Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Speaker. Dr Duncan Webb who is the chairperson of the Environment Committee has ended with quite a considered contribution but I note at the commencement of his speech he was quick to forget that it was in fact a National-led Government that signed up to the Paris Agreement that it was a National-led Government that invested heavily in an electric vehicle (EV) fleet and EV technology that it was a National-led Government that invested heavily and promoted renewable energy in the electricity sector and that it was a National-led Government that again invested very heavily in our natural environment in cleaning up waterways—hundreds of millions of dollars—and investing in Predator Free so that our natural landscapes could flourish and equally contribute to reducing carbon in our atmosphere. So this Government should acknowledge the contribution that the previous Government made.With that we on this side of the House have taken our commitment to climate change seriously throughout this process undertaking due diligence as we have gone through the select committee process. I want to first of all thank the officials. Certainly I did not come into this as a climate change expert; I certainly don't leave as a climate change expert. I want to thank the officials' patience for taking us through some very detailed and technical information answering our questions so well and helping us understand the full ramifications of what this architecture bill could bring about. As my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson has said we do rise in support but we do have some concerns about the bill moving forward.We heard from 800 individuals and organisations throughout the width and breadth of this country. Certainly on this side of the House we took it very very seriously. We heard from students who are passionate about climate change we heard from industry we heard from activists and we heard from farmers. We acknowledge the anxiety that is out there with respect to climate change. Equally on this side of the House we acknowledge the anxiety that some industries and farmers feel as they have been isolated and alienated throughout this process. That is not fair and that needs to be taken into account and acknowledged equally as we move forward. Nobody is denying that this country shouldn't move together and do something about climate change. However it is our contention that the so-called just transition needs to be measured and only move through at a pace in which everybody is comfortable and that we don't unnecessarily pick winners and losers at this point in time. There is no point having an absolutely green country with no wealth to go with it where our people cannot live cannot produce for their family and allow livelihoods moving forward. There is absolutely no reason to destroy New Zealand as we move forward.So National has taken this process very very seriously. We have been very respectful of people with opposing views who have submitted but there is an underlying set of rationales that we have subscribed to as we have gone through this process. Our thinking is that this process must be a science-based approach and that we must have a focus on innovation and technology advancement and not solely be focused on reduction of consumption only. Again that's called picking winners and losers too early and moving at a pace that is out of step with our international friends and colleagues. We want to make sure that New Zealand is strong moving forward in an economic sense in a social sense and equally in that environmental space. That ultimately comes back to the economic impacts. Often a National Government gets hauled over the coals for being focused on the economics but quite frankly if you do not have a strong economy there is absolutely no way that you can invest in essential services that help people and of course it is people at the end of the day that is that underlying necessity; it is people that we need to take care of moving forward.So look this is a framework bill. The National Party agrees with the 2050 target but we want to see more alignment with the Paris Agreement. We don't support the methane target because that's not based on good science and it certainly at this stage is tying our good farmers' hands behind their backs with regards to food production and as the Paris Agreement says the protection of food production should be noted and looked at as we move forward as a global community. The other thing is that we certainly support the formation of an expert-led commission. That is important because we want decisions we want plans for budgets moving forward to be the most objective that they can be based on good information based on good science.I have a couple of concerns that I want to pick up on before I conclude my contribution and the first is this over-reliance on forestry as the panacea that is going to get us through this so-called crisis. We have looked throughout this process at the select committee process at economic modelling at the tools that are currently available to us to reduce our targets and move towards the 2050 targets. Forestry is a main part of that.What it boiled down to is that what we needed to do was basically plant out the size of the province of Otago in pine trees finding suitable land throughout New Zealand land conversion to do that. In my mind what we've already seen with pine plantations taking off is a devastation of our rural communities. If you continue to plant pine forests you take away arable land from our farmers who are the most efficient producers of food in the world; you devastate rural communities; families leave those towns and that could mean that the local doctor ends up leaving; the teacher ends up leaving the rural school; the roll drops; and next thing you've got the school closing and rural communities are completely—Hon Shane Jones: Scaremongering.SARAH DOWIE: —devastated. It may come as a surprise to Mr Jones but not all of us want to live in high-rises or in cities. Some of us want to live in the provinces some of us want to live in rural communities and some of us have lived a life off the land conserving our land and producing some of the best food exported across the world and they want to continue for generations to do that. It should be supported certainly acknowledged in the Paris Agreement that food production is a necessity and therefore we want to make sure that the framework that this bill puts in place acknowledges that there should be a cap on forestry and a cap on land-use change at least some sort of strategy—Hon Shane Jones: More regulation.SARAH DOWIE: —behind it so that New Zealand's way of life can be protected—Hon Shane Jones: National Party red tape.SARAH DOWIE: —across the main and that food production is protected moving forward. That was certainly a sentiment illustrated by many submitters and it is something that needs to be looked at moving forward acknowledged and certainly not shouted down Mr Jones as something that is simply scaremongering.