7. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Agriculture
Was the 2003 memorandum of understanding between the Crown and the agriculture industry, which the Government has stated prevents it from bringing agriculture into the emissions trading scheme until 2013, formally reviewed in June last year as required by clause 12.2; if not, when will it be reviewed?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) Link to this
In May of last year I instructed my Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials to canvass a range of future options available for renewing the memorandum of understanding with the agricultural sector. However, I have asked that these discussions are set within the wider framework of the Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change Plan of Action. The consortium partners have reaffirmed their commitment to further research and have received matched funding through the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology to support a $25 million research programme through to 2012. It has been agreed with industry that it is appropriate that the formal review of the memorandum of understanding will be completed once the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill has been considered by Parliament and it is clear what the wider regulatory framework will be within which any future agreement will operate.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
When the agriculture sector last year reported a change to the memorandum of understanding target from a 20 percent reduction to just 10 percent, was that change agreed in writing by all parties as required under clause 12.3 or is it that the consortium sets its own targets, as his spokesperson told the media last week?
The 2003 agreement with the pastoral industry, that the Government would not impose a price measure on the sector before 2013 if an agreed investment programme on greenhouse gas research was carried out, was never conditional on any level of emissions reduction being achieved. The 20 percent target was originally nominated by the agricultural sector itself as an aspirational and ambitious target in the contextual and background section of the memorandum of understanding. The 20 percent was always something to aim for, not a binding condition of the agreement, and the memorandum of understanding makes that clear. The recent revision of the industry’s target has been largely driven by the fact that the Australian vaccine for reducing methane gas emissions, which was looking promising, has created animal welfare issues and, therefore, the scientists have gone back to the drawing board. This is a complex and complicated area and the agricultural sector is participating and cooperating in trying to solve it.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Can the Minister confirm that, as with the target, the memorandum of understanding does not actually contain a clause agreeing to exempt agriculture from the emissions trading scheme prior to 2013, as the Government has claimed in official reports, but that that was a political decision that is no longer based on evidence, and that even the National Party now accepts that some agricultural emissions should be in the emissions trading scheme earlier?
I have to remind the member that the agricultural sector is not getting let off lightly under this regime, because the clock is ticking. The agricultural sector is actually required to meet obligations in excess of 90 percent of the 2005 emissions, so it is in its interests that action is taken before 2013. The Government is working with the agricultural sector to see what can be done in that regard, and I have to say that not only is it putting its money where its mouth is but it is being cooperative in working through solutions.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Does he agree that article 1.2 of the memorandum of understanding, which states “there are currently no proven, practical and cost-effective farm practices and technologies to reduce agricultural emissions”, is no longer accurate, given advances in nitrogen inhibitors, stand-off pads, herd homes, better soil management, reduced fertiliser use, natural soil conditioners, high-sugar grasses, and bio-digesters for stock effluent—some of which have other benefits as well, including cleaner waterways and lower costs for farmers?
Yes, there are mitigating technologies that the industry is aware of, as is the Government, and these issues are being worked through. But I have to remind the member that the agricultural sector is a major user of liquid fuels on farms, it is a major user of energy on farms, and it will be exposed to all of those extra costs as well as the 90-plus percent of the 2005 benchmark emissions that it will have to meet by 2013, and it will be in its interests to do so sooner rather than later.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues that the agricultural sector is not on target to meet its part of the deal under that agreement, which I think referred to the targets; if so, can the Minister give any reason whatsoever not to terminate the agreement under article 12.5 and require the agricultural sector to meet some obligation for at least its readily reducible nitrous oxide emissions earlier than 2013, given that such a price signal will continue to drive research into emissions reduction anyway?
As I have said, the industry is being cooperative, and meetings are being held as we speak with the agricultural ministry on steps that can be taken. But I think everyone who knows anything about this issue, including my colleague the Minister for Climate Change Issues, recognises that these are complex areas. I have to remind the member who is asking the question that at the same time as she is seeking to impose extra costs on the agricultural sector, she herself and other members of her party are talking about reducing food costs for the rest of the world as well as for New Zealand, and I find that somewhat ironic.
Hon David CarterWhat does the Minister think he will achieve with an emissions trading scheme that crudely imposes average costs on farmers, regardless of individual farm management practices, and that will potentially see production moving offshore to less carbon-efficient farming systems?
Under the proposals being put forward, the area of responsibility for emissions is up for discussion and negotiation with the industry—that is the reality of it. The only thing that I find crude is the lack of responsibility of the National Party to front up and support a proper emissions trading scheme, and its failure to give support to the responsible members of this House who are prepared to do that. I lay a guarantee that after we have taken the hard decisions, the National Party—at any time in the future—will not change one single thing, and that will actually make it harder, rather than lighter, on the agriculture sector.
Hon David ParkerFurther to the previous question, can the Minister confirm that the legislation has been amended at select committee to enable individual farmers who think they can do better than average to opt in, in order to encourage emission reductions?