Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Madam Speaker. So I've got a message for the Prime Minister: New Zealanders do not want to be first and fast and furious; they want to have a fair go. What we're seeing from what the Prime Minister has just said is that she's very happy for New Zealand farmers to be sold down the river and for New Zealand's economy to go with it.This is a deeply flawed bill. It is a bill however that my colleagues have put forward very very good amendments to and I absolutely support the work that they have done. Not one member of Parliament on the other side of the House—either New Zealand First the Greens or Labour—would support any of those sensible amendments and that is a shame because it would have made this bill a better bill and better able to help New Zealanders actually adjust to a zero-carbon economy.In fact let's just have a look at the facts because I thought we had just heard a speech from a president of the Young Socialist League. I would like us to be able to say to New Zealanders that we will not destroy our economy so that the Prime Minister can have herself on yet another front page of The Guardian newspaper.New Zealanders expect us to make adult decisions not to go down the track of talking about boomers Generation Xers and Ys and Zs and whatevers when actually every New Zealander should be concerned about climate change but even more importantly about making sure that we do not beggar our economy in order to do this. I love the fact that the Government side is shouting out all the way through the speech—that tells me I am saying things that they don't like which means I am saying things that New Zealanders like and agree with because they do not represent the New Zealanders who are out there every day on farms or even in trucking businesses going about their business. They represent the elite who are very excited about anything that attacks the farming and provincial New Zealand.This bill is supposed to be a response to the Paris Agreement and National of course supported the Paris Agreement. But actually what that Paris Agreement did—something that is out of this bill but which we will be putting into the Act once we are in Government in the first 100 days—is the fact that we always agreed in the Paris Agreement that what we did would not halt or stop or impede food production and therefore that says that this bill which will become an Act because it will have majority support is one which will affect food production unless all the measures that our National MPs have put forward are adopted.Hon Shane Jones: A billion—a billion.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think it's lovely to hear the Hon Shane Jones keep shouting out a billion" or something.Hon Scott Simpson: Hot air.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: A lot of hot air coming from over there possibly some methane. What I would say to him is this: New Zealanders we've got around 5 million people here. We produce food that feeds many many millions more. The conservative estimate is 40 million. The more radical estimate is probably 90 to 95 million. And why we can say that is this: we as a country export 95 percent of the food produced in this country. Our economy our ability to buy cancer drugs for kids our ability to have schools and our ability to pay for what we need as a country depend on our agricultural exports and tourism which by the way is quite a big polluter. So we think that what we need to do is to sort out—we know not just think that what we need to do is to amend this bill once it becomes an Act and once we're in Government. Everybody has acknowledged that there is compromise in this. I am deeply concerned by this bill. I am not concerned for the time when we are in Government and we are able to amend it and make it more sensible. That would be a very good thing. Let's have a look at the target of methane of 24 to 47 percent which Dr Deborah Russell—well known to viewers of videos particularly for the National Party—only said just yesterday that that meant we would have to produce a little less food. Well not really a little less; actually quite a lot less—quite a lot less—because this Government refuses to give the agricultural sector the ability to really deal with the methane issues which we will in Government give to the agricultural sector. I'm going to run through the issues that we will be fixing and I'd like to acknowledge all the hard work done by my colleagues here in the National Party who have done the hard yards on this not like the other lot. We will be changing these: the target for biogenic methane reduction to be recommended by the independent Climate Change Commission. Otherwise why bother having it? Why bother having the independent Climate Change Commission if it's going to be a political decision based on how many votes of Gen whatever they've got today as their latest one is going to get them?Our bill in amendment will make clear the stated aim of the Paris Agreement that it's for greenhouse gas reduction but it does not threaten food production. This bill actually the current bill cherry picks from that agreement. We will have stronger provisions that consider the level of action being taken by other countries and allow targets to be adjusted to ensure we remain in step with the international community. The bill that we will be putting through will ensure that the commission considers the economic impacts when providing advice on targets and emissions reductions. The bill will ensure the commission considers the appropriate use of forestry offsets and with regard for the carbon sink represented by tree crops riparian planting and other farm biomass. The bill will also see the emissions budgets being split between biogenic methane and carbon dioxide as recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. And the bill will also include a greater commitment to investment and innovation and research and development to find solutions for reducing emissions. I spent Monday with my colleague Todd Muller with DairyNZ looking at some of the scientific and research work that they're doing around emissions. They are working very hard to help with the emissions. Farmers and the agricultural community are trying their very best to do their bit. But let's be frank here. If we're going to end up as Dr Deborah Russell admits with reductions in food production in New Zealand which exports are going to pick them up? We could say "Well biotech or something." No we're not allowed to do biotech now are we? No. What else could we do? Well tourism that's down 10 percent under this Government and is a big emitter. We could say IT. Well there is actually a place called Silicon Valley which I've also visited and had a look at. They're already doing quite well. And yes we do have some great start-up work going on there but can it compete at the moment or in the very near future with the enormous contribution that the agricultural sector and farmers have given to this country?I am appalled that around the country we have farmers who are desperate because they see this Government throwing them to the wolves. We need to listen to them and at the same time be utterly responsible both for the environment and the economy. The economy is not just GDP. Yes that is important and I'm happy to give the members on the other side a lesson on it but it is also very important for the fact that that is how our country gets the money to do what it has to do. We can either be a country that wants to go back to the UN to say "Look how smart we are." or we can be a country that really does want to make real change and give the agricultural sector the tools to be able to bring this about. This bill is flawed but I know that my colleagues and I will be able to bring through the changes that are needed in the first hundred days of the next term of the next National Government starting straight after the next election. I look forward to it so much."