Ardern Shane: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18168] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise in opposition to Part 2 of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill just as I did to Part 1 and I do so on a number of grounds. First I want to pick up on the parting comments of the co-leader of the Green Party when she said the agricultural sector had been excluded from this bill. I just could not believe what I heard. I think what she meant was that it does not take effect on agriculture until 2013. But what she forgets in that discussion and in that debate is that the agricultural sector is one of the biggest users of energy in this country: of electricity fossil fuels and many many other types of energy affected by the passing of this legislation today if in fact that happens. I am speaking on behalf of those industries now. 
The forestry industry for example has a huge opportunity to develop co-generation on site at the various processing sites around the country but it has been denied that opportunity under the leadership of this Government over 9 years because the kind of development it proposes would never get through the Resource Management Act. Now the Government is to put in place this legislation which offers another imposition on those industries that want to develop electricity generation. I am talking specifically to Part 2 because I would have thought that in this bill there could be some amendments to take account of that very fact. 
The irony is that the forestry sector has the opportunity like no other industry has to actually achieve the goals that the Government states are its objectives in this legislation. The first of course is growth because the forestry industry is the third-largest exporting industry in this country and secondly it has a carbon sink value that no other industry has or has the capability to achieve. 
But what have we seen? Let us have a look at what has happened under the term of this Government. We have seen deforestation on a scale that we have not seen for a long time. From 1951 until 2003 New Zealand built up a forestry resource of 1.9 million hectares of trees. That is what happened during that period. Under successive Governments Labour and National—although if one looks at the figures one will find that the forestry sector grew much more strongly under National than it did under Labour—the forestry sector grew throughout that time to a massive resource of 1.9 million hectares. In 2006 12900 hectares were cleared with no intention of being replanted. There are no intentions at this stage unless there is a major change in policy for that land to be replanted. Clear-felling has peaked at 13600 hectares which is the latest figure I have of clear-felled forest that will not be replanted. 
I want the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker to stand up tonight and tell us how that is going to be addressed in this bill because the single best thing that could happen in terms of climate change policy in this country would be to reverse that trend and get those trees planted again. The Minister has no answers. We have asked that question over and over tonight and there is no answer to it. 
I notice that the Chairperson is indicating that I should come back to Part 2 of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Amendments to the Electricity Act. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well in new Part 6A inserted by clause 67 of the bill section 62A “Purpose of this Part” states: “… to reduce the impact of fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation on climate change by creating a preference for renewable electricity generation”. I talked tonight about the co-generation plans of the forestry sector that are completely renewable but this Government has stopped that development from taking place. So why does the Minister not take a call and explain to us why at least five or six major players out there that wish to invest in major processing in New Zealand and another five or six that have looked at doing so have been denied that opportunity? When they look at the amount of compliance that they would have to meet—and here is another layer of compliance right here in this bill that they will have to meet—they have said things are just too tough so they are going to Australia. They do not want to do it here because things are better for them in Australia than they are in New Zealand.