Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) Link to this

I move, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I firstly acknowledge the thoughtful contributions that were made by members during the Committee stage on this bill and the inevitable commentary about the broader issues that we face around the huge issue of climate change and, more specifically, the complex issues of implementing an emissions trading scheme.

I note that New Zealand is attempting to be the very first country in the world to include forestry within an emissions trading scheme. That is a very challenging exercise. Things that are man-made technologies—such as the burning of fossil fuels—or non-natural processes are relatively easy to measure. It is a lot more challenging, in the area of climate change, to be including natural processes—like the growth of trees, agricultural emissions, or many other elements of the natural sector—in an emissions trading scheme. To some degree, the complexities we found around issues in respect of forestry are some of the underlying reasons for this delayed bill.

The first thing I emphasise, and I will emphasise it again, is that this bill does not change the time frame by which any of the different parts of forestry will come into the emissions trading scheme. The bill is a technical bill that tries to provide some greater time frames in which the various requirements of bringing forestry into the scheme are able to be met.

I will note specifically the different provisions. First up is the issue of the allocation plan for pre-1990 forest owners. The truth is that the forestry sector is not of a single mind. The truth is that there are different parts of the forestry sector that are impacted upon in different ways. On the part of pre-1990 forest owners, there is actually not a huge amount of enthusiasm for the emissions trading provisions in respect of forestry, because those provisions will put limits on their capacity to change the land use, and that would have a substantive impact on land value. The previous Government responded quite pragmatically to that and said “Look, we’re going to allocate some units to you to compensate you in some way for the way in which you are disadvantaged by those provisions.”

At the core of this bill is the time frame in which that allocation plan is set out. Given that there is a select committee review, it is proper that that be delayed for some time. Members opposite have said “Yeah, that might be fair enough, but not for too long.” They have introduced amendments that have resulted in the date being changed to 1 July next year. I think that is a pretty fair date, and I am confident that we can resolve that issue by then.

The second issue operates at the other end of the spectrum; that is, rather than some of the very big forest owners, there are some very small ones. The compliance costs of including very small forest holdings within the emissions trading scheme exceeds the benefit of doing so. The original emissions trading scheme provided for an exemption for blocks of trees that are fewer than 50 hectares in size. The issue is that unless quite a bit of money is spent on publicising those provisions, a whole lot of people will not comply with them. We have made provisions in the Budget this year for money to advertise and to make sure that people are able to meet that requirement. If we insisted on it being required today, a whole lot of New Zealanders out there would be disadvantaged. We have quite pragmatically taken a view that we will give people another year to apply for that 50-hectare exemption.

The third part of this bill deals with the issue of where people have deforested and have obligations. Technically, by 31 January this year they were required to report any deforestation that occurred during 2008. I know of public and private sector organisations that did not do that. Given that that legislation came into effect only late last year and it is quite an onerous obligation, I am not completely surprised about that. I do not believe that anybody’s rights are adversely affected by extending that date for a year. The legislation further extends for a year the period in which those forest owners or those owners of land, where there has been deforestation, have to surrender the units associated with that deforestation. Again, I do not think any party will be disadvantaged by that. If anything, it will provide for a smoother transition of the entry of forestry into the scheme.

I want to briefly touch on the history of the debate between carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, because it is relevant as we move forward. If we go back to the mid-1990s, during Simon Upton’s time as Minister for the Environment, we see that he said we should go ahead with a low-level carbon charge, so we went along that track for about 3 or 4 years. It was almost said in this way: “Industry, tidy your act up and get emissions under control. If you do, we will not touch you, but if you don’t we’ll put a low-level carbon charge on you.” When emissions did not move an iota, the crunch came and it was time to implement a carbon tax. However, the decision was made that, theoretically, an emissions trading scheme would be the better option. In March of 1999 the National Cabinet made a decision in principle to set officials in train to work on an emissions trading scheme. When the new Labour administration came into office, it said that it was a bit suspicious of emissions trading and it did not want to proceed down that road. So for 5 or 6 years it worked on a carbon tax. After the 2005 election, Labour abandoned its work on a carbon tax and went on with an emissions trading scheme.

