Meanwhile, I actually do want to debate something that I think matters to New Zealanders a great deal more than the location of a painting—and that is climate change, something that I think is going to affect people a lot more than the location of a parliamentary painting. That is a debate that I am interested in having. Because, on Monday this last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their latest scientific assessment about the state of things in relation to our atmosphere and our climate. It is of critical importance that this House pays attention to contents of that scientific assessment. What it essentially says is that the modelling that people were arguing about 20 and 30 years ago has actually turned out to be completely accurate, that global temperature increases are roughly in line with what the modelling predicted. The big variation, however, is that the effects of climate change—the droughts, the floods, the fires, the storms—are happening sooner, they're happening more frequently, and the effects are more severe than the modelling predicted. In other words, for most of the history of climate change policy in Aotearoa and around the world, we have thought about climate change as something that is happening in the future, somewhere else, to someone else—to polar bears in the Arctic, in the future, maybe. But what this report shows is that the floods in Germany, the fires in Greece and in Turkey, the fires in the Port Hills and Nelson, the floods in Westport and North Canterbury, the catastrophic droughts that we've seen in Australia, in the Midwest of the United States, the Californian wildfires, the Australian wildfires—all of those disasters can show a direct line back to human-caused climate change.