SpeechHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Madam Speaker. I was waiting for that member Jamie Strange to finish off his contribution by saying be kind" because that's certainly the mantra that we're hearing over the other side of the House at the moment. What a very weak contribution from that member from—where is he? Hamilton? I think he's on the list. [Interruption] Oh Waikato Waikato. You would have thought that his constituents up there in the mighty Waikato would have wanted to have heard from him about this very important bill—very technical—and Mr Strange I would have thought wanted to tell his constituents that this bill is a very long and complex bill. In fact it's two parts: it's a bill itself and a Supplementary Order Paper. We debated this through the House recently 724 pages. It's a massive bill. [Interruption] I'll get on to the trees in a moment Mr Webb that you're so keen to see engulfing rural New Zealand. There's a few of them here that have been harvested and when there are mistakes in this bill it'll all come back to haunt you because you were the chair of the select committee and you like to think that you were across all of the detail—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Feel free to leave me out of the debate. You've been here a while. You know that you're not allowed to bring the Speaker into the debates.Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes Madam Speaker I didn't mean to bring you into the debate. Thank you for reminding me. I was actually just alluding to the fact—not you but the chair of the Environment Committee which is Mr Webb.What I also want to talk about is James Shaw the Minister for Climate Change because when we went through the committee stage—I want to commend him for the fact that he answered questions incredibly well. In fact you Madam Speaker were in the chair at the time and you also nodded just then. So I just want to have a token of appreciation through to the Minister to say that thank you for enduring to answer all of our questions on this side of the House. I felt that the debate as part of the committee stage was fulsome. We learnt a lot from your answers and actually a couple of times you referred to your officials and I want to acknowledge them and the work that they did through the select committee. I just feel that this bill being so technical deserved to have some more time through—not the committee of the House but we met through the COVID lockdown and it's pretty hard when you have a bill of this detail and magnitude to be able to actually understand it via a computer screen.This bill underpins the zero carbon bill. This is really where the rubber hits the road. I've already mentioned that this is a very complex and technical bill and it wouldn't surprise me because it has been rushed through the select committee that there will be errors. At some point it will be back into the Parliament to make some changes. I hope there isn't but it wouldn't surprise me. Having been here 15 years I know from time to time when bills are rushed through a select committee process they have to come back into the Chamber to be tidied up. There's three important aspects of this bill that I want to talk about this afternoon in its third reading. The first one is the impact on agriculture the second one is the impact that it's going to have on consumers here in New Zealand and the third part importantly is the impact that this bill will have—and we're already seeing it play out in rural communities—with the billion tree programme.So the first point is the impact on agriculture and I was pleased to see that the agriculture industry stood up and said "Let's work together with the Government." and they came up with an accord that meant that there isn't going to be a tax at processor level because that is not going to change behaviour inside the farm gate. It will just be a crude measure that won't change any behaviour. As a result of that Government worked alongside industry and said "Yes the accord is a good measure." But probably those that signed up to the accord in the agriculture industry didn't realise that there was a part that was slipped into this Supplementary Order Paper that says "Hold on if farmers and industry leaders don't do what they say in farm environment plans by 2022 the Minister for Climate Change and the Minister of Agriculture will basically have the power to enforce a processor levy on farmers at that point in time—in 2025." That is not going to change behaviour from one farm that might be doing the right thing to the other farm over the boundary fence that is not doing so well in terms of the environment."