11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister of Forestry
Is it his photograph and signature on the ministerial foreword on the Government options paper titled Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry) Link to this
Well, I am reasonably sure that it is; if it is not, it bears a remarkable resemblance to me.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How does the Minister reconcile the statement in the document under “Deforestation Option 1”—“a charge would be levied on any party that removed a non-Kyoto forest and introduced a new land use. The charge would be set at a rate per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, and levied on the level of carbon assessed as stored … That is equivalent to an emissions cost of around $13,000 for each hectare of land deforested …”—with his statement made yesterday: “The claim by the foresters in the National Party that the Government is proposing a $13,000 per hectare tax on deforestation is wilful ignorance and deceit designed to alarm the community.”?
That sounds like an accurate description of the National Party to me. The document, of course, goes on to state—and the member did not quote this—“The Government would carry a portion of the deforestation costs incurred under the Kyoto Protocol by: Agreeing a threshold level of emissions in each commitment period, below which parties could deforest without being liable to pay the charge, and/or”—these are options, of course—“Setting the charge at a discounted level below the expected international price of greenhouse gas emissions.”
The document is therefore very clear that if this option proceeded—and it is a consultation document—then some of the costs of deforestation, currently estimated at $13,000 a hectare, would be carried by the Government. Consequently, it is absolutely correct to say there is no proposal to charge $13,000 per hectare, retrospectively or otherwise.
H V Ross Robertson Link to this
What reports, if any, has the Minister seen on ways to control deforestation?
As a remarkable coincidence I have seen such a report. It is the National Party’s blue-green discussion document. It makes only one suggestion dealing with deforestation, and that is to remove the 21 million tonne deforestation cap. The present cost of that policy is estimated to be $651 million, and I would like to know from the National Party how it plans to fund this, together with the tax cuts offered, year after year, by its leader in this House on Tuesday.
R Doug WoolertonIs the Minister still intending to hold further briefings with the National Party on these issues, given that in the first week of Parliament it has now twice breached the usual protocols in respect of private briefings given by Ministers; and would he not be better off restricting briefings to parties that uphold protocols, like New Zealand First?
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Firstly, the Minister who is being asked that question has no ministerial responsibility in that regard. Secondly, it was Michael Cullen who announced to Parliament that there had been a meeting, then misled Parliament over the content of it. David Parker was the other Minister who was responding to an offer that was made to him some 18 months ago. Madam Speaker, I think that question was right out of order.
Madam SPEAKERNo, I do not think it is out of order, provided that a briefing has been given. Has a briefing been given?
Speaking to the point of order, there have been briefings of some parties on the question of deforestation and climate change. New Zealand First is one of them. I have to say I have enjoyed its cooperation and confidentiality, which is how New Zealand First treated such a briefing.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does the Minister stand by his statement made in the House yesterday: “The rate of deforestation under the previous National Government was higher than any deforestation now.”, when official Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry figures show an increase in forestry of 491,000 hectares from 1990 to 1999, and the press statement of his own ministry last year stated that 2004, 2005, and 2006 were the very first years since 1951 that there was any deforestation; and is not the only person guilty of ignorance and deceit the Minister?
What I was referring to yesterday in the House was the fact that between 1994 and 1999 under the period of National Government new plantings in New Zealand were reduced from 98,000 per hectare to 40,000 per hectare, whereas in a similar period, between 2000 and 2005, the reduction was 28,000, not 58,000.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Is the Minister now telling the House that when he told us yesterday there was deforestation during the 1990s, he really meant that in the last year there was only 40,000 hectares of new forests, and that now the latest figure is 11,000 hectares of deforestation—and somehow we will need to believe that things have got better?
What I am telling the House is an accurate description of what has happened in forestry in the last decade and a half. There have been fewer new plantings and more deforestation because of the economics of agriculture versus forestry. If the National Party has a new policy to announce to communities—that it will be restricted in the change of land use it has—would it please announce that and tell the farmers and foresters of New Zealand what it has in mind.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Can the Minister explain how being the first-ever Minister of Forestry in New Zealand to preside over a declining forest estate is consistent with the Prime Minister’s talk of carbon neutrality?
One of the real advantages that the New Zealand economy has, particularly with its natural resource base, is flexibility of land use. And it always has been so. This Government is dealing with a new era of climate change that requires new policies—nothing retrospective, but new. And those new policies are not some kind of new revelation on the road to Damascus, in the way the leader of the National Party has just discovered climate change; this Government has been working on climate change policies for a very long time now.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
What does it say about the Minister’s competence in his portfolio that he publicly accuses others of deceit and ignorance for suggesting a deforestation tax, when that is exactly what he has put forward as option No. 1 in his document, and when he makes false claims that contradict his own ministry over deforestation; and is this not a sure sign that he and his Government have gone well past their use-by date?
As a matter of fact, the preferred option in the document is for tradable permits. I understood that the National Party agreed with tradable permits, so what is Dr Smith going on about and wasting the time of this House when he knows full well that the options in that paper include one that evidently the National Party publicly—I do not know about privately—agrees with?
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave, for the benefit of the Minister, to table Deforestation Option 1: Flat charge on land use change from forestry to another use.”