Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Tēnā koe Madam Assistant Speaker and as this is my first opportunity to say a few words in the 52nd Parliament can I add my voice to those who have acknowledged your elevation to the Assistant Speaker's role. I actually was personally very pleased when I saw that. I think you'll do a tremendous job and it is a testament to your talents that you've brought in over the last few years that you've been here.Can I also acknowledge everyone who has been returned or elected for the first time to this great House and particularly Angie at the back there sitting in exactly the same seat that I was in three years ago. This could be you in three years sitting out here—Hon Scott Simpson: Or less.TODD MULLER: —or potentially less. But seriously it's great to see you here and I look forward to working with you over the next three years.Can I particularly acknowledge the National Party team who have got elected. I think particularly if you look at our 2017 intake it's a very very impressive group of people. I thought the 2014 intake was pretty good actually but I'd have to say the 2017 intake just talks to the strength of capability and renewal that our party has brought into this House and that has been a legacy of both John Key's leadership and Bill English's. Can I of course acknowledge our leader. As I said to a huge National Party function a couple of days ago where we had 250 there here is a man who genuinely understands people. Rather than a smile-and-wave approach he actually connects at a very deep and genuine level with people and that actually talks to his character and is part of the reason he remains so popular.When I look out across at the Government in front of me I just have this huge sense that they're still pinching themselves that this thing's actually turned out like it has. In fact I still believe most of the people in the Labour Party still can't quite believe it particularly those who have found themselves on the ministerial benches. You can see that in the lightness of their programme which I'll return to in a moment. But this still has very much a feel that three months ago it was the great Hail Mary pass. For once in politics the pass stuck and there they are sitting there now on the Government benches. But you can tell from the 100-day plan that they have put in front of you that they are seriously underdone in terms of thinking around the vision for the next three years.You can tell that because they have reverted to type. As a former student president I understand this. When the pressure comes on and you actually get a real job the first thing you do is (1) form a committee and (2) bring the people who were here 10 years ago back again to tell you how to run the country. So Sir Michael Cullen turns up. Helen Clark we haven't heard of for nine years—she's suddenly back in full voice. Heather Simpson's upstairs designing how to actually put a Government together.This is a party that simply was not ready and you can see it in terms of the plan that they are talking to. Already the lightness of their agenda has been highlighted. We've heard it this afternoon—some of the flip-flops that we've already had. The trade agreement the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was an affront to democracy! You add the words comprehensive and progressive" in front of the name—now it is the best deal that we can possibly see!I have to mention him because he would be very disappointed if I didn't: Minister Jones. He bellicosely sort of belches billions of dollars is what so far—I've only been in this House for a little bit and this is what I see. It's like "a billion trees" and "a billion dollars"—you know typical of someone who's never really had to own the applying of capital himself. So let's look at that billion trees. Well it's not a billion trees is it? It's half a billion. We've been here five weeks—it's already half. And there's no plan behind it. It's just nice high-level rhetoric. Where's the land? Where are the people trained to be able to plant it? Where is the capital to be able to facilitate it? [Interruption] Actually you're quite right: we can't do all this. We're going to rely on the private sector to do it. We haven't talked to them about it but that's what going to happen.Look that high-level rhetoric is humorous at a level but this business of Government is serious. There is a significant amount of capital that wants to be able to swing in behind a strategy that has merit and the risk here is that the strategy's going to be shown as a laughing stock because there's no detailed thinking behind it.If you go to the billion-dollar-a-year regional development fund I actually agree with my colleague who says that in many respects we want that to be successful. Coming from a region that is extremely successful—the Bay of Plenty and Tauranga at the moment with the highest level of employment in the country the highest level of internal migration to our region—it is an area that has been invested in heavily by private capital but also facilitated by public investment such as Callaghan Innovation and others. They understand that actually you invest where the highest growth is occurring.I want to make sure over the next three years that this billion-dollar fund when you strip the humour and rhetoric away from it is actually a fund that has got serious criteria behind it and that understands that businesses of New Zealand deserve the support where appropriate of public money. Mr Jones can't stand there one second and bellow "Corporate welfare" and in the next second say "Oh and I've got a billion dollars to throw out and haven't really thought about the criteria yet." This is serious. This is public money—taxpayer money. It deserves to have criteria that are defendable and that mean that the communities of Tauranga that I represent have an opportunity to showcase their businesses being able to access it.I do want to spend a moment reflecting on the portfolios that I have been asked to take up as the National Party spokesperson particularly climate change and assisting Nuk of course in Crown-Māori relations moving forward. I'll talk to both of them. I'd like to start on climate change. I had the privilege of travelling with Minister Shaw a couple of weeks ago and I acknowledge him for inviting me as other Ministers in the National Government previously have done to go overseas. He did a fair job—in my opinion more than a fair job—around that forum promoting New Zealand's interests. But there was a concern for me that is starting to become quite serious and that is that we can talk here about ambition; we can look forward to 2050 and have high-end rhetoric around where we want to position New Zealand; we can call it a moral imperative; we can call it even an issue of our generation and in many respects there are aspects of that definition that I am comfortable with—but what I am not comfortable with is this view that we have to be first that we have to be fast and that above all we need to be famous and acknowledged by the NGOs as somehow taking more than our proportional response on behalf of the global community. I disagree with that.The National Party has a strong record on climate change. It has always believed that our response should be proportionate. We should take part in a global community's response but it should be proportionate. There is no premium for being the best and the first. There is also a moral imperative for the families of New Zealand who seek to compete on the world stage selling their goods to the world. Those families understand the importance of the environment. Those families understand the importance of climate change. Those families understand the importance of a proportional response and this country doing our part—and I don't disagree with the fact that we must. I don't disagree that we should consider a climate commission to provide some independent advice. The emphasis is on independence. There's no independence in saying "Oh here's our independent tax working group with Sir Michael Cullen leading it." That's not independence. What is Russel Norman going to head the climate commission? Absolutely ridiculous.But there are some fundamental choices that this country has to make as we move away from a carbon-intensive world and they are very appropriate questions to ask of all of us around our appetite for change—the appetite to actually crystallise the cost of the move. Yes there are opportunities but there will also be significant costs for our trade-exposed industries and it's absolutely critical that we get this balance right. The concern that I have is that our motivation must always be that we must do what is good for New Zealand. It must not be that we must do what the United Nations will give us a gold medal for because it is for New Zealand that we work. It is for New Zealand that we endeavour and strive. It is not to get a gold medal from the United Nations because somehow we've got there first in their view.There are 190 countries on this journey and we are but one and we do 0.16 percent of the emissions. It is important. We must play our part but it must be proportional. Let us not get carried away by international rhetoric saying "Being number one is what counts". Being for New Zealand is what counts. Thank you."