Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It'll come as no surprise that the Greens will be opposing the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill today so I'd like to walk through some of the rationale for it.Firstly I just wanted to acknowledge my forebears particularly in the Green Party the likes of whom the Hon Dr Megan Woods did particularly the Hon James Shaw for the work that he has done because funnily enough with the new path that this Government has decided to embark on with yet another working group they may indeed find that He Waka Eke Noa was He Waka Eke Nowhere". Once again we are seeing the can kicked down the road when it comes to climate action.This Government also tells us that they want to see pricing on agricultural emissions by 2030. Let's just unpack why agricultural emissions should be priced in the first place because I think that's kind of a foundational argument which has kind of been avoided thus far in the debate. Agriculture is currently the only sector within our economy that does not carry with it a price in terms of the emissions trading scheme. It is the only sector which currently is excluded from the emissions trading scheme. Its inclusion is a debate that we have been having in this place in Parliament and across politics in this country for approximately 20-odd years and we have not yet found any meaningful conclusion where farmers across the board or rather the peak bodies that represent them will say "Hey guess what! We actually want to be priced." As it turns out that would happen to be the role of Government to make those necessary bold decisions to say that we are going to treat industries across our economy equitably.Let's talk about that equity. Well as has been pointed out by the Minister of Climate Change particularly speaking about export numbers we should provide a little bit more context here. Agriculture is responsible for 5 percent of the GDP in this country—5 percent of GDP in this country. Those aren't my figures; those figures are from Infometrics.Mike Butterick: 82 percent of export income.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: And to those speakers presently heckling me or rather those members in the National Party presently heckling me 5 percent of our GDP is responsible for more than half of our emissions profile.Mike Butterick: Different gas.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Yet it is the only sector that's currently not priced for those emissions within our emissions trading scheme. What that means to that National member presently heckling is that every other part of the economy that this Government professes to care so much about carries the burden for the sector presently not priced.Interestingly as was canvassed at scrutiny week with the climate Minister and actually the Minister of Finance as well this Government is also saying that they are still committed to what is currently baked into the legislation for a 10 percent reduction in methane emissions by 2030. Yet we have no idea of the pathway to get there because they're kicking the can down the road on this pricing issue. More so than that something which is very deserving of interrogation is the fact that this bill also takes us back to the future on reporting requirements for processors' emissions. This is a really really important point because actually it wasn't until 2020 that there was publicity given to processor-level emissions but it was actually in 2011 when processors were required to report that information to Government bodies. The Government in this bill with the swipe of a pen is taking away those reporting requirements.The only conclusion that we can come to as a result of that is that they just don't want to know so therefore they don't have to deal with the issue. This is really something that I'd like to hear from the Hon Todd McClay about. Why the Hon Todd McClay is your Government removing requirements for reporting on emissions because you have committed in your coalition agreements to making decisions based on data and evidence? Further the climate Minister was crowing about the fact that there is a new working group when it comes to the idea of no additional warming. Here I would implore all members to look at the evidence and the data that is already there amply. The Climate Change Commission released three draft pieces of advice at the beginning of this year two of which referred explicitly—and they haven't done this before—to the agreement between the National Party and the ACT Party and said that if we were to pursue that no-additional-warming framing that they are putting out there we would see a far higher burden on every other household and sector of the economy in this country. But more so than that to purse such a policy position would obscure the bigger question of whether we should pull our weight and reach our targets internationally.Now those targets are often spoken about as though they're some kind of abstract numbers on a page but those targets are actually the scientific reality the scientific fundamentals for life on Earth as we know it—actually for food-growing capacity which this Government says they care about. It also is the case that those nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement put us on the hook by 2030 for anywhere between $3.6 billion and $24 billion and the difference is whether we get our act together and do something domestically. The Greens oppose this legislation."