I am not trying to be precious here; I do not think parties on either side of the House come out of this shining with a great glow. There is a bit of a chequered record on both sides, but that is also a commentary on how difficult this stuff actually is. In the debate on this bill, I have welcomed the growing consensus that an emissions trading scheme is the right way forward. There is a pretty good consensus that it should include all sectors and all gases. We have a really important job to do over the next few months of this year to nail down the detail of what an amendment will require. An amendment bill is needed. The reality is that in this bill we picked up three of the main little mistakes that were made in the main emissions trading legislation, and officials tell me that there are probably about another 20 errors that were made in that legislation that will need to be fixed up in a substantive amendment bill.

From here, we need to carefully consider the work of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee, and we then need to get a further amendment bill before the House. If we can build on the spirit of cooperation that we have developed on this minor bill, there is a little twinkle of hope that we may be able to move New Zealand forward and have an emissions trading scheme that gets that right balance between this very challenging environmental issue and the huge issue of our economy, our jobs, and our certainty.

I again thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. It is a bill that is required in order to be able to provide for a sensible transition of the forestry sector into the emissions trading scheme, and I commend the bill to the House.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

The Minister for Climate Change Issues has given a very fair summary of the provisions of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill, and I do not intend to repeat what he said. I will take a few moments of the House’s time to follow his lead and speak on some of the wider questions in this area that face the House and the country going forward.

I will start with the science, because it is, after all—ironically, perhaps—one of the first terms of reference the special select committee the Minister referred to, the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee, has had to contend with. I was interested in the gracious remarks made by Hekia Parata on the select committee’s deliberations. It was refreshing to hear that it was an educative experience for new members of the select committee. I do not know whether those of us for whom it was at least the second time round could go quite that far. Certainly, the three or four members of the committee who participated last time in the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s deliberations on the current legislation I think take the view that, by and large, most of the submissions we heard were fairly reiterative of what was heard last time. It was interesting, however, to learn that most of the larger emitters have moved from what was generally an implacable opposition to the idea of emissions trading in New Zealand to an acceptance that it is the best way to go, given our current circumstances and world developments. The submissions they made to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee tended to concentrate much more on trying to contend for amendments to the scheme that would be in their individual best interests.

Perhaps one great advantage of the current select committee process is the fact that the science is on the table. One of the good things about the select committee is that we heard from reputable scientists, including representatives of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and we have been able to form a view—pretty much around the table, perhaps with one exception—that that science is reputable. The fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports its concerns and its finding that sea levels will rise between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100 is something we should be concerned about. The fact that its findings are endorsed by reputable academics and scientific organisations the world over is something that will be useful to see likely recorded in the committee’s report back to the House.

Earlier today during question time in the Chamber we heard reference to the International Scientific Conference on Climate Change. Given its report, if anything it is clear that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been conservative in its findings. Rather than sea level rises of between 18 and 59 centimetres, we might be looking at something like rises of between 50 and 100 centimetres. There was also World Health Organization research in the International Scientific Conference on Climate Change report about 150,000 extra deaths, 85 percent of which will be of young children, occurring in low-income tropical countries as a result of the effects of climate change. Some of those countries are in our neighbourhood in the Pacific, an area we have always expressed concern for. That is something we should be very worried about.

Some of the members present in the Chamber today were also present at a recent science forum. I think the Assistant Speaker Mr Roy was there. We heard a presentation from an eminent academic at Otago University who talked about a phenomenon that was new to me: the increasing acidification of the oceans thanks to human-related climate change. Obviously, it is a good thing that the oceans absorb carbon dioxide. They have acted as an effective sink to date, and global warming would be a much worse phenomenon were it not for that propensity. But no system is closed, and one of the results, as we heard, of the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide is that their pH has been decreasing. From 1751, about the time of the Industrial Revolution and also, coincidentally, about the time when records started to be kept, to 1994 the pH of the ocean is estimated to have decreased from about 8.179 to 8.104. We heard that in about 30 years we might reach a tipping point. It is not a uniform tipping point, because different parts of the ocean acidify at different rates, but the concern is that those organisms that require calcium carbonate to construct their cell coverings or skeletons will not be able to do that any more in an acidified ocean, meaning that a cascade effect up the food chain seems inevitable.

