Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for giving a very good and comprehensive overview of the working of the select committee that got us here to the second reading of this bill this afternoon. The Environment Committee worked very hard and very diligently and we had to because we were working to an incredibly tight time frame that was imposed I think unnecessarily by this Government. As the Minister said there were over 10000 submissions and the committee heard more than 800 oral submissions presented in person many of them around the countryside when the committee was sitting in subcommittee.It was rushed unnecessarily and the purpose for the rushing of this seems to have been now made clear. It was obvious in recent weeks that the timetable the Government wanted to complete this legislation was so that the Prime Minister could go to APEC in Chile in mid-November and then that the climate change Minister could also go to Chile to COP-25 and wave around a piece of legislation and say we've delivered—little New Zealand has delivered. Well of course since then events have overtaken those things and both those conferences in Chile have been cancelled but we still seem to be proceeding now at breakneck speed to get this bill through the House. Today we have the second reading; tomorrow the committee of the whole House; and then on Thursday the third and final reading.When the bill was first introduced the National Party supported it at first reading and we did so on the basis of a speech that was made by our leader Simon Bridges back two years ago at Fieldays at Mystery Creek where he set out the parameters upon which we wanted to engage with the Government in an open and bipartisan way to try to achieve the objectives of bipartisanship on this bill. I have to say that those principles that we outlined are still the same principles that we hold to today in considering the second reading of this bill.Now I do want to acknowledge that in the course of discussions between introduction and second reading today there have been continuous and ongoing discussions between my predecessor Todd Muller; the Minister; and now myself and indeed our leader.I appreciate the Minister being willing to engage on those matters because it's still our view—it's still our view—that there is benefit in the establishment of an independent science-led commission that will advise Governments present and future on what steps and what policies need to be taken to achieve the commitments that we made at Paris. So we are at a position where there are several changes after select committee—notwithstanding the changes that the Minister has indicated and that have occurred at select committee there are still several concerns that we have. They're the concerns that have been raised not only by members of the National Party on the select committee but also by a large number of members of the public during their submissions written and oral and also by people such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. So there are several changes that we are seeking and will continue to seek as this bill proceeds.What we are led to believe is that the coalition Government is at one on this bill and that New Zealand First has agreed to support the conditions of this bill as reported back by select committee and that would appear to be the case. The Rt Hon Winston Peters no less has said publicly that his party will support this bill; that they will endorse for instance a methane target reduction by 2050 of somewhere between 24 and 47 percent knowing full well the implications of what that might mean for agricultural New Zealand and knowing full well what that might mean in terms of our competitiveness as an export nation reliant on the income for our collective wealth as a nation largely on the back of agriculture and exporting primary products from New Zealand.So we still do have these several concerns and I want to take a moment just to outline them in broad terms because I think that they are relevant as we proceed through this debate. The first one is that we feel strongly that actually it shouldn't be politicians that set the targets for reductions in methane. We support the split-the-gas approach by the way. We think that's a good initiative and a good sensible piece of practicality. But why should it be that the politicians—who let's face it other than the member Shane Jones are not the experts that they might think they are. Now the member Shane Jones is a well-renowned expert on all matters not the least of which is his own importance. But he's not an expert on what the biological methane targets should be by 2050 and what they need to be in terms of a reduction over that period of time.So it's our view that it should actually be the role of the commission that it should be this expert-led independent science-based commission that has been established to give advice to the Minister and to future Governments. We think that they should provide information on that. So we will at the committee of the whole House be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper that reflects that change that we seek.The second area where we seek to make change is in relation to food protection. We would like to see the words used in the Paris Agreement that provide for food production to be protected in terms of emissions reductions. We'd like to see those words reflected in the purpose clause of the bill and they currently are.The third point is that we want to make sure that initiatives and steps taken by New Zealand are in step with those taken by other global players by other countries particularly the signatories to the Paris Agreement. We would like to see stronger consideration for global action and review of global action particularly if other countries a few years down the track are not making the same sacrifices are not making the same changes are not making the same impacts that we will be taking if this bill is passed.The fourth area is that we think there should be a stronger focus on the economic impacts that the commission must consider when providing advice to the Minister and Governments on what emissions targets should be and what the impacts of those targets will be in terms of actions for individual New Zealanders for their families and for their businesses.The fifth point is that we are worried as so many New Zealanders are about the ability to offset forestry or use forestry as an offset and the potential for out-of-control afforestation. Now there are some limits and the Minister has made mention of that. We don't think that the bill goes far enough in supporting those.We take as a sixth point the sensible suggestion made by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that the emissions budgets be split between biogenic methane and carbon dioxide as recommended by the commissioner. We think that's a sensible addition and should be made.Then the last point that we think the bill should include is some sensible application of significant research and development investment in helping to provide solutions particularly for agricultural emissions. When the select committee travelled to Europe a year or so ago most of the countries we visited when we asked what they were doing in terms of agricultural emissions said to us Well look agricultural emissions are so far down our list of priorities that we hope by the time we get to them New Zealand will have solved those problems for us."And so we think that some very serious commitment to investment in finding the tools finding the technology finding the science that will give our farmers the answers to reduced emissions actually not only helps the New Zealand economy and New Zealand farmers but helps the world. We think if there is a potential for New Zealand to be a world leader in an area of climate change leadership then it is in providing answers to agricultural emissions questions.So these are all issues that we take seriously and we will be prosecuting further on. My colleagues will go into more detail further into this debate. But I think what's important for the House to know is that the National Party has entered into this bill on the basis of good faith on a sensible balanced pragmatic approach where we want to engage with the Government to try to achieve a result that can be if it could possibly be bipartisan and across the House. So it's for that reason given the reservations that we still have that the National Party will be supporting this bill at second reading."