Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chair. It's my privilege to speak in support of this bill in the committee stage and I want to briefly outline the principles in the bill as I see them and why I think that they are themselves the perfect rebuttal to Mr Seymour and Mr Simpson's contributions and their Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). I do think that whilst they are intended to be constructive contributions and I don't doubt that for a second the fundamental principles in the bill itself will lead us to the answer that says actually the bill as it is drafted is indeed preferable. The Government is here today delivering on a major commitment by passing the zero carbon bill taking us with a framework that will get us to net zero carbon by 2050. We all know in this House I think—those of us who are responsible—that we need to reduce our emissions. We need to have a sustainable future so that our kids and grandkids can have a future on this planet. That part of it is not rocket science and I hope that everyone in this House can appreciate that we only have one planet. As Mr Seymour said it is the same atmosphere everywhere. If we don't do our part in this part of the world we are polluting that same planet for everybody's kids and grandkids all around the world. This legislation is important because it belongs to New Zealand. It is the result of dozens and dozens of submissions—thousands of submissions I'm advised—from across the country from parents students environmentalists farmers scientists. We have a programme as a Government to work with farmers to make sure that they too are supported in the efforts to reduce emissions and there are plenty of good-practice examples out there that we can all learn from. We understand of course many New Zealanders are calling for faster action on climate change and want further action. Once this legislation comes into force the climate commission will be able to suggest stronger action without political bias and that very point starts to speak to Mr Simpson's SOP 405 which recommends effectively as I understand it that the actual target for methane be set by regulation rather than as a part of the more robust process. I think we can't afford to have such a significant issue sent off to secondary regulation. We actually need to make sure that the Climate Change Commission that the process we're putting in place with carbon budgets is robust and stands on its own two feet. It's clear of course that we've had to act for quite some time. Where we got to with this bill is something that should have been in place a long time ago. I had the privilege of working for a former Minister of climate change the Hon David Parker in the previous Labour-led Government and even in that time we had mapped out a path to sustainability that involved biofuels sales obligations a preference for renewable energy and so on. That is why it's so critical that we put in place legislation now—because we didn't act then because it was repealed in a large part. Agriculture was taken out of the scheme effectively and another number of changes were made that diluted progress. David Seymour: I'm not hearing any rebuttal to my speech here. Just a long history lesson.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is why it's so important that we move now. To get to Mr Seymour—he would like to hear in respect of SOP 406 some of the challenges that I have with it. One of course is that the economics of this stuff have been well canvassed before and I think Mr Seymour knows that well. In 2006 Sir Nicholas Stern wrote the 700-page report addressing the fundamental economics of climate change and that report way back then—he was chair of just about everything back then in the UK that had to do with economics—showed that the economics are always much simpler if you act sooner you act decisively. Not only is it good for your country because it puts you in an economically smarter position but it's also good for the planet because the costs of mitigation further down the track are way more expensive. I think Mr Seymour really understands that. So I think given that fact we can discount a little his SOP right from the start.Of course in this bill the climate commission is one of the critical things that we're doing and that independent advice the ability to monitor for progress towards the climate target is absolutely critical and the emissions budgets that will be set and the fact that they're independent. I want to talk a little about the Environment Committee recommendations and the nature of the Minister's response to those because I think that they speak—[Time expired]