9. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this
to the Minister for Climate Change Issues
How many hectares have been planted in trees in New Zealand since the emissions trading scheme came into effect in 2008, and what is the estimated present-day value of the credits of those plantings?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) Link to this
I can tell the member that 70,200 hectares of trees were planted in New Zealand in 2008-09, but the bulk of this planting was replanting not new plantings, and they are not eligible for carbon credits. The forests eligible for credits under the emissions trading scheme and the Kyoto Protocol are those planted since 1990, amounting to 566,000 hectares. The value of the 80 million tonnes of carbon credits due to those forests is approximately $2 billion.
Does he accept that if we postponed the emissions trading scheme, the very most that the Government would have to compensate post-2008 forest owners for would be less than $20 million, which would be a small price to pay for the horrific cost of the emissions trading scheme on the New Zealand economy?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I am aware of that pretty extraordinary proposition from the ACT Party. When the post-1990 forest owners have carbon credits worth $2 billion, the party of property rights says that we should give them $20 million. I am not sure whether that really stacks up.
Louise UpstonWhat reports has the Minister received indicating a shift in forest-planting trends resulting from the Government’s climate change policies?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry reports annually on forest owners’ planting intentions. Despite the trend of significant deforestation from 2004-08, there was a small gain of 500 hectares last year. The survey indicates new plantings—that is, not replantings—of 4,700 hectares this year, 5,700 hectares next year, and 7,700 hectares in 2012. This reversal shows that the Government’s balanced policies on climate change are restoring confidence in the important forestry sector.
Does he accept that if it chose to, the Government, with ACT’s support, could do exactly what it did yesterday—that is, put this House into extraordinary urgency—and postpone the emissions trading scheme until 2013, thereby aligning our position with that of Australia?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The Government campaigned on a policy of moderating the emissions trading scheme and proceeding with it in 2010. We will not go back on our word on that. I would also point out that the Australian scheme is not due to come into effect for a least a year. I think we will need to watch the results of the Australian election later this year before it is clear what the Australian climate change policy will be. I note that the Liberal Party’s policy is for A$9 billion of spending on climate change initiatives. My view is that that is a less efficient way for New Zealand to respond to climate change than the more efficient tool of an emissions trading scheme.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he accepted that the Government could do procedurally what it did yesterday, which was to put this House into extraordinary urgency, and amend the emissions trading scheme. I did not ask what the National Party campaigned on, and I did not ask him how many trees were planted. I asked a procedural question. I asked whether it was possible to put this House into extraordinary urgency in order to pass amendments to the emissions trading scheme.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
In answering the question, I wanted to set out why the Government would not do that. I think that when a member asks questions of that sort, it is perfectly proper for Ministers to say: “Actually, we are not going to do that, and here’s why.”
Mr SPEAKERNo, I do not think the House needs to take further time on this. The member knows, of course, that a Government can seek leave to put the House into extraordinary urgency, and I do not think that there is much to be gained by having the Minister specifically repeat that. The Minister made very clear the Government’s position, and that was probably quite helpful to the House and to those listening. I do not think I should criticise the Minister for the way in which he answered the question, because I think those listening to Parliament gained useful information from that slightly longer—and it was only slightly longer—answer.
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on what you have just said, with the greatest respect. You said that everyone knows the answer and that, therefore, the Minister does not have to answer the question. Then you said that the Minister gave some useful information in his answer. Well, the fact that everyone knows something does not mean that a Minister does not have to answer a question. When an MP asks a question, it is not for you to judge that everyone knows the answer, to say the Minister therefore does not need to answer, and then to say the answer is OK as the Minister gave some useful information. The requirement, I think, is that a Minister answers the question that is asked by a member of Parliament.
I accept the smack over the knuckles. Again, the member makes a perfectly fair point. I am just being reasonable, though, as Speaker. If I were to rule that the Minister had failed to answer the question, etc., I think I would be being just a wee bit too pedantic on this occasion. Had the Minister included in his answer language that was critical of the ACT Party, then I would have come down on him absolutely. But the information was not unreasonable and it was helpful information, and I cannot insist that Ministers answer a question in a particular way. I can insist that they answer a question, but I feel that was a reasonable answer to the question asked.
I have to disagree, Mr Speaker. The question had one limb to it. It asked a question, and your point was that it did not need to be answered because, basically, you knew the answer. There are a whole lot of people who do not know the answer, so why are we are not entitled to get an answer to a straight question?
I do not think that the House should be wasting further time on this. If the Minister had said: “Yes, but”, then it would have been fine. I think that most people, when listening to his answer, would understand that that was exactly what he was saying. He was acknowledging the point that the questioner was making, and he went on to explain why the Government was not doing that. I have to be careful not to be unreasonable. I have been pretty hard on Ministers in requiring them to answer questions, but I have to be careful not to be too pedantic and unreasonable about it. I apologise to the member if he feels that I have let his colleague down, because, technically, I acknowledge that the member has a fair point. If in my judgment I have let the member down, then I apologise for that. But I have to be a little bit reasonable.