I will respond to the observations that have been made about the special select committee by saying that a lot of the material that we heard was the relitigation of line call judgments. Perhaps it would be interesting to recall the Minister’s recount of history over the last 15 years on this matter. We have relitigated a lot of that history. It is now down to a number of line calls. I really hope, at least for selfish, personal reasons, but also in the national interest, that we do not have another select committee where we rehash these questions, because I think it is becoming clear what we need to do. It has also become very clear that the science has to be treated as being beyond dispute.

Looking forward we have to get over the problems we have with climate change policy at the moment. The ACT Party and the National Party in their coalition agreement—or their support agreement or whatever the correct term is these days for such agreements—said they would put the emissions trading scheme on hold, then there would be a special select committee, and then perhaps there would be legislation, depending on the findings of that exercise. Well, as one of the ACT members at the select committee remarked, ironically, one day—in terms that I will not repeat in the Chamber—that is not quite what happened. The bit about putting the emissions trading scheme on hold did not happen, so what we have is the problem that we now face in the House whereby the legislation has been allowed to run on as it is, unamended, yet we have the select committee looking at broad questions as to the design of an emissions trading scheme, not, as it happens, at the detail of the substantive legislation.

For some reason that is not a term of reference of the select committee. But the broad questions around design, as well as the science, and whether to have a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme are the things we have been debating in Parliament while, at the same time, the foresters truck on with no one to trade their credits with. The stationary energy sector and the industrial processes people have no allocation plans and no certainty about how they will be affected by the scheme, except for the fact that the law tells them they will come into the scheme on 1 January. They are having to try to plan their businesses on that basis.

We cannot go on like this. It is absolutely clear that this is a policy fiasco. It is up there with, in my view, the tax breaks that have been put in place for offshore minerals exploration; the repeal of the moratorium on future construction of baseload thermal generation plants; the rescinding of the phase-out of the energy-inefficient incandescent light bulbs; the failure to promote the allocation plans that I have referred to, as required by law; and the scrapping of the Fast Forward fund and the research and development tax credit. That, after all, was how the country was going to pay for the technological adaptations that everybody knows that agriculture needs to undergo in order to get into the scheme and get its emissions down after 2013. It will be through the technological advances that we need to fund that farmers will be in a position to do what we all know they need to do. The fiasco is also up there with the repeal of the biofuels obligation.

Labour has made an offer, as is now public knowledge, to try to get on, reach some common ground, and get out of this policy fiasco that has become climate change and energy policy in New Zealand. I am very optimistic that, with goodwill on all sides, we will be able to get out of this mess. Certainly, Labour will be devoting its efforts to that end.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) Link to this

I rise in support of the Climate Change (Response Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill in its third reading. We have heard from Minister Nick Smith and Charles Chauvel, who have had a conversation looking at the wider issues of climate change, but I want to take the discussion back to the bill and what it will mean to have it passed. Having forestry in the emissions trading scheme is a world first, so it is critical that we get it right.

The bill delays the reporting requirements under the emissions trading scheme and publication of the allocation plan by the Government because the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee process is yet to be completed. As previous speakers have said, it is critical that we get it right. It is really important that the select committee completes its important work and does not rush it, and the bill allows the industry to take a breath. The current law under the Climate Change Response Act requires foresters to have reported any deforestation during 2008 by 31 January 2009, and for those owners who have small forestry blocks to apply for exemptions by today—30 June. We have spoken about the fact that those dates are unreasonable, given that the select committee review has not been completed and there is a lack of public awareness of what they are required to do. It is important that we protect the public from being in breach of the law or being adversely affected. That is why it is really important that this bill is passed to change the date so that those forest owners are not breaking the law, and it is great to see widespread support in the House for this bill.

