Willis Nicola; Rurawhe AdrianNICOLA WILLIS (National): It's my pleasure to take this opportunity to outline why National is supporting this bill at second reading and our ideas for how it can be improved. I think it's a shame that Kiritapu Allan the member speaking prior to me threw out words like devious" and "deceitful" in relation to the conduct of the National Party on this bill because in fact the case here is that National has been working in good faith with members on the other side of the House since mid-2018 to make this the best piece of legislation it can be because at a fundamental level we agree on some of its core objectives. We believe in the benefits of having an independent expert-led Climate Change Commission we believe in the concept of targets that send long-term signals to the economy and we believe in aligning our action with the Paris goals of limiting global warming.We also believe that this should be done in a manner that does not threaten food security which is also a goal of the Paris Agreement and we also believe that this should be done in a manner that both considers measures and manages the economic impacts of our climate change response. That is why today in this speech I will be addressing the areas that in good faith we think this bill could be improved on. The reason we offer those suggestions is because we genuinely think that for the zero carbon bill to reach its goal of being an enduring piece of legislation it needs to have bipartisan support and for the zero carbon bill to really fulfil its goals it needs to be something that addresses the concerns of sectors and individuals and communities across this country.I have met with the different people who are involved in this debate. I have met with the young people who have striked at Parliament who have come from Generation Zero and I understand their concern to see long-term action on climate change. I understand that they want this Parliament to commit to action. I have met with the leaders in the business community who say "Actually what we really want is some policy certainty. What we don't want is the policies changing from one Government to the next." I have met with the farmers who say "Don't take away my ability to produce food that will feed the world in a lower-emission way than my competitors offshore." I have met with the families who say to me "Climate change is real but please don't make me wear a hair shirt to address it." who are already struggling to feed their families and make the budget balance each week and who say "What cost impact will this have for me?" I think it is the obligation of members in this House to listen to all of those people and to come up with a piece of legislation that does the right thing and that can be genuinely enduring and for it to do that it has to consider—it has to consider—economic impacts and it has to recognise New Zealand's strengths in food production.So let me quickly outline the seven pragmatic areas that in good faith National is suggesting the Government should incorporate into this bill. We think the methane target should be set by the independent Climate Change Commission. We think that saying that the Paris Agreement action should not threaten food production should be incorporated into the very purpose of this bill. We think that the provisions to keep us in line with the actions of other countries should be strengthened. We think that the commission should be required to consider the economic impacts of action and to advise Governments of the day on that because anything else is negligent. If the commission is not advising what impacts this bill will have on the livelihood and on the very wellbeing of New Zealanders their children and future generations then it is not a piece of legislation that will endure because New Zealanders will simply not accept recommendations that do not consider the full economic impact. We think that this bill should split the emission budgets between methane and carbon dioxide.Finally because we're an optimistic bunch on this side we believe that this bill should strengthen its commitment to research and development because we are optimistic that actually New Zealand can make a significant contribution to reducing global emissions and in fact lead the world in some areas including the way that we reduce emissions from agricultural production. But if we're to do that we must take the opportunity on all sides of this House not to accuse each other of bad motives not to accuse each other of having been divisive but to instead focus on creating a principled pragmatic piece of legislation that gets the incentives right that's fair to Kiwi families. I urge members in the Green Party members in the Labour Party to consider our proposals in good faith so that this can truly be a long-term enduring zero carbon bill that actually continues to make a difference for future generations. Thank you Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call David Seymour—five minutes."