Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:653;Page:2057] 
10.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Is he considering removing agricultural emissions from the New Zealand emissions trading scheme; if so why? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I think the member meant to set down the question to me as the Minister for Climate Change Issues but I am happy to oblige. No; agriculture emissions make up— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My understanding is that the question was set down for the Minister for Climate Change Issues but that it was transferred by the Office of the Clerk to the Minister for the Environment. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave to table the form signed by Mr Darren Hughes which set down the question as being for the Minister for the Environment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we do not need to take this matter further because it is the Government’s responsibility as to whom the responsible Minister is. The question is to the appropriate Minister the Hon Dr Nick Smith. The House will listen to the answer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No; agricultural emissions make up 49 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions so they do need to be included at some stage. However we do need to be honest about the huge complexities of including agriculture into an emissions trading scheme in that accuracy in the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions from animals is very difficult to obtain. This is a sector that is very much subject to pressures from international competition. There are also issues in terms of the technologies that enable us to reduce emissions from farm animals and that is an area in which the Government is making a substantial investment into research. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister think that the inclusion of agriculture in the emissions trading scheme will be a barrier to his stated desire for there to be harmonisation between Australia’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and New Zealand’s emission trading scheme given that the Australian scheme will not include agriculture? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I do not. There are some issues around harmonisation between New Zealand and Australia where the provisions do have to be the same. If for instance there is to be a price cap in one country and not in the other that would be unworkable. If there are issues around the assigned amount units that are able to be traded internationally that too would be critical. Having said that the Australian approach to agriculture is that its inclusion is programmed for after 2015 with a decision on that intended to be made in about 2013. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Will the implementation of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme be further delayed if the Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is not legislated for according to the Australian Government’s anticipated timetable? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In my discussions last week with the Minister for Climate Change and Water in Australia Penny Wong she remained confident of being able to secure the numbers particularly in the Senate for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to be able to come into effect on 1 July. But that is substantially an issue for Australia. It is this Government’s view that there are real advantages in harmonising the approaches of New Zealand and Australia. If it is necessary to take a bit more time in order to get those schemes harmonised in the early stage it is worth doing that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether in the event of delay in the implementation of the Australian scheme there would be further delay in respect of the New Zealand scheme. He said based on assurances from the Minister in Australia that he did not think there would be a delay but that it was worth taking time. I am not quite sure whether the question was actually addressed—[ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite may think it is funny but it is actually a very serious question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly good point and there should not have been any interjection. I think it would be fair to say though that the member asked whether there would be a delay and the answer he got from the Minister was an assurance he had from the Australian Minister that things were on time. The Minister cannot really speculate—and I do not think the member can expect him to speculate—beyond that and I think the answer to the question was a reasonable one. 
John Boscawen 
: Does the Minister agree that it would be foolish for New Zealand to move faster than Australia in the area of agricultural emissions which Australia is not including in its scheme until 2015 at the earliest; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think it is important to recognise that the significance of agricultural emissions for New Zealand is significantly greater than they are for Australia—they make up about 49 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions as compared with about 15 percent for Australia. But I also think we need to be honest in this Parliament about the huge difficulties of including agriculture in an emissions trading scheme. The measurements are extremely difficult this sector is very much exposed to international competition and the third point I make is that we have not even resolved the question—nor did the previous Government—of whether the obligation would be at the processor or the farm level. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What recent reports has the Minister received on the inclusion of agricultural emissions by other countries? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have received reports today that Denmark had included having a price put on agricultural emissions but has subsequently decided not to proceed with that because of the international competitiveness issues. I think that response and what is taking place internationally are matters that New Zealand needs to responsibly keep a brief on so that we are not putting our key exporting industry at risk.