Smith Nick; Williams PotoHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): National is supporting the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill because a climate change commission is a good idea that will help New Zealand make progress on the challenging issue of climate change. This is the National Opposition being both responsible and being constructive about one of the most challenging issues that faces our country and actually faces the world.I brought five climate change - related bills to this Parliament during the last Government. On not one did the Opposition support it. I do say it is a big step for an Opposition party to say yes it wants to back this idea because it's constructive.I'm the only member of this House that was here when New Zealand signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. You might not believe it but I was even younger than Chlöe Swarbrick and I was privileged to be part of the New Zealand delegation to Rio de Janeiro when that initial convention was signed. But if there's an important lesson from the intervening 25 years that this Parliament must recognise it's that good intentions are not enough to be able to address this issue.I've totalled up that over a hundred countries have made bold commitments on climate change that have failed and come to naught. The reason the Climate Change Commission is such an important part of the solution is that it will enable us to be able to have a more constructive a more open and a more honest conversation about how we actually can make progress on this issue. When the world signed up to the UN convention on climate change global emissions were 24 billion tonnes. The commitment was to stabilise them. Today they're 37 billion tonnes or 60 percent greater.I have to say I'm a bit tired of big bold commitments that set ambitions way beyond the term of the Prime Minister or the climate change Minister without the grit as to how you're going to get there. I remind this Parliament that Prime Minister Helen Clark in coalition with The Alliance party including the Greens came to Government in 1999. They said it was our nuclear-free moment". Sound familiar? They said their goal was carbon neutrality. Well what happened during the nine years of that Clark Government supported by both The Alliance and then the Greens? Emissions went up by 10 percent. We actually went backwards on renewables from 73 percent of our electricity being renewable to 65 percent being renewable. So my plea to this House is to not be carried away with big bold intentions but to actually look to the policies that will make a material difference to our country and globally making a difference on this issue.I remember when our party in Government worked hard to secure the Paris Agreement. Members on this side of the House say "Actually New Zealand needs to do its fair share but the solution to this has to be global." and I'm proud of the role that we played in securing the Paris Agreement and of New Zealand's commitment to a 30 percent reduction by 2030. But the part that I do have to challenge parties opposite on—and this part for me is extraordinary—is that in all the talk we know that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the key of this issue. And I choked on my cornflakes—I literally could not believe it when we're describing climate change as an emergency when we're saying it is our nuclear-free moment to hear the Minister for Climate Change say that he expected emissions to continue to increase until 2025. I'm sorry; this has got an awful sound like KiwiBuild and some of the other big bold intentions of Government—of not having follow-through. Effectively what James Shaw said on the radio is that this Government would not do as well as the previous Key Government in making progress and that would be a grave disappointment.I also want to make a plea for scientific literacy around the issue of climate change. I totally support the provisions of this bill that set up the Climate Change Commission. The reason the Climate Change Commission is a good step forward is that with the expertise with the setting of budgets—not just big bold targets but actions—it will enable us to get down emissions and that will help us get there. But scientific literacy is important. This notion of this bill being called "Carbon Zero" is really a misnomer. The first thing is carbon is not the problem; carbon is at the heart of life. There would not be life on this planet without the existence of carbon. The issue is greenhouse gas emissions. Some of those greenhouse gases do not even have carbon in them: 11 percent of New Zealand's emissions are nitrous oxide—I'm sorry; where's the carbon in nitrous oxide? If this bill was to be scientifically literate—and I continually have a problem with the Green Party in not being scientifically literate—it should be a bill referring to greenhouse gases or at the very least carbon dioxide and methane which are the core issues.Now my colleagues have rightly challenged the notion of these incredibly bold targets around the issue of methane one of the significant gases for New Zealand. Here's my problem. I haven't heard a single Government member or the Minister tell us how a mid-range on a 35 percent reduction in emissions can be achieved. You know how I think that can be achieved? I think our best hope is biotechnology. When I look at the development by Landcare Research of ryegrass that can achieve as much as a 20 to 25 percent reduction in emissions I see light I see hope I see a solution. For me what is extraordinary is for the Government to set targets for the agricultural sector that go beyond what the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and scientists have said are realistic and then take away from our agricultural sector and our farmers the very tools that would enable us to achieve those targets. So my last challenge to the Government is let's have a conversation about the actions. I say to Minister Shaw: let's have an honest conversation about the cost. Ten years ago I bought an electric car. It cost me $84000. The petrol equivalent was $26000. There is a real cost. My community at the moment is looking about getting electric buses. The cost of an electric bus is about $800000 compared with $180000 for the diesel equivalent. There is a real cost. If we want to convert over to wind solar and those energies let's have the honest conversation that there is a real cost.For those who pretend that those costs can be ignored I ask them to look at the "yellow vest" protests in France to realise that if we are to win these arguments we need to take New Zealanders with us. Blind open commitments that say there are no cost impacts on New Zealanders in making progress on climate change risk repeating the mistakes I've seen of the last 25 years and it is not being upfront and honest about the trade-offs that we need to have.I'm very proud to have invited Lord Deben to New Zealand the architect of the climate change commission legislation in the UK and of being a member of the Environment Committee that triggered our visit there. In my view the Climate Change Commission is a step in the right direction but don't let any member of this House pretend that establishing a climate change commission is going to take away the really gritty the really tough the really difficult issues that we have to work through in our energy sector in our agricultural sector in our transport sector and in our industrial sector if we're going to have another round of meaningless targets and not get the runs on the board to really make progress on this huge issue. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Your time has expired."