Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Can I begin by acknowledging Dr Kennedy Graham and the work that he has done in leading the GLOBE group here in New Zealand. I would have to say that the work as has already been alluded to—he has been tireless in this whole endeavour. I have to say and I am sure all the GLOBE members will agree it has been a great collegial exercise. It has been a fantastic opportunity to get to know other people from across the House at a different level and to discuss things of common interest. So I really do appreciate the work that you did Kennedy.With that in mind I think my role today is to speak about the National caucus and where we sit on this. I very much enjoyed working with my colleagues led by Scott Simpson to sort out our foundation stones that we could agree on across the other parties as a basis to work forward for our response to climate change. I think that is a really important place to start. As has already been said this cannot be about a party and it cannot be about a Government; it has to be about Parliament because it is—as Kennedy you said—a commons issue. So we have to think in that way.The report itself I think is a great report. It offers four different options but of course we are really talking about the top two or three as the ones that we will be considering I believe across the House. I think one of the things that we have to think about in the future is agriculture and the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and how that might respond. My own view is that we have to get a few things in place before agriculture could be involved in an ETS. I think it is important that those people impacted by this trading scheme have to have the mechanisms to actually mitigate their emissions and at the moment that is not possible under the current technologies although this space is moving very quickly.If we go back to 1998 through to 2008 there was a tremendous amount of change in the dairy industry and there was great growth in dairy herd. So farming systems and farming choices of how land is used can change very very quickly. I think that we do not want to underestimate that that could happen on its own in response to other market forces so I am not too keen for New Zealand to foist an economic hair shirt on itself simply to meet a goal that would only force that production to go offshore into an environment where the net damage to the environment may in fact be worse.I think of the example of aluminium being manufactured in Iceland when indeed we can manufacture high-grade aluminium here from renewable sources. I think the world needs aluminium high-grade aluminium and doing it from renewable energies is a very good place to keep it. To force it offshore may well in fact have a less desirable impact on the environment. So we have to be very mindful of all of those.One of the issues with enteric methane is that it is a different gas—a different carbon dioxide climate-change gas. In fact that has even been recognised by Generation Zero with its Zero Carbon Act. In the proposal it proposed baskets of gas and a flow gas like methane being in a separate basket that would not have a zero target for it. I think that is really worthy of consideration. I also like its idea of 5-year targets and checking against those. We have had the pleasure of having Lord Deben out here who talked to us and I know that he proposes a similar process.I think all of those things are very worthy of consideration and certainly the National Government agrees with that. I go back to where I began and say that really I am very happy to be involved in such a collegial group. We have got a very big task ahead of us. We are only very early in the process. I think we have got a long way to go but we just have to continue to keep working in the way that we are and we will get the result that will be in the interests of everyone in New Zealand. I will leave it there and commend it to the House.