I want to recap the three main elements. First, the existing law requires any deforestation to be reported by 31 January 2009, and we are extending that to 31 January next year. Second, the select committee has recommended 1 July 2010 as the last possible date that can be set as a deadline for applications for exemptions. That is for the small forestry blocks of fewer than 50 hectares of pre-1990 forest land. Of course, if the date could be achieved earlier, then there will be intentions to see whether that can be achieved prior to 1 July. Third, the forestry allocation plan for owners of pre-1990 forest land is the compensatory mechanism for the forest land owners who will be subject to liabilities for deforestation under the emissions trading scheme.

I want to highlight that New Zealand punches well above its weight in what we achieve in the forestry industry, and it is really important that we remind ourselves about that. The New Zealand forest industry supplies 1.1 percent of the world’s forest product trade but we have only 0.5 percent of the world’s forest resource, and it is really important that we allow our forest owners to do the best they can. They are already doing better than most countries in terms of forestry. It is really important that we protect that competitive advantage that New Zealand forest owners are already delivering. The forestry sector contribution to GDP is 4 percent, and forestry makes up 12 percent of all New Zealand’s export earnings. It is, of course, a large employer in many areas across New Zealand. We have to make sure that we change the bill in the context of how important the forestry industry is. Proportionately, New Zealand has one of the largest areas of protected natural forest in the world, with nearly 6 million hectares. The forestry industry also contributes significantly to Māori employment and economic advancement. Ten percent of the Māori economic asset base is in the forestry sector, so it is important that the forestry sector is on board with these changes.

National believes that New Zealand, as a responsible international citizen and as a country that values its clean, green environment, must act to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. I want to talk for a moment about the actions that this Government has been taking. We have allocated $323 million to the home insulation fund and $36 million to the bio-diesel grants programme. We will be introducing legislation to exempt light electric vehicles from road-user charges. I am involved with the Local Government and Environment Committee that is making changes to the Resource Management Act, including the renewable energy consent process, as well as working on the national policy statement for renewable electricity generation. So we can see that this Government is working hard to forward what we need to do in terms of protecting our clean, green environment for our generation and for those to come. I am delighted to support the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. It is important that we get it right and get it done well. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) Link to this

I rise to take, once again, a short call on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill, and to reiterate the Labour Opposition’s support for the bill. However, Labour is supporting this bill provided the Government replaces the provisions with the dates set by Order in Council with the dates specified in the legislation.

This bill will provide some certainty for the forestry sector, which is quickly losing confidence in the National Government because of its lack of direction on the emissions trading scheme. The future of the scheme is still uncertain. The legislation is still before the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee, and the Government has failed to outline a clear plan of how it will amend the emissions trading scheme legislation. We need to ensure that the scheme has real integrity.

Labour has taken the responsible approach and sought to find common ground with the Government. Labour is taking this responsible stance because it recognises the importance of consensus around the emissions trading scheme. It is a crucial part of ensuring New Zealand moves towards a path of long-term low carbon economic growth, and uncertainty cannot be allowed to continue. The Labour Party has offered to have talks with the Government about whether we can achieve bipartisan certainty on the wider questions around the emissions trading policy, and Labour will approach this task in good faith. We do so with the desire to achieve a system that will be durable and in the best interests of not only New Zealand industry but also the New Zealand environment. The National Government’s policy has been to stall and delay, and it has cost New Zealand, certainly in terms of confidence. This complete lack of direction and inability to provide any form of credible leadership is costing New Zealand dearly in terms of its reputation.

The Government has made New Zealand the laughing stock internationally for its constant hand-wringing and flip-flops on the emissions trading scheme. Just the other day Minister Nick Smith came up with another excuse to further delay any progress on climate change policy. The Government negotiator told representatives at the Bonn Climate Change Talks that New Zealand would not confirm any 2020 pollution reduction target until it had undertaken public consultation. This announcement continues the parade of other excuses that he has used for not setting a target, and amongst those excuses have been that the Government is awaiting new data, harmonisation with Australia, and investigation of a carbon tax. The list goes on, and it becomes less credible and less consistent.

