Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Well it's great to hear that the National Party will be supporting this bill at second reading at last. The National Party have been sitting on this issue for nine long years and they gutted the emissions trading scheme and this Government—this coalition Government—has come together to pick up the wreckage of climate change that has been left behind.To suggest we are doing this now because it's important it's critical and it's urgent—now I must say I was privileged and honoured to chair the hearings at the Environment Committee but it is entirely wrong to say that it was a rushed process. It was a careful and considered process and it does a great disservice to this House and to that member's colleagues who sat assiduously throughout hours and hours of hearings and listened carefully to those submitters and to the officials who helped us meticulously go over iteration after iteration of this legislation to make it what it is today which as the Minister for Climate Change kindly said is a much improved piece of legislation.This was not a rushed process but that's not to say it's not urgent. It's not a time to delay and defer any more. Thank goodness at least the Opposition isn't denying—at least most of them aren't denying—any more. So it's an important piece of legislation. I think that this is the first piece of legislation which is going to put obligations on a Government 30 years down the track. We're not looking forward just a few years—not one two three or even 10; this is a 30-year piece of legislation and beyond.We had 10200 submissions and can I say I want to make it clear to submitters that they were all considered. One of the really gratifying things about it was that many submitters came with different views but they came almost universally with an acceptance that something had to happen now. Whether they were farmers talking about how they recognised that farming practice had to change that land-use change would occur—but the farmers to their credit came to talk about how that should be managed. Not to oppose it but to talk about management. Industry came and again recognised that zero carbon zero greenhouse gases in 2050 is a non-negotiable target: it's got to happen. We have an existential threat and it must happen. They wanted to talk about how we get there how we move along that track how we innovate how we manage the changes that are going to be necessary. City folk came along as well plenty of them; in their droves. They know they have to change as well. The economy—we saw the projections we saw the economic modelling. We know this is going to have an economic impact and people's lives and their lifestyles will have to change. That is a good thing.So I want to say to those people that we went and heard from in Christchurch Auckland Hamilton Palmerston North Nelson Tauranga Dunedin and Wellington that you were listened to and a lot of the things you said have found themselves in this next version of the bill. But what is clear is that we were told to get on with it that we have a strong mandate and a mandate to be ambitious to be zero carbon and to go for that 1.5 degrees Celsius warming target to keep warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius because we know change outside of that would be truly catastrophic. It would have consequences for New Zealand and elsewhere. I want to say that New Zealand is leading here as we should because we can. Because New Zealand has the resources the ability the knowhow and the political will to get on with it. We've got to do not only our fair share but more than because our Pacific neighbours need our leadership and they need our help.So there are some major changes in this bill. One I want to go straight to that was touched on by the Minister is the fact that public bodies local authorities departments and Crown entities can take into account targets and budgets. That is important because when a Crown entity of some kind comes to make a decision it is entirely appropriate that they can say We want to factor climate change into our decision"—whether it be a purchasing decision whether it be a management decision whether it be where they buy their paper from they can take into account climate change.Importantly—that section is new section 5ZK inserted by clause 8—new section 5ZK(2) was removed from the bill. Now that removal is important because that clause said that a failure to take into account does not render any decision void or illegal or ultra vires or whatever. Now we have deferred—the Environment Committee considered this and thought it appropriate to defer that question to the courts. So it is now open to the courts to look at what effect not taking climate change budgets and emissions targets into account might have on any particular decision. It is possible that a court could find that the decision was so climate-relevant that the entity ought to have taken that into account and it was wrong for them not to. So I leave that to the courts and I trust that the courts and judges will look at that very carefully indeed. Another important insertion into this bill is found in new section 5L(ea) inserted by clause 8 and that is the recognition of the impact on Māori and iwi: that in making decisions the commission must consider—mandatory consideration—the Crown/Māori relationship Te Ao Māori and the effects on iwi. We know that many of these effects—economic impacts land-use changes—will affect our Māori communities more than others. I'm very glad that we were able to listen and put that in there.Also a lot of submissions—many many submissions and I'm not going to name them and a lot from I think the Extinction Rebellion group—identified maritime and aviation fuels as a really important point. Whilst there is a set of negotiations going on at an international level they were quite right to point out that at the present time there is simply a gap and so new section 5OA inserted by clause 8 says we're going to relook at that. We want to give the commission the ability to come back and say: "That problem still exists. It's a large part of the carbon emissions and we want to be able to bring them back into this domestic scheme." So I do think that that's a very important change and again the submitters had a real impact there.And what's more—the other thing that I really want to emphasise is that we listened to submitters who were concerned about the impact on communities and land-use change because land-use change is important and along with that the economic impacts. The National Party—and I'm really glad that they're supporting this bill at second reading—have really pushed for explicit recognition of economic impact. Well throughout this bill the impact on communities on their incomes on how they do business can be appropriately taken into account. It's all there.So I'm hopeful that we will get cross-party agreement on this as we come through the subsequent readings of this bill because this is an issue which requires political consensus and any party that takes this matter seriously recognises the urgency of the problem and is prepared to make hard decisions and ambitious choices absolutely we need to be on board with. But it's not time for being weak-kneed or for any delay.The really important thing of course—the centrepiece of this bill which we all agree on—is the independence of the Climate Change Commission and the fact that this body will be giving clear strong guidance to the Government about what steps need to be taken. That needs to be absolutely preserved and promoted. I'm hopeful that we will indeed get to the third reading of this bill and we'll be unified on it because this zero carbon bill is absolutely at the centrepiece of what this Government and this House needs to do not for today not for tomorrow but for 10 30 50 years and for ever. I commend the bill to the House."