King Colin: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18139] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 In the time that I have allotted to me I would like to consider developing in a more specific sense issues around the comments made by Te Ururoa Flavell of the Maori Party. In doing so I will consider the purpose clause and the interpretation clause. When we stop and think about it we can see that that early part of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill talks a lot about forestry. The interpretation clause clause 6 concerns the definition of “clear” and what that means—it is related to trees of course—and goes through the definitions to include clear-felling harvesting burning removing mechanically spraying with herbicides and so on. 
The point I want to make here is that the problem with this bill is its design. There is a massive design fault with this bill. It denies people the ability to use common sense when making decisions. In regard to the comments made by Te Ururoa Flavell the member from the Maori Party we can talk about the Balmoral Forest in a very regional sense. It is part of the Ngai Tahu settlement. If members travel on the highway to the Lewis Pass they will go through that forest. It is part of the Ngai Tahu settlement and Ngai Tahu are very keen that what their neighbours are doing is also developed there. Just next door is the amazing Amuri Basin which has been turned from a dustbowl as a result of the use and management of water from the Hurunui and Waiau rivers into one of the engine rooms of the region’s economy with its dairying. Right next door to the Balmoral Forest there is dairy country that is highly productive when water is put on it. However as I understand it the problem with the design of this climate change bill is that the owners will be prohibited from doing that because of the punitive charge of $13000 per hectare that would be placed upon them if they were to clear-fell that land and set it up for dairying. 
I would like the Minister to explain to me the common sense behind that logic—that design of this bill—whereby those trees could be planted anywhere else by Ngai Tahu and meet the needs and scope of this bill’s intention. It does not make sense that there should be such an opportunity as this one yet as a nation we are walking away from it and saying: “No if you clear-fell that area we want $13000 a hectare.”—if that is what the price is; it could be $20000. I do not know so the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker might want to explain how this figure is arrived at when Ngai Tahu’s neighbours just over the fence are currently conducting agriculture that is highly productive. When we stop and think about it we know that this could be pivotal to having a major stakeholder in an irrigation programme emanating within the region that could also irrigate another 30000 hectares. So just because there is a rule in place which I see as a design fault of this bill under the interpretation of forestry and how it is meant to be managed we are limiting ourselves by something potentially in the region of $400 million a year. So I put it to members that I would like to see the Minister on his feet and explaining the common-sense global logic of denying Ngai Tahu the right to do that because that is the very same point that Mark Solomon was making in the question raised by Te Ururoa Flavell in the House today. 
I believe that when we go through this bill with its complexities around forestry and many many other things we are not entirely addressing things in the best-practice manner. In actual fact in many ways New Zealand is conducting itself by means that are far in excess of best practice compared with other nations. Unfortunately though we have locked ourselves into a bill that has a dramatic and clear design fault. Now 780-odd amendments have been thrown at us and there will be a 2-year delay before the bill is introduced when clearly we are looking at a dynamic economy. To illustrate this further I tell members that locally in the top of the South Island a wine industry in 1999 was using 2 megawatts of power; today it is using 14 megawatts. This bill has a design fault.