7. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) Link to this
to the Minister of Forestry
What steps is the Government taking to address climate change in the land management sector?
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry) Link to this
This morning the Government announced a comprehensive response to climate change, including an economy-wide emissions trading scheme. The Government proposes under this scheme that forests planted after 1989 will be eligible for 100 percent of carbon credits, as well as the liabilities generated by those forests from 1 January 2008. That, along with a $50 million Afforestation Grants Scheme, is expected to significantly increase the planting of trees across New Zealand.
I have seen a blue-green document from the National Party that proposes to abolish the limits on deforestation. I have also seen a report saying the National Party would give only a portion—I repeat, a portion—of carbon credits to forest owners. It is clear that there would be significantly fewer incentives to plant forests under a National Government than there are under this Government, and that there would be absolutely no controls on deforestation. That comes from a party that has been screaming about a chainsaw massacre of 0.017 percent of our plantation forest estate.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does the Minister stand by his press statement of 6 March this year, in response to John Key’s call that carbon credits should be allocated to Kyoto forest owners, now that the Government has adopted just that policy, when in the press release he said the policy was “political naivety”, fiscal madness, “would create huge windfall gains for a few forest owners at the expense of ordinary taxpayers”, and the “emperor of the National Party has no clothes”—or is it the Minister who is naked today?
I stand behind every one of those statements, because at the time the Kyoto Forestry Association was asking for all the credits and none of the liabilities. Today what it got was the credits and the liabilities. When the association looks at the situation carefully, it may decide that one should never ask for what one wants—one might get it. I do say that I stand behind those statements more than I wonder whether Mr Key stands behind his statement in May 2005 that the Kyoto regime and climate change were a complete and utter hoax. Then, in a subsequent interview with Kathryn Ryan in 2006, he said: “I firmly believe in climate change, and always have.”
Madam SPEAKERIf the Government does not devolve deforestation liabilities to those who convert forest land to pasture, who bears the cost?
Gerry BrownleePlease be seated. The interjections are starting to create disorder, as is the chipping across the House. There are opportunities to ask questions, and there are opportunities to hear the answers. Would the Minister please address the question.
The member asks a very good question. If the Government were to abolish the deforestation cap, as National proposed, that would place no restrictions on deforestation. The taxpayer and the environment would have to pick up the bill for that. Meanwhile, a few individuals would make handsome profits for themselves, at everybody else’s expense. That is called the National policy of capitalising one’s profits and socialising one’s losses.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave to table National’s blue-green vision, which makes it plain that National supports the allocation of those liabilities as well as those credits.
I ask members who have documents they wish to table to do so at the end of the question. That is the convention.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has become a common habit of the Government for Ministers to grossly misrepresent in their supplementary answers National’s policy. I think it is best for the operation of the House that where those errors are made, they be corrected immediately.
I will obviously use my judgment on that, but those are matters of debate. This is question time. The member should ask his supplementary question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Why did the Government, in June 2000, decide to allocate to Kyoto forest owners the carbon credits, then reverse that decision in July 2002 and state it would not allocate them, and now change its position again to one of allocating the carbon credits to the forest owners; and is it any wonder that we have seen net deforestation of 10 million trees over these last 4 years when the forestry policy keeps flip-flopping all over the place?
The Government made no such policy statement, unlike the National Party, which between 2002 and 2006—
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was in respect of Cabinet decisions. The Minister, thank goodness, has no responsibility for National Party policy.
Would the Minister please address the question. The member is right. The Minister cannot address National Party policy, but any reports that he has heard about that policy can, of course, be addressed.
That is true, Madam Speaker. I am pleased that I do not have responsibility for it. But I point out to the House that between 2002 and 2006, 11 climate change - related bills were put to this House and National members voted against every single one of them. How much credibility do they have on climate change with that kind of record?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is obviously quoting from a document, and I wonder whether he is prepared to table it now, because it would show how many of those 11 bills were actually passed and are still effective today.
As the member knows, having been here a long time, it is for a member himself or herself to decide whether to table a document. Someone else cannot ask on a member’s behalf.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek the leave of the House to table the Cabinet minute from June 2000 when the Government made an “in principle” decision to allocate carbon credits—
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek the leave of the House to table the Cabinet minute from July 2002 when the Government rescinded that decision and said that it would not allocate carbon credits.