10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister of Forestry
Does he stand by his statement that the argument that forestry owners have a right to the carbon credits for forests “is not worth a cup of cold water”?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry) Link to this
Yes. Kyoto Protocol sink credits are the result of Government to Government agreements, in which benefits and liabilities rest with Governments. It was a National-led Government that negotiated and signed the Kyoto Protocol, and it was a Labour-led Government that ratified the protocol, not the forestry industry. Forest owners have no more right to carbon credits than farmers, motorists, or households in New Zealand have a personal financial liability for their emissions.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
If that is the case, why did the Cabinet minute in January 2001 state: “It is agreed in principle that some portion of the carbon credits would go to those undertaking sink activities.” and: “All or most of the sink credits derived from sink activities would be tradable by those that had them.”; why did Cabinet, in January 2001, agree to just that, when the Minister now says that that is wrong?
I could just answer that that was looking to the future—where the member never looks. The Government, of course, is currently consulting on a proposal to allocate carbon credits to those who plant new forests from next year. That is entirely consistent with the in-principle decision taken by Cabinet in 2000. If the member is referring to trees already in the ground before Kyoto was ever thought of, then I suggest he reflect on the fairness of retrospectively allocating a windfall gain to people who planted trees to grow wood, while at the same time granting a windfall loss to those such as farmers, who can do little about the emissions of their stock. The Government, I say to the House, is developing climate change policy that will assist the entire economy to transition to a carbon-constrained future. We are not proposing retrospective windfall gains for a few, at the expense of farmers and taxpayers. Instead, we have a forward-looking policy that will, over time, move to have the costs and benefits lie where they fall.
Steve ChadwickA large number of Kyoto forests that generate carbon credits are owned by large corporate overseas investors, such as the Japanese-owned Pan Pac Forest Products, Singaporean-owned Earnslaw One, and American-owned Blakely Pacific. Even the Roger Dickie syndicates were heavily subscribed to by wealthy individuals from North America, Asia, and even Switzerland. So the National Party’s latest flip-flop on how to give away carbon credits for forests already in the ground represents a large transfer of wealth from New Zealand taxpayers to foreign investors. Perhaps the member, or the leader of the National Party, would like to tell the House what assurances he gave—or those members gave—about how many hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of carbon credits from the pockets of ordinary New Zealand taxpayers the National Party would give to those investors, when he met yesterday in Wellington with the managing director of one of those foreign-owned companies.
R Doug WoolertonIf forestry owners were to receive carbon credits, would it be reasonable to assume that they would also own carbon debits; if so, what would the likely costs of those be to forestry owners?
That is a very good question. Of course, if the credits were allocated to forest owners, they would also have the liabilities. We always hear from the proponents of this about the credits; we never hear about the liabilities and all the problems that those would create. They should start to do some thinking about the counterfactual here.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Why did the Prime Minister state last week that there was never any promise to the industry that the credits would be devolved, when the Government document entitled Forest Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol, signed by Pete Hodgson in 2001, states on page 10: “Cabinet confirmed that … the benefit from sink credits would accrue to those undertaking the sink activities.”, and on page 12 gives an example of a Mr Pine planting trees after 1990 and states: “He will therefore be eligible for sink credits proportional to the carbon stock increase between 2008 and 2012”—or is that just another example of the Prime Minister being economical with the truth?
The Prime Minister is reflecting the exact objective fact about this policy. There are 168 countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, including key trading partners such as countries in the European Union and Japan. Of those 168 countries, New Zealand is the only country in the world that has a policy to devolve Kyoto sink credits. In New Zealand’s case, this is a permanent forest establishment under the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative, which enjoys the unanimous support of this House. The member seems to forget that he voted for it. Furthermore, the Government is presently consulting on a range of options to encourage afforestation. One option proposed is to devolve credits to those who plant new forests from 1 January next year for normal rotational harvesting. That is completely in accord with all the Cabinet decisions that have been made and with the statement of the Prime Minister.
Does the Minister believe that in order to protect the best interests of foresters, more information on the private ownership of carbon credits is required, and that hasty decision-making could cost foresters in the long term?
A lot of farm foresters, for example, have been stirred up by a few people who have a very significant financial interest in this matter. I can assure the House that in almost every case, those farm foresters will not be caught in this kind of deforestation issue, because the compliance cost of dealing with less than, say, 100 hectares of farm forest will not matter. Almost all of the people who have been going to the meetings and being stirred up by people like Mr Dickie are not caught up in the great catastrophe that they have been told they are caught up in. The consultative process we are going through is eliciting submissions from the people whom we have been consulting with—all of the stakeholders—and they will inform the basis of some solid policy, going forward. That might be a complete revelation for the National Party members across the Chamber.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Why has not one Minister nor any member of the Government fronted up to the 16 public meetings on the Government’s forestry and land-use policies, which have been attended by over 2,000 people—or when the going gets tough, does this Government simply pay expensive flunkeys to take the stick for its broken promises and policy botch-ups?
I think it is really quite instructive for this House to hear from someone who aspires to be in executive Government refer to highly qualified and principled public servants as “expensive flunkeys”. That member has quite a reputation for attacking the Public Service. This Government has empowered and rebuilt the Public Service since it came to office. The reality is that these meetings are not for political grandstanding by Mr Dickie or by the member who is shouting across the Table; these meetings are to elicit—
Madam SPEAKERWould the Minister please be seated. The Minister has been asked a question; he is addressing it. Would those members who ask questions please have the courtesy to listen rather than answer them for the Minister. The Minister is attempting to answer the question. Constant and repeated interruptions do not assist that process. Will the Minister please answer succinctly, if possible.
These meetings are to elicit information from the Government advisers on this policy; that is what the meetings were set up for. When I hear that people like Mr Smith are going to them and orating at them, I am very pleased I am not present.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I assure the Minister that the public members there welcomed me. They gave me almost universal applause.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does the Minister accept that the “Minister of Deforestation” is a fairer description of his role—
I have asked the member to please use the Minister’s correct title rather than the “Minister of Deforestation”. [ Interruption] I know Wednesday is members’ day, but would the member please just ask the question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Is it not a fairer description of the Minister’s role to be the “Minister of Deforestation”, given that he is the first Minister to hold the portfolio when there has been overall net deforestation, that at public meetings organised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry from Invercargill to Whangarei there have been unanimous motions of no confidence in him as Minister, and that even the very moderate New Zealand Timber Industry Federation on Monday stated: “For some time the federation has been sceptical of Mr Anderton’s commitment to the success of the forest industry.”?
Having motions of no confidence in me moved by Mr Dickie and seconded by the member who has just spoken is an absolutely positive honour. I am pleased it has happened.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the accusation that I second motions of no confidence, I have to assure the House it was totally unnecessary for me to do so. Over a hundred members of the public at the meeting were fighting to be able to second the motion.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave of the House to table the Cabinet minute from January 2001, in which the Government said that a portion of the carbon credits from forests would be allocated to landowners.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave of the House to table a document signed by Mr Pete Hodgson that was also distributed. It is titled Forest Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol, and states that foresters will receive the credits for their Kyoto—