Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I rise to speak on the zero carbon bill and in this contribution I want to particularly highlight some of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that National has put forward. I do so in the context of what previous speakers have acknowledged has been an 18-month process where parties across the House and in particular National Labour and the Greens have come together recognising that an independent expert-led Climate Change Commission is a good idea that having some enduring targets for how we reach our Paris Agreement obligations is a good idea that having an enduring framework for addressing climate change and for considering the economic impacts of the actions we take—all of these are good things and in the spirit of agreement over those objectives we've come together to work on this bill.But it is still a bill that could be improved further and I want to draw the members of this House's attention to SOP 401 which relates to the purpose clause of the zero carbon bill. In doing so I first want to quote from the Paris Agreement because that's where all of this starts. When we signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2016 we were signing up to an agreement that explicitly says that in being parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and being a party to the Paris Agreement we would recognise—and I quote—the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger". We also acknowledge "that climate change is a common concern of humankind [and] parties should when taking action to address climate change respect promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights the right to health the rights of indigenous peoples local communities migrants children" and so on.The relevance of these clauses in the Paris Agreement and what this SOP wants to do is to emphasise that in meeting our goals under Paris we should do so in a way that takes into account and in a manner that does not threaten food production. The reason for that—Dr Duncan Webb: That's not what it says.NICOLA WILLIS —is actually very practical Dr Webb because the reason for that is that we will not make the maximum contribution we can to climate change if we simply reduce how much food we produce here so that countries elsewhere in the world produce it in a more intensive-emissions way or if we do it in a way that results in increased global hunger and therefore a reluctance by developing countries to make any contribution to climate change at all. If we want this to genuinely be an enduring and sustainable piece of legislation it needs to be practical and it needs to ensure that New Zealand truly maximises its contribution.I would argue as an optimist that if we think about our contribution to climate change in terms of doing things in a manner that doesn't threaten food production then that's when we say well let's emphasise the role we can play in agricultural R & D in finding new ways of producing food that are less emission-intensive of embracing technologies that allow food to be produced in a lower-emission way. So it is important that the bill reflects that principle in its purpose statement and that it is therefore interpreted in that way and that is why this is an important SOP because it fundamentally recognises the intrinsic relationship between the actions we take to reduce emissions and our contribution to feeding the world.Look before I move on from that SOP I do want to quite explicitly ask the Minister in the chair who's with us James Shaw and who has been answering questions as they've come up in this debate: why would we not? Why would we not include that commitment to food production in the purpose statement—given it sits right there in Paris it's not something that I think anyone contends with as something that New Zealand should contribute to. Why would we not include it there? I would ask respectfully that Minister Shaw address that.The second SOP that I want to discuss in some detail is SOP 404. This relates to our desire to see a review of the use of forestry assets explicitly included in the bill. Other speakers have done a good job of talking about why that's necessary and some of the advice that the Environment Committee received about the potential impact of the bill on forestry incentives. But in particular I want to draw members' attention to proposed new section 5ZIA(2)(c) in this SOP which says that we think that we should be considering "the degree to which the use of offsets generated from removals from land use land use change and the forestry sector"—[Time expired]"