Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill—Changes

He is a former National Party employee. He is the lobbyist for the Kyoto Forestry Association. He is one of the “hollow men”. He seldom discloses his private interests and associations, in his newspaper column; yet he regularly accuses others, using strong language such as “corruption”. The reality is that deforestation is way down because of the emissions trading scheme. Without the scheme, emissions would increase sharply at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Does the Government not accept responsibility for the 40,000 hectares of deforestation that has occurred since 2004, noting that it is the first deforestation at all since records began in 1951; and does he accept that these figures will get worse, as they are only up to 31 March 2007 and that the chainsaw massacre revved up considerably—

Hon Members

Ha, ha!

—those members can laugh, but those were millions of trees—the chainsaw massacre revved up considerably between March and the end of last year, meaning that the deforestation figures are set to get worse?

Mackey Moana Mackey Link to this

We all know that because of some of the underlying drivers of conversion to dairying, etc., without some regulatory intervention or price responsibility for deforestation emissions, deforestation would have continued this year as high as it was last year, and it would come at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayer and at considerable cost to the environment, yet National will not vote for the emissions trading scheme.

What was the estimated deforestation last year, and what is expected this year?

I am advised that last year’s deforestation totalled some 19,000 hectares—

The worst ever.

Peters Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this

The member is quite right. It would have been repeated this year and every year into the future, and would have got even worse. As a consequence of Government policy, because the emissions trading scheme is coming in, deforestation is already substantially down, to a projected 2,400 hectares this year. Of course, without the emissions trading scheme, deforestation emissions would increase enormously.

Has the Minister received any reports of a certain member of Parliament and spokesman for his party who went to a Bali conference of 42 countries, and came back and protested that New Zealand was the 38th worst, which he then interpreted as being fourth from the bottom, when in fact if one is not confused or of an addled mind, one knows that that is fourth from the top?

Hon Harry Duynhoven Link to this

I have heard that a number of Opposition members are often confused on these issues. They are somewhat complex. One of the latest things I heard from the National Party was that its members somehow expect that New Zealand should be the one developed country to be a pariah by ignoring our Kyoto Protocol obligations, when the reality is that the rest of the developing world is doing more, not less, and that the United States is now engaged in these issues, yet the National Party would have us ignore these underlying issues, presumably on the basis that, as Dr Lockwood Smith said yesterday, we should now pull out of the international efforts. [ Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Hon Harry Duynhoven Link to this

Please be seated, Dr Smith, if you want to stay in the Chamber. Would members please settle. They are starting to get silly. I presume Mr Duynhoven’s point of order is because he could not hear. Is that correct? Would members please keep the noise down. I know it is Thursday, but we still have to get through question time.

My point of order is that I certainly take objection. I am not sure whether the Minister heard the comment, but I take objection to Dr Lockwood Smith yelling out “pack of lies”, or words to that effect. He should be asked to withdraw and apologise. That is not acceptable in Parliament.

Smith Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this

I did not hear the comment, but if the member made it, then I would ask him to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Members place their colleagues in this House in some difficulty when they intentionally make false statements. The Minister David Parker knows he did.

Cullen Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Cullen Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

These points of order will be heard in silence, otherwise members will be leaving the Chamber so that we can get through this question time.

The member cannot get away with making that statement. To accuse somebody of intentionally making a false statement is to repeat the previous allegation, which the member has just been ordered to withdraw and apologise for. I suggest he is approaching the point of having to withdraw from the House.

Does the Hon David Parker have anything further to add before I rule?

I think I probably did overstate what Dr Smith said yesterday. Dr Smith rose yesterday and said that it was the Government that ratified the Kyoto Protocol, as if that was a bad thing, implying that we should not, and implying that National would withdraw.

Does the Minister agree that there is a serious flaw in the Kyoto Protocol in respect of forestry, in that land use can be changed with minimal carbon cost for deforesting by replanting with seedlings and then clearing those small seedlings?

Flavell Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this

I do agree that the Kyoto Protocol is an imperfect instrument. None the less I also think that some of the arguments that are put by the forestry lobby are exaggerated and do not withstand scrutiny, either. We are trying to improve the rules under future versions of the Kyoto Protocol and, indeed, are able to exert influence there because of our responsible conduct as a country, which is most recently evidenced by the fact that the chair of the working-group that is considering these rules is a New Zealander from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Why has the agricultural sector been exempted from the emissions trading scheme during the first 5 years, yet been subsidised for 90 percent of its 2005 emission levels, and what would that exemption and subsidy cost the taxpayer?

It is actually not correct that the agricultural sector is being exempted from the emissions trading scheme. It is responsible for its transport emissions in full, and it is responsible for its electricity and process emissions on farm. It is true that it is exempted from its agricultural methane and nitrous oxide emissions until the start of 2013, but that is on the basis that there are considerable technical issues in respect of measurement that still need to be worked through, and it is also true that although in some sectors there are substitutionary technologies where one can completely remove some sources of emissions in agriculture, one cannot entirely remove emissions although one can reduce them.

Why is it Government policy to encourage foresters wanting to change land use to temporarily replant those trees and then bulldoze them over at 8 years old, as is provided for in his emissions trading scheme legislation, and where is there any benefit for the environment or the economy from that sort of policy lunacy?

The advice from officials, which was given to the select committee, and accepted by the select committee, and accepted by me, is that it is going to be a very strange practice to try to avoid emission reduction obligations or emission costs by going to the cost of replanting a forest, leaving it in the ground for 8 years, with all that lost cost of production, and then pulling it out so as to avoid a cost. Look, the underlying point here is that some of those who want to escape any obligation in respect of deforestation emissions want different rules for themselves than for industry. Industry is being told that if it increases emissions above historic levels, it has to take responsibility for those increases. Those wanting to increase deforestation above historic levels—still an emission, still a cost to the country—want to put all that cost to taxpayers rather than take responsibility for it themselves.

Was not the Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne, correct when he said that this emissions trading legislation is sounding more and more like the Electoral Finance Act where bland assurances were given by Ministers day after day in the House that it was all OK, yet it has subsequently turned completely to pickle, and should he not heed the advice of Mr Dunne that he slow down and take the extra time to get this important emissions trading scheme legislation right?