Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Bill—Hon Nathan Guy: Say what you really think.MARK PATTERSON: —which of course amends the current—SPEAKER: Order!MARK PATTERSON: —legislation which has proved to be ineffectual at best and fraudulent at worst. I would like to take the majority of my time to discuss the agricultural element to this. This is a watershed day for New Zealand agriculture. The passing of the bill sees us once again lead the world as we have so many times in the past going back to probably that first frozen shipment of meat out of Dunedin in 1882. And of course this reflects the significant challenge we have of meeting our Paris agreements. We are a country that prides itself on the international rule of law and if we make a commitment on the world stage we must honour it.Previous attempts at this by the National Party who I would remind everyone were the ones that signed us up to this agreement had bordered on being morally bankrupt looking to outsource carbon credit purchases—Hon Nathan Guy: You're better than that.SPEAKER: Order! Second warning.MARK PATTERSON: —with what were often fraudulent offshore carbon credits. So the issue with of course our agricultural emissions is: it is the inconvenient truth. Forty-seven percent of our greenhouse gas emissions do originate from agriculture and we cannot meet those Paris commitments without addressing this elephant in the room. I want to quote David Frame who is our pre-eminent climate change scientist in New Zealand: For too long we have circled the drain[pipe] on agricultural climate change issues so it is great to see a sensible practical scientifically-defensible deal being worked out." This Government deserves credit for listening to good scientific and policy advice and being prepared to reject outdated approaches and this is a victory for common sense because we do know that this will be a challenge for our agricultural sector.Currently there are no tools outside of destocking to meet our commitments and we do have to work hard to make sure that those tools become available. And if we had gone to a processor-level levy even at the modest sums that were negotiated in terms of the coalition agreement—where there's a 95 percent discount for farming entering into any emissions trading scheme—that would have still totalled up to about $50 million annually for the farmers of New Zealand.I just totalled it up roughly on my farm. It would have been about 3000 bucks for a modest-sized family farm which would have essentially been money that didn't get an actual outcome. There would have been no motivation for me. It would've been a blunt tool. There would've been no motivation for me to really do anything because even if I was efficient more efficient than my neighbour we would have been paying exactly the same amount of money. So credit where it is due to our farming leadership. They recognised the social expectations of the public of New Zealand and they also acknowledged that there are rising consumer expectations.I would like to pay tribute to the commitment of the 11 organisations that have supported and signed up to the He Waka Eke Noa proposal. I just want to run through them because it gives you an idea of the breadth of the support within New Zealand agriculture. The National Party need to listen to this as they grudgingly support this because this has been signed up to by Apiculture New Zealand Beef + Lamb New Zealand DairyNZ the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand Deer Industry New Zealand the Federation of Māori Authorities the Foundation for Arable Research Federated Farmers Horticulture New Zealand Irrigation NZ and the Meat Industry Association. I'd like to pay tribute to that farming leadership led in many ways by Andrew Hoggard Andrew Morrison and Tim Mackle in the main for the way in which they've negotiated with Minister Shaw Prime Minister Ardern and Deputy Prime Minister Peters to get this outcome.This outcome allows for five years for the farming sector to develop an on-farm level emissions profile for farmers so that any pricing that might come in down the line is done on a case-by-case basis so that we're actually incentivising good practice and we can design a system that does account for things like riparian planting soil sequestration and we can develop our farming systems and the continual progress and supporting of technology.There is some opportunity in this as well; considerable opportunity now. Actually many sheep and beef farms would be carbon neutral now I would imagine if the accounting was able to take in all of those things. Merino New Zealand actually has a brand of carbon negative where they have got extensive farming systems and the woollen garments coming off those merino sheep—of course there's carbon in the wool too. So they've actually figured out that they're carbon negative and I think it's that sort of innovation that is a major opportunity actually for us to monetise this type of legislation in this direction that New Zealand agriculture is going. It's a provenance story.We're still—and I hear it across the floor—a little bit in that mindset of production and just total kilograms produced. It's actually about the value returned to New Zealand. If we can do that in another way—there's more than one way to skin a cat. We are up against these emerging artificial proteins genetic modification and the like and the only way we can go is down that provenance line in my view. Of course one of the meat companies—a guy fairly high up in one of New Zealand's largest meat companies—said that there could actually be somewhere between a 20 and 50 percent premium for red meat coming off a carbon-neutral farm. So that will be quite an incentive. It puts into perspective the size of the prize that we're playing for here.Just in terms of the farming leadership there has been some suggestion probably in some urban quarters that maybe farming's been getting let off. Don't think that for one minute. There is of course the provision to re-check in here in 2022 but it will not be needed. I quote Tim Mackle Chief Executive Officer of Dairy New Zealand: "Our future is now in our … hands as we work in partnership with the Government to deliver … [on] our commitments." I think that says it all. In fact actually probably what did say it all was the response from the National Party which was: crickets.Of course the bill does a number of other things which are important. It simplifies the accounting for forestry and as Minister Shaw has pointed out Minister Jones has worked well to make sure that that evens out and it has some flexibility in there. It also starts the phase-down of the industrial allocation because what we really actually need to do is address our actual carbon dioxide—those long lived gases—and we have to have those levers in place to make that happen. So this does start that phase-down period but it does have some flexibility in it to acknowledge the fact that there is the potential for carbon leakage.As Sarah Dowie pointed out before a business like the smelter in Invercargill may be unfairly disadvantaged when it is actually more efficient than others. So New Zealand First does have pleasure in supporting the bill but I would like to conclude my contribution by commending Minister Shaw. This has been a longstanding conundrum and the fact that you have found a way forward through all the noise and the competing motivations has been an absolute testament to your political skill as you lead New Zealand's response to meeting our Paris climate change commitment. So we do salute you on this watershed day for you actually in terms of the both legs of the double as Scott Simpson said. So New Zealand First absolutely support this bill. Thank you."