New Zealand needs certainty over how the Government will respond to the threat of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. There is no economy-wide plan to deal with climate change and the challenges it presents. Instead, the National Government has caused haemorrhaging of jobs and investments, and uncertainty. The Government’s policies have brought the emerging carbon market to a halt. A major opportunity for our country to maximise our geographic skills base, and our language and time-zone advantages were thrown away when the emissions trading scheme was put on hold. The same policy has cost us enormous international investment in the forestry sector, along with hundreds of new jobs, while 8 million seedlings rot into the ground, as stated by previous speakers.

Thanks to the Prime Minister’s failure to lead and his surrender to climate change extremists—in this case, the ACT Party—there is no prospect that National’s promise of passing the amended emissions trading scheme within 9 months of taking office will be kept. Due to the National Government’s failure on climate change policy, Labour has offered to assist to make some responsible amendments to the scheme. There needs to be certainty around the timing of the scheme, instead of the current situation of confusion caused by the Government.

I have heard previous speakers in the House today make reference to the interests of Māori, foresters, and landowners in general. A major event will take place this weekend when a number of Ministers and Labour MPs attend the hand-over ceremony in Tūrangi of the CNI Iwi Holdings assets. I am sure that part of the discussions that will take place on the day will be on the uncertainty around the emissions trading scheme. While in Government, Labour provided a high level of confidence that it had a clear pathway ahead on the scheme. That is no longer the case, and I am sure that question will be put to Ministers of the Crown when they attend the hand-over ceremony this weekend.

That is my contribution to the third reading of this bill. The fact that there is a high level of uncertainty amongst our foresters and landowners, particularly Māori, needs to be made clear in this House. Thank you.

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

I rise to support the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill in its third reading. It is great to see so much support for this bill. It is extremely positive to have support right across the House, and this consensus is a really important step towards a new, reshaped emissions trading scheme bill that will be introduced into the House later this year.

The cross-party Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee is working hard, and tonight we have heard my colleague Hekia Parata tell us how complex the discussions have been. We are all very well aware that this work is taking time, but we believe that it is time well spent if it means we get an intelligently-thought-out and well-supported, sustainable emissions trading system.

Climate change is a pressing, complex global issue, and the cost of getting the legislation wrong is high. Governments around the world are struggling to find the best way to cope with greenhouse gases and global warming without crippling their economies. In a time of international recession, finding workable solutions is even more difficult. We want to make sure we get a good emissions trading scheme, but we do not want to get it at the expense of our economy. New Zealand is committed to making emissions reductions, but we want to reduce those emissions in ways that result in the least cost to our society and the least cost to our economy. We need to capitalise on the Kiwi can-do attitude, and to focus on New Zealand’s creativity and innovation in order to develop new ways to manage our lives, our organisations, and our businesses so that we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and we can protect our environment.

As we know, New Zealand has a very unusual greenhouse gas profile. For a developed country, it has a uniquely high percentage of agricultural emissions. Almost 50 percent of our greenhouse gases come from the farm, in comparison with other developed countries, which usually have only 12 to 15 percent of their emissions from agriculture. Unfortunately, our emissions profile is particularly difficult to manage. We will, of course, be using all our expertise, and New Zealand has a good deal of expertise in research and development in the agricultural and forestry sectors. We will use this expertise to try to reduce these levels. New Zealand will lead the development of an international research centre focused on greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector. This will be a great contribution from our country to the global issue.

We will also be doing everything we can to tackle the other major areas that produce greenhouse gas emissions in our society: energy use and transport. One of the most vital things we need to do is cut back on our use of fossil fuel energy generation, and we can do that; we can do it in several ways.

