Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): The National Party takes climate change seriously. I want to just reflect on the fact that as a Minister of the Crown in my last three years I led on the electrification of our vehicle fleet of our energy system and wider than simply electricity when it comes to renewables we saw New Zealand go from 65 percent in electricity to some 85 percent—and on a good day 90 percent. By the way the trend right now is downwards. So we understand these issues. We take these issues seriously.I gave—in fact in one of my first speeches as leader of the National Party at Fieldays on the issue of climate change last year. I set out our principles and our desire to be bipartisan on this issue because I agree with James Shaw that it is too important—economically socially and clearly environmentally—for petty partisanship. Can I acknowledge Todd Muller in relation to that for having done an outstanding job of thinking through the difficult and the intricate economic social environmental issues that go with this area of reform and for working hard with James Shaw with the Prime Minister and with me on this law change. What I said in that speech at Fieldays was yes we believed—in fact before the Government had stated their position I think—in an independent advisory climate change commission with the requisite expertise economically socially environmentally to do the work and the mahi required. I set out our principles in this area that we would follow and that we think should be followed on climate change. It is science based—that we work heavily on innovation and technology; that there are appropriate economic signals; that we are in step with and work closely with our international partners; and that we think very carefully and understand the economic impact of this. I am glad to say that in the bill that is before this Parliament right now those principles that we outlined are there as is the split treatment of gases that we made clear in that speech and our position was the right approach. Those principles those things as I say are in the bill. For those reasons the National Party will vote for this bill at the first reading but I want to be very clear with the Government: on this bill we have real differences with the Government and I've made them clear to the Hon James Shaw to the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and indeed to the New Zealand First Party. We need to see change in this law.The primary area of difference that we have—it may not surprise the Parliament—is in relation to the methane target. There is in short no satisfactory basis for setting the targets in 2030 and 2050 as high as the Government has chosen to do in this bill. The 2030 target is negative 10 percent the 2050 target is negative 24 to 47 percent and I reflect when I think about the 2030 target on what James Shaw has realistically I think said himself: emissions in New Zealand are going to rise into and beyond the mid-2020s. So he is making it quite clear to New Zealand in terms of methane and agriculture and what needs to be done that that change is literally in the last three four five years before that target is to be met in 2030.The stark reality is that the science isn't there yet. I am all for investment in the science. I argued in the previous Cabinet that we needed to increase the funding we were making in Palmerston North in science in the Global Research Alliance to make sure—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well what happened?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well I succeeded unlike you have for most of your career Mr Peters and I also have—Hon Grant Robertson: No room for petty partisanship!Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well I just want to say with respect to the member given that they've chipped away at me for the entire speech it's not exactly the point in time to be making those sorts of comments when I'm reaching out to the Government.I say actually that biotech is an incredibly important part of this answer. I think it's a tragedy that the Green Party outright rules it out and the Labour Party isn't sure of its position. Actually Sir Peter Gluckman and people like William Rolleston who know what they're talking about have made quite clear that it is an essential part of the answer. The reality is that without doing that by 2030 we will be culling significantly our herds. That's not alarmist; that's the reality of the situation. When half of our exports around the world are food Mr Peters who's shaking his head on this issue that's how we pay our way around the world and we take that seriously as well.No one else—none of our partners—are doing this. They may have moved in other areas. There is not a country in this world no First World nation that is moving on agriculture in what is a global problem that requires global leadership. But also if we act unilaterally it simply sends that production offshore and 2050—a target set by the other side unilaterally cherry picked I'm sorry to say for political purposes from parts of the United Nations report but economically disastrous wrong on the science. Don't trust me; ask the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment ask Professor David Frame ask many of the experts in the science throughout New Zealand who argue for a much lower target of 10 to 22 percent methane reduction a target too high in this bill for the National Party and for New Zealand. The whole purpose of this bill it seems to me in dealing with climate change is based around an independent climate change commission that provides reasoned worked-through evidence-based advice and my position certainly is that that is where we should be sending the methane targets for an answer on that issue to be thought through. The Government will say that's non-binding but certainly if done well it's difficult to ignore and I've made those points to the Prime Minister and others.I'm also concerned and the National Party on behalf of New Zealanders is deeply concerned about the wider economic impact of this law. We take climate change seriously but we cannot accept—indeed we believe it's naive—when James Shaw stands up in this House and says that it's the single greatest economic opportunity for us in at least a generation. James Shaw—I respect him; he believes we can bend the arc on climate change quite quickly rip the plaster off and get to some sort of economic innovation nation nirvana. Well the reality is not that simple. Short of someone inventing the new iPhone or the next great big thing this will have very real economic consequences on working Kiwis on working New Zealand families and on their petrol costs and their electricity costs and their incomes and their jobs. Indeed the RIS on this bill—the regulatory impact statement—makes quite clear that even with a tailwind there is $300 billion of cost to 2050 on the New Zealand economy and New Zealand workers and families; a reduction in gross domestic product by 9 percent in GDP $10 billion to $12 billion a year; and indeed at 2050 a $45 billion smaller economy.So I say: let's have an honest discussion with New Zealanders about this—the costs and the trade-offs—but let's be clear Hon James Shaw Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern that those costs are real. There's a phenomenon in our rural communities which I'm sure others in my party will speak about. But what is happening right now with dairy conversions and other farming conversions and the very real effect of this Government's policies the billion trees and so on for no good—that's actually resulting in a hollowing out already in some parts of New Zealand. We worry and we're concerned about that on behalf of New Zealand.We get climate change we want bipartisanship but all New Zealand needs to come on this journey. We want to see this bill changed—it's essential that it is—so that we take out the politics; we do this on the policy. I urge New Zealanders to be heard on this from the students to the farmers right around the country.