8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues
What cost is there to the New Zealand taxpayer from increased levels of deforestation and New Zealand’s obligation under the Kyoto Protocol?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) Link to this
That will depend entirely upon the levels of deforestation during the period 2008 to 2012.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Is the reason the Government has hidden away on page 788 of the Budget a whopping $85 million deforestation expense to the taxpayer—with no mention of it in the trends, no mention of it in the objectives, and no press release or explanation—that a massive stuff-up occurred between the Climate Change Office and the Office of Treaty Settlements over the Kyoto Protocol liabilities for the forests involved in the Te Arawa settlement?
Hon Marian HobbsWhat recent reports, if any, has the Minister received on emission-reduction opportunities being developed in New Zealand that could reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions and our future Kyoto Protocol liability?
The Independent Financial Review yesterday reported on its front page that Air New Zealand and plane manufacturer Boeing are working with the Blenheim-based biofuel developer Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation to create the world’s first environmentally friendly aviation fuel. This will be made of biofuel extracted from the algae that grow naturally on sewage oxidation ponds. While Dr Smith misleads the House about coal, New Zealand is answering the Prime Minister’s call and advancing sustainably towards carbon neutrality.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How does he reconcile the $85 million expense to the Crown in the Budget for preventing Kyoto Protocol deforestation liabilities on the settlement lands made available to Te Arawa, with the Government’s statement on 8 August last year on that settlement: “The total cost to the Crown is $36 million.”; and does he now accept that the cost to the taxpayer is not $36 million but $121 million?
The member is incorrect to characterise the full amount of the write-down as being attributable to the Kyoto Protocol. The promises that were made by the recipients of that land included restrictions on future land use that go far beyond the first commitment period in the Kyoto Protocol, and adjustments to valuation for reasons also beyond just forestry.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was about the Government telling the public last year that the cost was $36 million, and the Budget having an allocation of $85 million on top of that $36 million. My simple question to the Minister was whether he now accepts that the cost to the taxpayer is $121 million, not $36 million. I got some complex explanation around the different periods associated with the Kyoto Protocol. What I want to know is what the cost to the Crown of that settlement is.
Madam SPEAKERNo, I think the Minister did actually address the question. As the member knows, one cannot require a yes or no answer from the Minister, but the Minister did address the substance of the question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does the Minister accept that this $85 million debacle between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Climate Change Office arises because, between the agreement in principle in September 2005 and the final deed of settlement, his Government’s climate change polices were all over the paddock, leading to confusion over those Kyoto Protocol liabilities, and does he accept that taxpayers are now having to foot a bill of $85 million because of this Government’s incompetence?
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does the Minister recall Helen Clark and Pete Hodgson telling New Zealanders that the people of New Zealand stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars from forestry under the Kyoto Protocol; and now that taxpayers are having to fork out the first $85 million of real money, does he think it is time that the Labour Government apologised to the people of New Zealand for misleading them and for its failed Kyoto Protocol policies, which are leading to record levels of deforestation and these huge bills for the normal taxpayer?
An emission is an emission, and emissions from deforestation are greenhouse gas emissions. We do want to curb our emissions growth, and an important part of that will be implementing a cap on deforestation, which was first announced in 2002. I would also say that emissions trading, if it is introduced, will cost-effectively and substantially reduce deforestation even further below that.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Did the Minister recommend to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that he disclose the nature of obligations expected under the Kyoto Protocol when entering into settlement discussions with Te Pūmau-tanga o Te Arawa, and would he agree that the failure to disclose such significant obligations breaches good-faith negotiations; if not, why not?
In respect of the settlement referred to by Dr Smith, I am sure there was full disclosure, and full knowledge on the part of both parties as to what they were negotiating about.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Noting the Minister’s answer that there was full disclosure, I seek the leave of the House to table the initial deed of settlement, which states that the total cost to the Crown would be $36 million.
Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table page 788 of the Budget, which shows that not $36 million but—
I seek leave to table two documents, the first of which is the Energy Data File, which shows the amount of coal burned to produce—
The second is the article in the Independent Financial Review that reports the efforts made by the Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Does the Minister not agree that, given the number of cross-claimants in the central North Island claims that are not currently being settled, any arrangements that lock those lands into a restrictive development regime that limits land use to forestry should be disclosed to those cross-claimants, to allow them to have meaningful input into those decisions?