Last week the Prime Minister announced the new home insulation fund Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart. I have to say that it has been particularly enthusiastically received in my home town of Christchurch. The combination of a cold climate, old housing, and an air pollution problem makes Christchurch a prime suspect for more insulation. Christchurch people will enthusiastically support the insulation fund and its clean-heating capacity. It is lucky that the Government has announced in the Budget that it is spending $323 million over 4 years to retrofit 180,000 homes with insulating and clean-heating devices. The amazing thing is that over half a million New Zealanders will benefit from the scheme. They will benefit by using less energy and by keeping themselves warmer and drier. Insulation and clean heat will also cut greenhouse gas emissions from those homes and improve the carbon footprint of our cities.

The Government is also focusing on renewable energy by working on the national policy statement for renewable energy generation and by streamlining the Resource Management Act processes. I have been working hard on that committee, the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we are convinced that the new processes will also improve the renewable energy consent process. Increasing renewable energy will allow a decrease in the use of fossil fuels to generate power, which will cut our emissions. The bigger the percentage of renewable energy the smaller our greenhouse gas footprint.

To help curb greenhouse gas emissions from transport, the Government is supporting alternative fuels and transport options by allocating $36 million to a bio-diesel grant programme. We are also introducing legislation to exempt light electric vehicles from road-user charges. Electric vehicles are becoming increasingly more common and much more cost-effective. Their exemption should make them even more attractive. I have to say that my blue electric scooter is a fabulous vehicle for an inner-city electorate.

STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this

I rise in support of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. I agree with the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner: we all value the “clean, green” image of New Zealand. It is part of our competitive advantage. I spoke a little bit about that in my previous speech. But I remember standing here about 6 months ago debating legislation to build thermal power plants. Am I wrong? Have I forgotten something? Have National members forgotten that legislation? We talk about clean, green New Zealand, and an emissions trading scheme is a very important part of that. Forestry is a very important part of it, but this bill delays the scheme so I am not too sure whether that was a speech from us or from National.

Mr Foss was right when he stood up and said that this bill provides certainty. No one doubts that. This bill does provide certainty, which is what any industry, especially an industry with a 30-year growing cycle, requires. The forestry industry requires certainty. Is that not right? The people of Tauranga require certainty, and I am sure they will get it in another 2½ years. But what is certainty when the industry believed it already had certainty? The message the forestry industry formerly had was that the deadline was 1 July 2009. That was the reality. That was the industry’s certainty, but suddenly National blew it out of the water with this bill. Certainty is good; members should not get me wrong. At least now the industry can take a deep sigh, and, as I said before, it can say “At least now we know that Labour is the true friend of the forestry sector and they will give us certainty. They had given us certainty, but I suppose we have got to make do with these characters for another 2½ years.”

One thing I will comment on is the fact that Nikki Kaye stood up and said that emissions had grown by 14 percent. But she did not talk about the fact that the economy had grown by 50 percent. Amazing! I like Nikki Kaye. Nikki and I went to Ethiopia together. We were both very privileged to visit a country and an economy that was so far away from New Zealand in every single aspect. We went with Mr Bridges, as well. It was a great trip, a wonderful trip. I almost converted them to cross the House and join us in Labour, actually. In fact, I thought I had. Nikki Kaye stood in front of parliamentarians from about 170 countries and gave an impassioned speech about the wonderful things we were doing in New Zealand about climate change. She stood up there and said what global leaders we were in terms of climate change, what a fantastic country she came from, how she represented the younger generation, and how climate change was going to be part of our competitive advantage. It was inspiring. It was not quite a Lange speech, because she is a Tory and she will never reach that stage. No Tory can speak like Lange, with the passion he delivered about nuclear ships. But hers was a speech from which one might have stood there listening and thinking that there was a future leader. In fact, when Richard Worth went south I went down to the TAB and put on a sly ten bucks that Nikki would make it into Cabinet. She is good. The new guys should watch out; she is on her way up. Her speech was fantastic.

