislation which may have a use—and we are supporting it so we're saying that it does have some use—but is not doing anything tangible for the climate. Rushing it in because you want something to announce and have the nuclear moment being endorsed by the Parliament in some way for our illustrious leader I think is quite perverse.I also note the tool that the Government should have had developed to measure their emissions—not having that developed actually says something. I just wonder if we might see if we could put some SOP in that would capture the Government in that. It would be quite interesting to have them report on their performance and what risks they see because certainly they are not living up to them at this stage.We look at what has happened in the UK. As the Hon Scott Simpson said at the moment they are going through a fuel crisis in the UK not down to anything other than a shortage of heavy-truck drivers to circulate the fuel around the economy. They've also taken large steps as we have to try and get more renewable electricity into their sector which is going to have a very interesting winter this year because they have made it very difficult for gas. They've got huge shale gas reserves particularly in the Forest of Bowland where they could actually have enough gas for 100 years but they are not taking out of the ground and instead they are relying on electricity from France. That connector the other day in Kent that failed almost caused a blackout. We are getting a similar issue here with Genesis having some issues with their hydro plant and we are burning record amounts of coal.All this does is signal a bit of virtue. It doesn't help us with our electricity supply. It doesn't help us with the amount of coal that we are burning. It doesn't help us lower our transport emissions. What is this all about? It is about signalling virtue. We do support this bill but we are I think obliged to point out the weaknesses in the bill point out that the motivation for bringing this bill to Parliament is not about climate change; it is about signalling virtue it is about trying to have an announcement for the Prime Minister—or at least for the Minister of Climate Change to make the Prime Minister's nuclear moment somehow a valid claim. It is not a nuclear moment; it is a pretty wet squib quite frankly. With that I with qualifications commend it to the House."