Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you. I leapt to my feet on this occasion because I did want to invite the Minister for Climate Change James Shaw to comment on the relationship between the provisions of the bill and the Paris Agreement. It strikes me—and it's just disappeared from in front of me which is timely—that the member Nicola Willis was citing from the preamble whereas in respect of issues of food security and of course—Kieran McAnulty: Is that as far as they got?Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —we understand—she may not have read any further than that I don't know—the importance of food security. But my understanding of the agreement is that food security is really about adaptation and the need to make sure that for particularly those low-lying nations facing the perils of climate change that they're assisted. Really Article 2 of the agreement which is in front of me—Todd Muller: Paris Agreement. Read it all out.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —yes I could if you want; if you can't read I'm happy to read it for you—really sets out and the relevant clause is Article 2 1(b) the objective including: Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development in a manner that [doesn't] threaten food production;". Now we understand that the agreement is going to become ultimately part of the legislation when we address the emissions trading part as well. I think it's important to recognise the interrelationship between both the international framework and also what's happening domestically. Now obviously it strikes me that in applying the legislation the agreement itself should be taken into account. And in so doing it appears to me that throughout the bill there's an ability particularly around the adaptation side to take into account food security notwithstanding the protestations from the other side.So I would invite the Minister not only to address that food security question but also to address the issue of the exact relationship between these two documents because obviously we've made clear our 1.5 degree ambition whereas in the Paris Agreement it's less clear it talks about 2 degrees but an ambition for 1.5.The other point I would invite the Minister to reflect on in this Chamber—because there was a lot of discussion at the Environment Committee around the need for accountability in respect of budgets and obviously there were discussions and submissions around them being binding around the Climate Change Commission operating similar to the Reserve Bank—the Environment Committee ultimately thought it could be for this House to scrutinise particularly those budgets that the Minister would present. You may be aware that the Environment Committee wrote to the Standing Orders Committee to suggest in fact that that ought to be accommodated. I'd be interested in the Minister's view of whether (a) that's appropriate and he supports that or (b) whether he think it's going too far because I do think accountability is important.You'd be aware that there was quite some truncation of reporting periods and a lot more tightness around when the various documents have to be tabled in Parliament when they have to be notified and gazetted and when they have to be responded to. We see not only the budgets themselves as important but the real transparency and accountability there.So in respect of that I'd be interested in the Minister's views on whether the kind of procedural machinations in the bill are satisfactory whether they go far enough whether indeed they're too onerous—because we see what goes on in this House and the ability not only of select committees but of open and transparent debate in this House; they're sometimes Minister challenging debates whether it be from one side of the House or whomever's in Government—and whether in fact that kind of scrutiny is something that the Minister would encourage."