After Nikki’s impassioned speech in Ethiopia about what we are doing for climate change in New Zealand, I thought she was right onside. I do not know whether Nikki is on the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee, but I am sure that when Dr Smith said to Nikki—he would have consulted her on this matter, I have no doubt, because she is a global spokesperson on it—that National was going to delay the scheme by 1 year, I am sure she would have said “You cannot do this, because I stood up in front of 170 members of Parliament from around the world and said we are global leaders.” But Dr Smith would have said “Nikki, I am sorry. I am going to have to overrule you on this one.” I would not have liked to be in that room. Nikki Kaye had said we were global leaders, but then I heard her say that we cannot take a global leadership position on global change. I almost fell down, because I recalled Nikki’s speech about global leadership—

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) Link to this

I rise to address the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill, which pertains to forestry. I begin by reaffirming that the Green Party will vote for the bill, but let our vote not in any way mask our dissatisfaction with the Government’s climate change policy and this country’s recent record on climate change. Last week, and again this afternoon, my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons critiqued the proposed bill for what it was. For over a year now the foresters of this country have cried out for predictability to assist them in their business decision-making. For the past 8 months the Government—this party of business—has failed to provide that. Tonight, with barely 2 hours of parliamentary time remaining, the Government seeks a “get out of jail free” pass. It has pressured itself into passing a hasty amendment to narrowly avoid being in breach of the current emissions trading scheme law that was enacted last year. This simply reflects the disarray the Government has worked up for itself in climate change policy, and the resulting shameful mess that passes for New Zealand policy on climate change in 2009. In fact, it is a tough call to apportion relative weight of liability between Labour and National Governments in this respect. Each gets the “Fossil of the Year” award.

The purpose of my intervention tonight is to place our broader climate change policy in the context of the latest scientific findings of the International Alliance of Research Universities. The alliance’s report is not just the work of the University of Copenhagen, as the Minister seemed to believe; it represents the combined work of the Australian National University, Yale, and the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, California, Peking, Tokyo, and Singapore. It involves the contribution of Dr Pachauri, Director-General of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of Lord Nicholas Stern, whose economic report of 2007 gained global attention, and of the Prime Minister of Denmark, which will be hosting the Copenhagen conference in December this year. It is as a result of the work of 2,500 researchers from 80 countries, many of whom are part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, contrary to the assumption of the Minister, it has been properly peer reviewed by the Earth System Science Partnership. The Minister tended to be slightly dismissive of the report in question time this afternoon, but he was gracious enough to say that the report would be “taken into account” in the Government’s future deliberations. This is just as well, as the report is destined to form the basis on which the Copenhagen meeting will rest its decisions.

So let me highlight the main points in that report, which my colleague Metiria Turei tabled this afternoon, for the benefit of the Minister, his Government, this House, and our country. Let me cover excerpts from the executive summary and the conclusion. In the executive summary, the report states: “Recent observations show that the greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections. Many key climate indicators are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary society and economy have developed and thrived. These indicators include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, global ocean temperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will likely accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.” The report states: “Temperature rises above 2oC will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions through the rest of the century and beyond.” In its conclusions the report states: “Climate change is fundamentally different from the environmental problems humanity has dealt with until now. The risks, scales, and uncertainties associated with climate change are enormous and there is a significant probability of a devastating outcome at the global level. The nature of the climate change challenge demands visionary and innovative thinking. The planetary boundaries concept, which aims to define the ‘safe operating space’ for humanity, draws on the earlier experience of societies that regulated their own behaviour when knowledge of undesirable consequences became available. Planetary boundaries are defined with respect to biophysical thresholds of the Earth, the crossing of which would lead to catastrophic outcomes for societies … The scientific evidence strongly suggests that there is an upper limit to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or a ‘climate change boundary’, within which humanity should operate to reduce the risks of catastrophic outcomes. Although the precise position is not yet known, current evidence indicates that humanity is fast approaching or may have even succeeded the boundary. Thus, the need for rapid and drastic reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases is urgent if serious climatic impacts are to be avoided.”

