Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. In my contribution I'd like to focus on the 2050 targets but also we've had a number of Supplementary Order Papers put up today which actually—what they're aiming to do is actually already addressed by the bill as amended. So what I'd like to do is just point out some of those areas where the bill actually does what they're hoping to achieve. I think the first one looking at methane targets—we've already had a lot of submissions in this area and some of them did indeed suggest caution; say Fonterra who were saying that the 2050 target for methane reduction is very ambitious and will be extremely challenging. They were supporting a 2050 methane target provisionally set at 24 percent.But equally on the submissions we had the other side. Many of our young people were advocating for much more rapid action in terms of our methane targets. For example Forest and Bird also was saying that basically we've wasted 30 years and it's already too late to avoid some of the impacts of climate change. What they were talking about is stronger leadership. For them what they were asking for is gross emissions of biogenic methane to be at least 20 percent less than 2017 emissions by 2030 and at least 40 percent less by 2040—so on the other hand saying we need to go much more quickly.So the question is coming back to the legislation as amended what does it actually say? Basically what it says is that the commission must review the 2050 target when preparing advice on setting emissions for the budget for the period beginning 2036. That is in 2024. So we do need to and there's a requirement to look at it then. But then looking at what recommendations they can make as a result of that review is actually incredibly broad. It allows that Climate Change Commission to make a number of recommendations: the time frame for achieving the 2050 target but also the level of emissions reductions required by the target; looking at greenhouse gases emissions and removals to which the target applies; and also how the 2050 target might be met including limits on removals and offshore mitigation. So there are a lot of things there that they actually can provide some advice on in terms of how we could move forward.But then looking further it is allowing a lot of other scope for some safety valves in the legislation because what it says also in new section 5Q(2)(a) set out in clause 8 is that the commission may recommend a change to the 2050 target only if significant change has occurred or is likely to occur … in 1 or more of the following" but the actual range of "1 or more of the following" is extremely broad. What it includes is global action—so how we are comparing in terms of our actions to what's happening overseas so that we're actually making our contribution but the impacts potentially on our economy if others aren't. We can take that into account. It also takes into account scientific understanding of climate change and how that will move over time.Incredibly important too is New Zealand's economic and fiscal circumstances and also social cultural environmental and ecological circumstances. What this is looking at is potential impacts on jobs potential impacts on our economy so these things can be taken into account when looking and moving forward in terms of our 2050 target—so incredibly broad scope in terms of some of those things they can look at.And so as Environment Committee members on the Government side we were happy with those targets as introduced because basically that 2050 methane target was originally set with reference to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report about staying within 1.5 degrees of warming. Also these targets we're wanting in primary legislation rather than in regulation because we need to be able to provide clear signals about where we want to go in terms of emissions reduction goals and in particular providing that certainty not only for businesses but also for sectors—for the primary sector—needing to know that actually it is going to require some significant research and some significant thinking before we go and change that because people make their settings based on what we've signalled. So it was really important for us to have that set in the primary legislation but also basically there is the opportunity for that to be reviewed in 2024 and also at any other time the Minister requests.We've also had some suggestions around restricting forestry offsets. This came up also in some of the submissions. Submitters were concerned that relying so heavily on forestry offsets was risky because basically we've got risks of fire pests other climate impacts and what that might do to forestry. Also some of the submitters pointed out the fact that if we're completely offsetting with trees it allows us to go on and continue with our emissions profile. And so basically the sense was: should we limit it because we need to make our contribution in terms of reducing emissions?"