Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chairman. I am pleased to be joining my National colleagues in supporting this important climate change bill. I want to give it a bit of a historic perspective in terms of the steps that it's taking forward want to touch a couple of areas where I'm concerned about the bill and also want to strongly commend the work of colleague Todd Muller and more recently Scott Simpson.When I had responsibility for this area of policy in the last Government every single climate change bill was opposed by the Opposition—even bills that would make progress. I actually think the scale and the challenges of climate change are that as much as possible we should try and work across the House and as much as possible we should ensure that each Government is making steps that take New Zealand forward on this issue.In our very first National Budget we went out and set a policy of insulating 500000 homes because that was just a no-brainer in terms of making progress on climate change. In July 2010 we became the first country outside of Europe to impose a price on carbon by introducing the emissions trading scheme. We followed that up with road-user charge exemptions for electric cars. We were big players internationally in securing the Paris Agreement and I'm also particularly proud of the Kigali agreement around the very intense refrigerant-type gases and of initiatives like the cycleways. And if there's anything of which I'm proud of in contrast to previous Governments it's that for 30 years we'd had our emissions from the electricity sector growing and in those Key-English years we were actually able to increase the proportion of renewables from 65 percent to 85 percent.Now in 2016 I was quite taken back in meeting Lord Deben or John Gummer at an OECD meeting of environment Ministers and invited him to come out to New Zealand because I believed that a climate change commission was the next logical step for New Zealand to take. I commend the Minister in the chair the Hon James Shaw for picking that up and the large parts of this bill are about putting the architecture of a climate change commission in place.The reason I feel very strongly that it's a good step forward for New Zealand to take is a level of frustration—as a parliamentarian who was present at the signing of the Framework Convention on Climate Change back in Rio in 1992 during my first term in Parliament—that too much of the conversation around climate change is around setting the targets; too little of it is about the hard change. The reason both in the world and in New Zealand if you look historically at big bold targets being set and then them not being met is actually because people haven't been prepared to have the honest conversation about the costs and the impacts. It is my view that a climate change commission is not some magic answer but it is a useful step forward in setting budgets and getting a more detailed and honest conversation about the changes New Zealand needs to make to reduce emissions.There are a couple of areas where I do want to express some concern about the bill. Yes I'm a nerdy scientist. It's my view that the more honest we are as legislators the more scientifically informed our farmers our car drivers and everybody is about the challenge the more likely we're going to be able to carry the arguments to make the change.I do not support this bill being called a zero carbon bill. It is scientifically and factually wrong. If there's a frustration I have with the Green Party it's this idea of jumping with slogans. The problem is not carbon; the problem is greenhouse gases. Some people may say Well what's the difference?" Actually the only reason planet Earth is so generously embodied with life is because of the existence of carbon. Carbon is a magnificent element. It's what makes life possible. When you label a bill a zero carbon bill you create the impression that somehow carbon is the problem. Carbon is not the problem; the problem is greenhouse gases.Yes the most important of those greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide—not carbon—but many of the greenhouse gases have no carbon in them at all. One of New Zealand's big greenhouse gases is nitrous oxide. I say to members opposite: where is the carbon in nitrous oxide? Some of the most damaging greenhouse gases are gases like sulphur hexafluoride. Where is the carbon in that particular gas? The reason I would much prefer that bills were named honestly and informed the science is in my view we're far more likely to make sensible progress. I know why the Government's called it the zero carbon bill. They want to create this impression that if we magically pass this legislation wonderfully the climate change problem has gone away. That's a gross overstatement of what this bill will achieve. This bill will set up a good framework. It will help us make better decisions on this challenging journey of getting our greenhouse gases down. But by calling it a zero carbon bill in my view it does not help inform the science. It does not help the public understand.I get farmers talking to me and saying "Well why don't we count the carbon dioxide that's absorbed when the grass grows? Why is it that we're so focused on methane?" Now if you talk through the science the reason is because methane—and when carbon is in that particular organic form—is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than if it is in the form of carbon dioxide. And actually if it's in the form of plain carbon it has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. So I make a plea that this would far more sensibly be called a "reduction in greenhouse gases Bill" or a "Climate Change Commission bill" but to call it "zero carbon" is scientifically illiterate and does not help the debate. I also want to support my colleagues around setting targets and I will inform the committee of some of my debate that I've experienced around the setting of climate change targets. I remember at a previous election that one party said "Look you know we're going to aim for 30 percent reduction in emissions by 2030."—the target that New Zealand adopted and we're committed to through the Paris Agreement. And there were parties like members opposite that said 30 percent wasn't nearly ambitious enough; it should be 50 percent. The biggest irony for me was the New Zealand First spokesperson said that 50 percent by 2030 wasn't nearly embarrassing enough either; they were going to do 80 percent. And most members of this House would know: does that really match up with the level of change? Somehow the bigger the bolder the target the more genuine you are about wanting to make progress on this genuine and challenging issue of climate change.I think we need to be a bit more sophisticated than that. I do think it is really easy for this Parliament or some UN assembly to set big bold targets for generations miles ahead that won't have any impact on them. I look for instance at the previous Labour Government. The Clark Government set a target of carbon neutrality. Actually emissions went up by 12 percent during the last Clark Government. We did better during the Key-English Government where emissions were down by 1 percent over those nine years—actually a considerable achievement given the economic growth and the 15 percent growth in population over those nine years.I'm more interested in the policies that are actually going to get those emissions down than us each having a contest about who can set the bigger target at some future date when we are unlikely to be here. I believe the amendments that have been moved by my colleague Scott Simpson show that we're putting the cart before the horse. If we're actually going to set targets in a more informed way if we're actually going to learn the lessons of what's occurred internationally at repeated climate change conventions and in the political debate that's occurred in New Zealand around targets rather than just pulling numbers out of thin air—a billion trees; 100000 homes; a 50 percent reduction in emissions; whatever it might be—let's get an intelligent scientifically economically well-resourced organisation to be able to back up those targets. That's where the sorts of amendments from my colleague Scott Simpson in my view would actually show that we're learning from history we're actually improving how we deal with climate change and before we pull out big bold numbers that we actually back them up with some good science. That is why National is supporting the Climate Change Commission. And we believe if we are going to set robust cross-party targets having set up the commission—and I must compliment the Minister on his choice of chair for that commission. That gives it the right sort of frame in my view and having entrusted that sort of intellect into the Climate Change Commission we should use their expertise and we should help them set those longer-term targets and that will be a far more robust way not just to get cross-party sign-up but to actually give New Zealanders the confidence that we're not just picking targets out of thin air but have done the homework done the budget and have the policies that will actually enable New Zealand to make progress on this issue."