Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to give my maiden speech today—oh well one can only improve. Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to spend a few moments reflecting on the contribution on climate change that we covered in the Vote Environment Estimates a few weeks ago. Not surprisingly Minister James Shaw spent a fair amount of time talking about the Government's intent with respect to the zero carbon bill the target and the consultation process. But there were some areas that we felt from an Opposition perspective belied the rhetoric and actually signalled some pretty poor judgment and I do want to reflect on some of those observations this evening.The first is that if you are determined in a bipartisan way to establish a climate commission that is above reproach that is non-political and that is evidence-based and informed by good data and good judgment the very first thing you don't do in establishing an interim climate committee to do the pre-work for that commission is to give them tasks that are entirely informed by your own political bias and prejudice. To ask that interim committee to prioritise the areas of renewable energy taking it from 85 percent as we currently are through to 100 percent and putting agriculture into the emissions trading scheme (ETS)—two word-for-word platforms from the Green Party manifesto 16 months ago—talks in my view to some pretty poor judgment. If you are serious about having an informed conversation at a climate committee around the sorts of areas that perhaps should have some focus as we move as a country across the decarbonisation journey the discussion that we had in that select committee suggests that those two are not the two that you would prioritise. The conversations that we had with the Minister tested why renewable transport wasn't included in the interim climate committee's considerations over the next 12 months why forestry wasn't why land use change wasn't and the opportunity to actually reflect on what we could do differently to capture the carbon that is sequestered in this country—why was that not part of their interim climate commission? What about the opportunities for renewable industrial processes? Why was that not covered in the interim committee's mandate?This was a specific issue that we raised with the Minister and in particular the question that I raised to him: why wouldn't the merits of the extractive industries—oil and gas and its future particularly gas as a transitional fuel—not be considered by an interim commission? If you are truly serious about building a bipartisan platform on climate change—one that is evidence-based—you would task your best people to look at the questions which are material with respect to climate transition not the two issues that your base in the Green Party are particularly enamoured with.A particular one of the areas that we pursued specifically with the Minister was his particular belief that access to international markets and international units should be something that we approach as a country as a last resort. We tested thoroughly at the committee that that is poor poor logic—that when you are looking at the exposure of our economy over the 2020s and the 193 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that needs to be somehow removed from our emissions the fact that this Government and particularly this Minister is so reticent in pursuing the opportunities for access to international units was disappointing and particularly the very small number of 700000 that supposedly is going to facilitate the access to these international units in the market. As a Budget it was woefully inadequate in terms of delivering against that strategy. Thank you Madam Chair.