Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill—the second half of the quinella—following on of course from our zero carbon bill discussions earlier today.Mr Speaker I'm sure you will understand that I would like to bring in particular an agricultural perspective to this debate tonight reflecting the role that I have in the Opposition. Listening to the Government's approach to talking about the merits of this bill I'm struck by that saying that someone on our side said—I can't recall who exactly—that this Government doesn't meet a problem that it doesn't think tax is the solution for. I'd just like to step through why I say that in the context of agriculture and their exposure to the emissions trading scheme.The genesis of agriculture being included began when the Government under the Minister for Climate Change James Shaw instructed the Interim Climate Change Committee to reflect initially on whether and how agriculture should be included into the emissions trading scheme. For some reason the whether" part disappeared from the brief and it ended up being a report back to the Minister on how agriculture could be put into an emissions trading scheme. It said "Look it would make sense if you were to proceed down this path to do it at a farm level." And that sat in the Government's good offices for a number of weeks while the Government parties debated between themselves how actually they were going to respond.Eventually they put out a discussion document and it included in that some good thinking that the industry leaders had put on the table. That thinking is worth reflecting on. That thinking—and I acknowledge here the leadership of DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb New Zealand and the other peak bodies of our primary industries—said to the Government that if you are actually seeking to genuinely make a difference with respect to emissions reduction in an agriculture context first give us the ability to measure them accurately. Secondly give us some tools in a co-investment context—innovation and tools underpinned by science—to be able to apply and if we have those two we back ourselves to reduce emissions over time.That was the premise of the industry's response to this issue. So I found it quite interesting when I looked at the language that surrounded the Government's announcement that they had reached a historic first with the agricultural leadership of this country to price emissions in 2025. If you actually look at the responses from the various industry bodies that was not included in their response to the public. What they were focused on was the ability to work with the Government around the sensible initiatives of Farm Environment Plans having the capacity to measure emissions getting tools in place to be able to mitigate and over time making the difference.The Government however framed that up in the context of a world first of pricing emissions by 2025. That is the core and it is included and enabled here in this legislation. That is the core difference of philosophy between that side and this side in terms of the journey that we need to go on in primary industries to reduce our emissions.For a start this side holds the view that the efforts of our farmers the 23000 of them around this country deserve to be celebrated and acknowledged—for the work they have done over many many years in reducing emissions. I see New Zealand First immediately shaking their heads because they know typically that my point here is accurate. They are putting a huge amount of effort into being able to reduce their environmental impact. Climate change is a part of that journey and they understand the importance of being able to apply the best of their capacity to be able to reduce it over time.That is what farmers are expecting in terms of this journey but what the Government focuses on as a priority and what is included here in the bill that we are debating tonight is a framework that is yet to have flesh put around it—and I acknowledge the Minister for saying that we will get to see that through the select committee process—that frames up a complex tax arrangement to incentivise farmers to make the change.On this side of the House we see success in firstly acknowledging that we are the best in sustainable food production in the world that that should be amplified and it should be amplified through investment by Government in support of the industry and the ability to measure emissions and over time manage them with tools—that is success. For this Government success is having a piece of legislation that taxes farmers to ensure that they make that difference. We don't think you need to. We actually believe that if you invest with farmers give them the tools align them with the obvious commercial imperatives to be able to respond and to continue to be world leading in terms of emissions efficiency that will drive the change.The Government do not believe in that philosophy. They think change can only happen if you tax it. It is a punitive view on how to partner. It will not sustain itself. They don't understand the realities of farming they don't understand the realities of our global supply chain relative to the rest of the world—and yet again New Zealand First looks to the heavens. Well when has New Zealand First gone over and had a conversation with a European farmer and said "Let's compare our systems. Let's actually look at the efficiency of New Zealand versus the subsidisation of yours." They do not—they absolutely do not. That is a core difference that we are calling out here tonight.In this bill is a fundamental philosophy that change comes when you punitively tax individuals to make the difference. In our view change will come and continue to progress—because let's acknowledge the work the farmers have done already—when you partner in a genuinely collaborative way with your farmers acknowledging the work that they have already done being clear around the information and technology and capability gaps that exist and have a plan around how to close those gaps and give the industry the best chance to continue to lead in a world context. That is how you actually make change. This Government has a fundamentally different view in terms of how to incentivise that change in an agricultural context.To conclude with respect to agriculture and to the emissions trading scheme and the particular components that sit in this legislation when it goes through the select committee I have a very high expectation that this committee will ask some pretty pointed questions of officials around what is the capacity for our farmers to be able to measure the carbon sequestration that occurs on their farm. What is the capacity for farmers to be able to measure their riparian strips their shelter belt and potentially their soil? There is absolutely no excuse for a weak Government response coming back saying it's too hard. You cannot ask of farmers to lean in to the challenge of reducing their emissions and at the same time take off the table technology to apply to reduce their burden and the opportunity for them to truly capture and benefit from the carbon sequestration that occurs on their farms today. Anything less than that will be letting farmers down in a materially serious way. We will hold you to account because as a Government you have to listen to farmers' expectations on these matters.I look forward to hearing how the select committee progresses and I will have every confidence that our National Party colleagues will ensure that the farmers' perspectives are front of mind as we land the final version of this bill. Thank you."