Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you Madam Chair. I think what I'd like to do now is just to run through the Opposition Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). I've spoken at some length to some of them. There are some that I haven't addressed. I think it'd be useful if I just kind of ran through them in sequence just to give a response.So SOP 401 is about replacing the purpose section. It actually does two things. Most of the speeches have been referencing the Paris Agreement on food production the clause on food production but the SOP also does something else and that is that it references the 2 degrees upper limit in temperature and de-emphasises 1.5 degrees. That's because when the Paris Agreement was written there was this kind of zone of uncertainty really between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees which was considered acceptable. Of course one of the things that the Paris Agreement did was set up the process by which we got last year's report from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on 1.5 degrees which really clarified why it is that 1.5 degrees is actually the maximum level that we can shoot for. It was a watershed moment. I mean it really did change the way that we thought about the temperature target. That was why we wrote 1.5 degrees into the legislation. Actually you can compromise on a lot of things in this legislation. We actually have compromised on a lot of things in this legislation but as long as the purpose remains to live within that envelope of 1.5 degrees that really shapes everything else.The other thing is that the Paris Agreement itself says that you know we aim for lower than 2 degrees and pursue efforts towards 1.5 degrees. And of course what we're doing here is we're writing a domestic law to reflect the Paris Agreement. What that means is if you're pursuing efforts towards 1.5 degrees then your goal has to be 1.5 degrees because if it's kind of well below 2 degrees but not 1.5 degrees then you're not actually aiming for 1.5 degrees. In other words you're not actually pursuing efforts towards 1.5 degrees. So that was why we wrote that the way that it is. It is to say we are pursuing efforts towards 1.5 degrees—that is the goal; that is what we are intending to shoot for.The other thing that I just wanted to point out about this SOP and Mr Muller actually raised this in his own speech is that not through this bill but through the bill that we introduced yesterday the emissions trading reform bill we're actually going to incorporate the entire Paris Agreement into the Climate Change Response Act alongside this bill. What that means is the reference to food production and the adaptation clause of the Paris Agreement becomes part of the canon of law inside the Climate Change Response Act. Now that is significant because of course whether you're an absolute dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist or you're a farmer who's concerned about needing to maintain food production or anybody else frankly there's always been the suspicion that one side or the other is cherry-picking clauses or bits of language from the Paris Agreement to suit their own interests.So actually to include the entire text of the Paris Agreement in whole in the Act just cuts all of that noise out. It says This becomes part of the law itself." Therefore any good lawyer can point to that to say actually the reference to adapting to the effects of climate change with a need to preserve food production—it is in there. It's actually going to be in the Climate Change Response Act as a result I admit not of this bill but of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill that comes in subsequently. So I want to say about SOP 401 that we agree with the intent of the SOP or at least in part with the intent and we believe that it is currently covered by the amendments that have been made either in the original legislation as it was introduced into the House or subsequently during the select committee process. I'll move on to SOP 402 which is about requiring the Climate Change Commission to review achievability of 1.5 degrees in 2024 and ensure that New Zealand efforts are in line with other developed countries. I haven't addressed this yet so Madam Chair—just looking at the clock—if you wouldn't mind extending me the courtesy I'll just speak to this one as well. Thank you very much Madam Chair. We actually do not agree with the intention of this one. Now I think what the Opposition—they make a point about needing to track our climate action in line with a kind of comparison group of countries trading partners other OECD countries and so on. That is fair enough; however the effect of this is that for example if say a large North American country was to pull out of the Paris Agreement and go in the other direction what this SOP would do would tie our action on climate change to their lack of action and then go in the other direction. In terms of the way the SOP is written that is what it says that you have to do. So I accept the principle that you know you don't necessarily need to be the first right—the one country that is out in front. We do want to be in that group however and we do want to be in that group of countries who are particularly OECD countries a comparison group. The other thing of course is that the Paris Agreement itself says that you actually can't downgrade your ambition. You can only ratchet it up. That applies to every country in the Paris Agreement. It's perhaps why the United States pulled out. So the effect of the SOP the way it is written actually would be contrary to the Paris Agreement itself. So I understand the intent. I see what's trying to be done—Hon Nathan Guy: Do you agree with the intent?Hon JAMES SHAW: —but actually the way that the SOP—well actually I do agree with the intent and that is already in the legislation because—[Interruption]—amongst the mandatory—no I'm not kidding—considerations that the commission must pay attention to global action is one of those considerations and that phrase is literally there at the request of the former spokesperson on climate change Todd Muller who did talk about how we needed to coordinate our action with comparison countries and trading partners. So you've won that one. You're already there. You've gotten over the line on that one.Next up is SOP 403 which is about emissions budgets to be split gas. So again the commission in the existing legislation has the ability to distinguish in its advice about how it sees the different gases playing out. The difficulty is and this is an economic point that if you develop separate emissions budgets for each gas it's sort of too defined and a level of inflexibility that could actually end up driving up costs in the economy. So you actually need budgets to be seen as a whole but it is useful in terms of new section 5X(1)(d)—it does say "the proportions of an emissions budget that will be met by domestic emissions reductions and domestic removals and the amount by which emissions of each greenhouse gas should be reduced to meet the … emissions budget and the 2050 target;". So again I understand the point that you do want to be able to see what needs to happen within each gas group. The language is already in the bill but you don't want to introduce the level of inflexibility that that SOP provides for. SOP 404 which is the requirement on the commission to undertake a review of forestry removals from land use—as I said more fulsomely before we believe that this is unnecessary in the primary legislation and actually the three clauses that were added during the select committee process in response to both submissions and the submissions that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) was putting in actually addressed these points and also the importance of the new clause on the importance of land-use decisions for rural communities. So we agree with the intent and again we think that the existing amendments that were introduced in the select committee process actually addressed that concern as it is.SOP 405 which is for the commission to recommend the methane target with the overall framework to net zero by 2050 with the actual target being set by regulation—again I've addressed this point more fulsomely. We don't think that it's a good idea to have that in regulation because then you end up with a target half in primary legislation and half in regulation. But like I said the Minister can trigger a review of the target at any time—Hon Nathan Guy: When are you thinking?Hon JAMES SHAW: —so in fact that 2024 date—happy to have a conversation about that with the member later. Also the range—recognising that that is a concern—isn't fettered in any way by that and there are mandatory considerations that they have to pay attention to.So those are the five SOPs that we've received from the National Party. We also received 406 and 407 from the ACT Party. As I said in response to David Seymour before we believe that the considerations he has about the economic impact of constraints on international units are actually taken care of in the existing legislation as a result of the mandatory considerations that the commission has. And 407 which was to remove the emissions reductions plans frankly is the most ridiculous provision because what it says is that you can have a target but you can't have a plan. In fact the whole point of all of this is to have a plan. I think actually it might have been Mr Muller before who said—or one of the Opposition MPs was saying—you know if you just spend all of your time setting targets—sorry it was Dr Nick Smith. Dr Nick Smith was making the point that if you spend all of your time arguing about what the target should be and you have no provision for any plan to achieve that target well it is all just hot air. And that is in fact—hot air—is what we're arguing about. So with that I would just like to say that I do want to thank the Opposition—and I include obviously the ACT Party in this—for the thoughtful approach with which they have taken these. The SOPs that we have received are based on good advice either from peak industry bodies in the agricultural sector the PCE or other sources. They are well thought through. My belief is that for almost all of them we actually do agree with the intent in part or in whole and the provisions that we have written in either when the bill was introduced or during the subsequent stages actually take care of those concerns. So with that I would thank the Opposition for the way that they've engaged in this entire process and thank them for their contribution."