Ardern Shane: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Shane: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5383. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 Being from the heartland rural New Zealand it is always interesting to follow on from a speaker like the Rt Hon Winston Peters and it is also interesting for someone who is actually in the export industry and in the agricultural sector as well. Clearly there are some inflationary pressures on that export sector but what is the answer? That is the question. What is the answer? Tinkering at the edges in the way suggested by those who have just entered into the debate clearly is not the answer. When you look at what is being achieved what is tangible and what can be measured; when you talk about after-tax wages being up by 20 percent since 2008; when you talk about the lowest inflation since 1999; and when you talk about the lowest interest rates in 45 years these are measurable tangible actions taken by our Government. It is not a lot of hot air and puffery from those who have had their chance who have had their day in the sun and who have achieved nothing in their time. 
I see a major threat on the horizon if you like to the growth of the New Zealand economy. I see a major threat. It is the misinformation the lack of understanding and the inability to want to read and understand some of the concerns that are facing our major export industries like some of the things that we have read and seen in recent times. One such thing is a submission by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for example during the recent select committee process on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill at the Finance and Expenditure Committee suggesting that agriculture should be included in an emissions trading tax. That is based on an assumption that approximately 50 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas comes from that sector. Mr Speaker I know that you would know with your education probably better than anyone in this House that that is demonstrably challengeable. It is absolutely challengeable. In fact the science around that is substantially flawed. 
To continue repeating the lie that was generated by the previous Government and continued ever since that up to 50 percent of our greenhouse gases come from the agricultural sector when over the time since that was first commented on— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The only reason for making this point of order is to underline and make clear what has just been said and to say that pursuant to the discussions that occurred in and out of the House yesterday I am pleased that the new standards are being applied. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He called us liars. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! He did not accuse any member—particular member—of lying. The member should not— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Collectively—the previous Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He referred to an issue as being a lie; that is a totally different context. The members should not interrupt the 5-minute speech. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The member knows no better and has consistently— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Not to break up the speech but I just ask you to ask the member once you have ruled not to comment on your ruling as he just did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is breaking up his speech. It does not help the good order of the House. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I will refrain from commenting in response to that. Here is a member who was in the House yesterday crying crocodile tears over the closure of schools in Christchurch when he closed more schools in Taranaki with one stroke of a pen than any other member in this House and there was no justification for that. So that member knows no different. He has always been the same. That is about where I will leave that. 
Going back to the issue of climate change and the environmental effects brought about by our primary sector it would be so helpful to this debate and so helpful to the economy of New Zealand if at some stage a few facts were introduced into the discussion. So far there has been a range of events in this discussion that have not been able to substantiate those facts. 
If we do accept—and I do not—that 50 percent of the greenhouse gas from New Zealand comes from agriculture—and it certainly is challengeable in science—then what would introducing a tax on that achieve in terms of climate change? What would it achieve? What it would do is drive production from one of the most efficient production systems offshore. Therefore you would have those levels of production being produced in countries that have higher greenhouse gas emissions from their production systems and less production in New Zealand. Explain to me how that would help the New Zealand economy given the dependence of the New Zealand economy on agricultural exports. 
It is without the slightest bit of rationale or logic that we would introduce a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from our agricultural sector. Those who promote that clearly have no interest in watching “New Zealand Inc.” improve or grow and have no interest in improving the standard of living of New Zealanders.