English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8389] 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: Does he stand by his description of farmers opposing the “livestock flatulence” levy as “whingers”; if not will he apologise? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 The Government proposes a levy to fund research not to tax flatulence and I publicly withdrew the remark about whingers several weeks ago. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that the Minister is aware of the strength of farmer feeling on this flatulence research levy is he ready to back down? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No. 
Mark Peck 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of farming leaders acknowledging the value of the sector’s exemptions from emission charges? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have seen a statement from the former president of Federated Farmers Alistair Polson which says: “Farmers can take some comfort from the fact that the Government has rejected a flatulence tax on agricultural emissions.” That remark was made last year when the Government’s preferred policy was announced in April 2002. That policy was confirmed in October and applies today. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that he will retain the proposed methane research levy at $8.4 million per year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government’s preferred option was and is that farmers will step forward with a sufficient research programme. If they do not and so far they have not then we reserve the right to put in a compulsory levy. If we were to do that it would be capped at that level. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does he still stand by his claim that farmers should be grateful that the Government has not put a billion dollar levy on agriculture to reflect its cost under the Kyoto Protocol or does he now think on reflection that he would have been better to follow ACT’s advice and not sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol until the United States and China do so? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is unlikely that I will ever follow ACT’s advice on anything at all. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While the Minister’s answer was probably accurate in that he may never have the sense to follow ACT’s advice that cannot possibly be a proper answer. I asked him whether he thought farmers should be grateful that he has not put a billion dollar levy on them. Why can he not repeat that in front of the farmers? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should not have talked about ACT policy at the end of his question. That then gave the Minister the opportunity to answer in that way which was within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How does the Minister react to claims that the farming sector is being singled out by the imposition of this levy and can he therefore advise the House if that claim is not correct what other industry sector groups are also going to face a research levy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The farming industry most certainly is being singled out in this way. Farming is responsible for half of our emissions and they will be covered in total. The rest of our economy is responsible for the other half of our emissions and very large sections of that other half of our emissions will face a carbon charge. So in that respect farmers are being treated favourably indeed. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why did the Government promise to consult farmers on the flatulence tax and then ignore 2000 angry farmers on the steps of Parliament today? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government did consult with farmers and we consulted extensively last year. At the end of that consultation the president of Federated Farmers said: “Farmers can take some comfort from the fact that the Government has rejected a flatulence tax on agriculture emissions.” We did that subsequent to consultation. 
Mark Peck 
: Why are agricultural greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is a very good question. Agricultural emissions are included in the protocol because Governments during the 1990s insisted that they should be—particularly the National Government of New Zealand in 1997. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have asked only one member to ask a question—one person only. That is the only warning today. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Do I take it from the Minister’s answers that the Government is considering not now a flatulence tax but a research levy that it is the Government’s view that this levy will be paid by all farmers and that the Minister is ruling out any prospect of that $8.4 million being funded from other sources? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Not at all. If the funding can come from other sources and one hopes that it might yet then we will not need to impose such a tax to the extent that it does come. 
Hon David Carter 
: If or when the Government does back down on the flatulence tax who will ultimately pay this so-called voluntary levy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There is no back-down. If there is anything going on it is a back-up. What is happening is that the Primary Industries Council has resumed its discussions with the Government on how it may be that both parties can agree that the levy becomes unnecessary. Those negotiations have barely begun. I hope they work. It is far too early to know.