It is clear from this report that humanity is facing the greatest challenge of all time. It is not a matter of simply balancing our economic opportunities with our environmental responsibilities, as the Government reiterates in a trance-like fashion. This afternoon Craig Foss and Nicky Wagner spoke of New Zealand doing its bit, playing our part, and being a responsible global citizen. Nikki Kaye identified the concerns of our young people, but cautioned that we should not get out of step with other nations. Alas, our worst fears are confirmed. We are not leading the field; we are lagging behind. In answer to our questions this afternoon, the Minister for Climate Change Issues effectively said that Scotland, the United Kingdom, and Germany, all of which have identified targets from 34 percent to 42 percent, simply had it easy. By switching from coal to gas, New Zealand, in contrast, had it tough because of our 48 percent methane component and, incredibly, because our GDP per capita was relatively low in the OECD. He failed to cite the most relevant statistic of all, so let me do it for him. For greenhouse gas emissions per capita Australia had 26 US tons per capita per year, the United States had 23 US tons per capita, New Zealand had 19 US tons per capita, the United Kingdom had 11 US tons per capital, and Germany had 9 US tons per capita. The Minister said those countries had it easy and that we had it tough. That is ridiculous. We are the ones that are polluting disproportionately per capita. We are the ones that have the obligation to reduce our emissions.

Let the Minister’s lament simply be set aside. Let his Government take the lead by getting up to speed with where the rest of the Governments are in setting targets within the next month at, at least, 40 percent carbon dioxide emissions and 30 percent carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, in time for the climate conference at Copenhagen. Thank you.

HEKIA PARATA (National) Link to this

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to you all throughout the House.]

I rise to speak on the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. I would like to reiterate some of the points that I made earlier this evening about the complexity by which this issue is characterised, and the opportunity afforded me as a member of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee, which has a number of members who have dealt with these issues one time before, and have brought that experience to the table this time.

One of the abiding features of the process this time round, as mentioned by Mr Chauvel, was the fact that the select committee agreed, by and large, on the science. That allowed us to move forward to the set of policy responses that this Government might settle upon in dealing with an emissions trading scheme for New Zealand. A lot of hard work has been done in the select committee, and more has yet to be done before that work is finally reported back.

In the meantime, a number of issues have to be dealt with prior to the conclusion of that work. One of those issues relates to technical matters that are the substance of the bill before us tonight. It is noteworthy that New Zealand is the first country in the world to attempt to bring the forestry sector into an emissions trading scheme. Therefore, it is important that we provide certainty to a very big player in our economy. The bill provides for a deferral of up to 1 year. This amendment was brought to the select committee by Charles Chauvel, and it was supported by the select committee. It allows the allocation plan for pre-1990 forests to be made by 1 July 2010. This allows the forestry sector the opportunity to be more certain about the kinds of proposals that it wants to have considered as part of the allocation plan.

A second element of the bill is that the tens of thousands of small forest owners, people who own forests of 50 hectares or less, are required to put their proposals before the Minister for Climate Change Issues. In the Budget this year, we made provision for moneys to allow for advice and information to be made available to those small forest owners so that they are able to comply with the bill. The bill before us this evening provides for those two technicalities of timing. None of the rules have changed, but the time in which these rules can be met has been extended, and it has been done in a way that provides certainty for all those players.

I do not have a lot to say this evening, because much has been said already. But I want to comment a little on some of the concerns that have been raised in the House this evening, and to say that I am confident that our Minister is seized of both the science and the range of policy responses that are available to us. He is aware of the many variables that must be weighed and balanced. Contrary to the previous speaker’s view, we have to find some balance between our environmental challenges and our economic challenges. This Government is set upon a course of finding that balance. Our Minister is navigating us through the complexities that characterise this area. However, it is a challenge that confronts us all, whatever side of the House we sit on. In the end we all need to sit on the same side to ensure that what happens is best for New Zealand, as a responsible global player.

This bill is but one small facet. It is one that comes before us now because of timing issues. We are concerned to see that players in the market are able to comply with the law. This bill gives them greater time in which to do that. I am pleased to rise to speak on the third reading of this bill. I commend to the House the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. Kia ora tātou.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. Unfortunately I was not able to partake in the first or second reading—