Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill. Well what a journey this has been. Just reflecting on the speeches that we've listened to this afternoon my mind—Hon Shane Jones: Following New Zealand First.TODD MULLER: —went back to 2017 when Lord Deben came out to the National Party Bluegreens conference to outline the approach that the United Kingdom take in terms of managing their emissions reduction over time in a way that works for their country. The singular message that he gave to us at that time was As you impart on this journey make sure that you have as your guiding star the fact there must be bipartisan support for the bill or it is not worth pursuing." Not only did we get that very clearly from Lord Deben here as an Environment Committee when we went to the United Kingdom recently we got that from the UK and we also got that from those linked into it in terms of stakeholders from Great Britain.So we now sit here at a time of reflection around "Have we got this legislation to a point where we can have bipartisan support?" When I reflect on this journey over the last year or so I'm struck by the fact that what we have seen here is an ongoing wrestle between the character and integrity and willingness to reflect on other people's perspectives as personified by the Minister for Climate Change and the random pock-marked irrelevant-at-times highly partisan political contributions from New Zealand First which at every point of the process has sought to derail that consensus.We had as has been discussed before in this House a process that went on for a number of months between me when I was in the Opposition spokesperson role and the Minister and we had reached a number of fundamental agreements around the importance of this commission being advisory about the importance of ensuring that economic impacts were considered and that you do take into account both the capacity of the country to change and also its connectedness in a global trading world with our competitors. These were fair points. They were robust debates. As we know it stopped on the insistence of New Zealand First.Then once we had the first reading we went to a select committee. We had had a process—again credit to the Minister—prior to the first reading and in fact prior to finalising the bill where he had run a process with significant opportunity for people to contribute around the sort of thematic choices that sit in front of us. I know that he wanted to have a similar process in the select committee. Again—and those on the select committee know this is true—there was an edict from one of the three coalition partners that "No we want this truncated. We want this sorted by Christmas because we don't want to be talking about climate change stuff next year."So I will not stand here and be lectured and yelled at by Shane Jones in terms of his contribution to this debate because he gives voice to an element which has looked at every opportunity for a partisan point and an opportunity to erode the consensus that actually can exist.Hon Shane Jones: Farmers agree. Farmers agree.TODD MULLER: And the consensus is still potentially in front of us.Hon Shane Jones: NZ First leading the way.TODD MULLER: And I would like to just simply outline—if I can over the continuing harping amplifying the point that I've just made—the points that we think are worthy of consideration by this House for a bipartisan and collective view. I want to step it through in the next few minutes for people at home to reflect and say "Does this sound like positioning from a National Party that is partisan or does this sound like a contribution to enduring framework?" I argue the latter. You'll be the judge.Firstly that the target for the biological methane reduction looking out to 2050 is to be recommended by the independent Climate Change Commission as opposed to the target range that's in the bill. The precise purpose of establishing this commission is that they not only provide the capacity to review these targets—for both the methane and the CO2—but to change them if necessary. We are giving them the power to do this every five years. We are asking them to start this journey by confirming what the target should be—not acceptable.The second point is that we include in the language of the purpose of the bill—as we commit ourselves to a decarbonising journey that seeks to reduce our contribution to global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius and ideally 1.5—that we do it in a manner that does not threaten food production. That is not a National Party narrative; it is in the Paris Agreement. We are simply asking for it to be in the purpose. Silence again from the other side of the House.The third is that we strengthen provisions that consider the level of action from our trading partners. This is not in any way a view that we are not committed to a path of reducing our emissions over time but really I absolutely believe that New Zealanders hold the view that we should do that in a way that makes sense for our communities and our businesses and our exporters and our country. Part of doing that is linking yourself in a global trading context to what the rest of the world is doing. It doesn't mean you can't show leadership where it is in your competitive advantage to show it like we have done with agriculture. The previous Government set up the Global Research Alliance precisely to show leadership in the agriculture space. It is not—and I repeat it is not—a reason to suggest we don't proceed; it is a reason to suggest we do it in a way that is anchored and calibrated with the conditions in which we trade—namely the response of our trading partners. That is not unreasonable. It is not partisan; it is adding to the strength of this bill. We then ask that the appropriate economic impacts—it is mentioned in the bill—we think it could be strengthened. I don't think that is in any way an unusual or insensitive or partisan request. We then asked the commission to consider—simply consider—in its role as an adviser to successive Governments how we should use forestry. To what extent should we rely on it as the crutch that we lean on if we can't actually reduce our gross emissions?I ask again to the House to what extent is that partisan rhetoric? It is not. It is simply a party that right from the start and right from the direction when Simon Bridges said "Let's engage in this. Let's bring a good-faith principle-based approach to our discussions with the Government."—there is nothing in these suggestions and expectations that diverge from that. It is entirely consistent of an Opposition party who when the invitation was put forward by the Minister for Climate Change endorsed by the Prime Minister to engage in a manner that could develop a piece of legislation that endures—they were the principles that underpinned the conversation. They were the principles that underpinned the conversation at the start at the middle and now at the end.I repeat back to what Lord Deben who is the chair of the United Kingdom climate commission said: "We must decarbonise our economy. It is challenging. It requires all sectors of the economy to embrace innovation and have tough decisions around the pace of change. But above all else ensure that when you have legislation in front of the House it has bipartisan support."The National Party has outlined the principles that have underpinned our engagement. It has outlined the five to six areas that we think are justifiable. They are not extreme partisan buffoonery. They are considered additions to this legislation to make it enduring to actually make a difference. The challenge stays on the table for the leaders that sit in this Government to take up that challenge and actually create something that reflects the better angels of them as opposed to the worst angels of them."