Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Well what a shocking speech that was. I've been in the House for 14 years and I've never heard one like that. A speech that was full of rhetoric with no real substance. It was clear that the member the Rt Hon Winston Peters didn't have a clue what the bill is about and what he's going to vote for shortly in the first reading.I'll tell you what's happened with New Zealand First. They got hoodwinked into signing up to this because they were doing a backroom deal on agriculture coming into the emissions trading scheme (ETS). That was it. So when their chief of staff came to their caucus meeting and briefed the leader of New Zealand First and said Yep. It's all fine. We've got the split gases. That'll be fine. The industry will back this outrageous methane target."—he didn't use the word outrageous—Mr Peters went "Oh yeah. OK. That's fine—that's fine." Well he's been sold a puppet. And we heard that this afternoon because Mr Peters doesn't even know what is in the bill.Now this debate this afternoon is about head and heart. It's about emotional versus financial. Actually what we heard from Mr Peters was none of that. He wasn't quite sure whether he was speaking with his head or his heart. There are massive financial considerations in this bill and it's been talked about by our leader this afternoon—potentially $10 billion on cost a year which is about $300 billion out to 2050. Those numbers are a big concern to us on this side of the House. We realise that we need to do something. I think the whole of the Parliament—well we're going to hear how everyone's going to vote this afternoon. But when I look and read the regulatory impact statement and I read the section from Treasury in which they say that economic losses incurred via droughts and floods over the last decade have been $720 million dollars it's clear to me that things need to change.What we're voting on this afternoon is effectively the commission how the commission is going to work and these targets. And the targets are actually very challenging: 95 percent of the personal vehicle fleet—it's about 4 million cars at the moment on the road—they will need to be electric by 2050. Then you look at renewables: 98 percent of renewables for our energy sector will need to occur by 2050.Here's a question for the other side of the House—maybe for the next speaker. Will the Government reform the Resource Management Act to allow some of these big energy projects—whether it's hydro whether it's wind farming or whether it's geothermal—to be built quicker? I mean can we have an answer? No—no. So the reality is we've got these grandiose targets. You get back to the emotional versus the financial. Yes everyone wants the climate to change and we agree that we need to back this bill at the first reading but I have personally got quite a few concerns and I want to spend the next few moments talking about those.We agree with the split gases. We agree with the commission. But we don't agree with the biogenic methane reduction out to potentially minus 24 - minus 47 by 2050. When you look at what all of the agricultural sectors have been saying over the last week—it starts with Federated Farmers; they're saying "Outrageous it will really hurt rural communities". Then you step it down to Beef and Lamb something a little bit softer but still concern and alarm. Dairy New Zealand—very concerned as well. So you've got the engine room of the New Zealand economy concerned about these methane targets. Then we've heard this afternoon from Simon Upton the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who came out and said—actually he is a fantastic individual well-researched his report is well worth reading—that the methane target should be in the vicinity of minus 10 to minus 22 and we heard something similar from David Frame. Of course what we've also got to realise—nitrous oxide is down to zero. Actually the rural sector is saying "Yes we can do that but we know it's going to be tough". So farmers have been adopting technology for a long period of time; they have been making incremental changes. We heard a great quote before from Todd Muller that the agriculture sector is the most efficient producer of food in the world. What we don't want to do is load them up with a whole lot more costs that are going to slow down the New Zealand economy—$45 billion of exports are generated by 50000 farmers who go on to create 300000 jobs. So if the Government takes their eye off those people it will slow down the New Zealand economy and that is a hell of a concern. Now what's happened in the last week—it's been fascinating hasn't it? Shane Jones has been getting it in the ear. His phone in his office and his cell phone have been ringing around the clock and I'll tell you what he's been getting it on two fronts: the methane target being ridiculous and also that this billion trees target is starting to have a real impact in rural communities. So what does Shane Jones do? He doesn't just accept the criticism and say "Yes we'll have a look at it". He comes on the country radio station and says "Those farmers when they're not milking their cows they're out there whingeing and moaning". That's right just attack the farmers. So when Winston Peters stands up and says this afternoon "We're going to try and do all we can to support the agriculture sector to change" one of his sidekicks is out there saying "They're a whole bunch of whingers and moaners". Then about 48 hours later he's back on the radio doing a mea culpa and doing a Clayton's apology. But that one particular comment will resonate right through to the election because we will keep reminding farmers that New Zealand First said to all our hard-working farmers that they are a bunch of whingers. Now farmers aren't those people; what they are doing is they are concerned about the billion trees. We had the Labour Party and the Greens and New Zealand First in the election campaign saying "We're going to tighten the Overseas Investment Act". Well yes they did—they tightened it on housing they tightened it on farm ownership but wait here's the rub: they loosened it for overseas investors to come in and buy farmland and plant trees. So what you're seeing right now is all of these investors coming in and gobbling up land. You've got big concerns on the East Coast of the North Island and into the central North Island where farmers are worried about their communities. This bill here will do nothing to help them. I'll tell you why: it's because farmers can't offset their emissions by planting trees. They can't go and buy the farm next door and plant it in trees like Z Energy like Air New Zealand like the big power generator Genesis can with carbon farming.So these are the things that are going to need to be debated in the select committee. What we also need to hear from James Shaw—I thought in the week's recess he might have come out and said "Yes we've reached a negotiation with New Zealand First. Agriculture is coming into the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)". There's a big discussion to be had about whether that is going to be seen as just another tax. I reckon it will. This Government's ruled out the capital gains tax environmental taxes. But wait it's like the Ginsu knives—but wait there's more. There are more—there are more taxes coming and it is agriculture coming into the ETS. Now here's my bet this afternoon: when James Shaw stands up and says agriculture—and it will be with Damien O'Connor because he's the guy that wants to inflict more costs on rural communities; he said it in the first few days when he was Minister. They'll do a joint press release and it will say "Agriculture's coming into the ETS but we haven't got the measurement sorted to be able to collect the data inside the farm gate. As a result that will all be collected at processor level." That's going to be seen as another tax and it won't change behaviours. So I want to summarise in the last few moments: we support the intent of this bill. We are really really concerned about that methane target. If New Zealand First had done their homework they would have wrestled that target down and actually this debate this afternoon—I think it would have gone a hell of a lot better than it has this afternoon. There's a lot of work to be done in the select committee. We'll be constructive but we remain very concerned about the methane targets and the costs not just on rural communities but the cost on New Zealand. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."