Nash Stuart: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Nash Stuart: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4758] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill. I agree with the previous speaker Nicky Wagner: we all value the “clean green” image of New Zealand. It is part of our competitive advantage. I spoke a little bit about that in my previous speech. But I remember standing here about 6 months ago debating legislation to build thermal power plants. Am I wrong? Have I forgotten something? Have National members forgotten that legislation? We talk about clean green New Zealand and an emissions trading scheme is a very important part of that. Forestry is a very important part of it but this bill delays the scheme so I am not too sure whether that was a speech from us or from National. 
Mr Foss was right when he stood up and said that this bill provides certainty. No one doubts that. This bill does provide certainty which is what any industry especially an industry with a 30-year growing cycle requires. The forestry industry requires certainty. Is that not right? The people of Tauranga require certainty and I am sure they will get it in another 2½ years. But what is certainty when the industry believed it already had certainty? The message the forestry industry formerly had was that the deadline was 1 July 2009. That was the reality. That was the industry’s certainty but suddenly National blew it out of the water with this bill. Certainty is good; members should not get me wrong. At least now the industry can take a deep sigh and as I said before it can say “At least now we know that Labour is the true friend of the forestry sector and they will give us certainty. They had given us certainty but I suppose we have got to make do with these characters for another 2½ years.” 
One thing I will comment on is the fact that Nikki Kaye stood up and said that emissions had grown by 14 percent. But she did not talk about the fact that the economy had grown by 50 percent. Amazing! I like Nikki Kaye. Nikki and I went to Ethiopia together. We were both very privileged to visit a country and an economy that was so far away from New Zealand in every single aspect. We went with Mr Bridges as well. It was a great trip a wonderful trip. I almost converted them to cross the House and join us in Labour actually. In fact I thought I had. Nikki Kaye stood in front of parliamentarians from about 170 countries and gave an impassioned speech about the wonderful things we were doing in New Zealand about climate change. She stood up there and said what global leaders we were in terms of climate change what a fantastic country she came from how she represented the younger generation and how climate change was going to be part of our competitive advantage. It was inspiring. It was not quite a Lange speech because she is a Tory and she will never reach that stage. No Tory can speak like Lange with the passion he delivered about nuclear ships. But hers was a speech from which one might have stood there listening and thinking that there was a future leader. In fact when Richard Worth went south I went down to the TAB and put on a sly ten bucks that Nikki would make it into Cabinet. She is good. The new guys should watch out; she is on her way up. Her speech was fantastic. 
After Nikki’s impassioned speech in Ethiopia about what we are doing for climate change in New Zealand I thought she was right onside. I do not know whether Nikki is on the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee but I am sure that when Dr Smith said to Nikki—he would have consulted her on this matter I have no doubt because she is a global spokesperson on it—that National was going to delay the scheme by 1 year I am sure she would have said “You cannot do this because I stood up in front of 170 members of Parliament from around the world and said we are global leaders.” But Dr Smith would have said “Nikki I am sorry. I am going to have to overrule you on this one.” I would not have liked to be in that room. Nikki Kaye had said we were global leaders but then I heard her say that we cannot take a global leadership position on global change. I almost fell down because I recalled Nikki’s speech about global leadership— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Use the member’s full name. 
STUART NASH 
: —and with regard to Nikki Kaye the emissions trading scheme forestry and the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill I tell members that it played into Nikki Kaye’s hands. Nikki talked about global leadership and then stood here and said we cannot take a global leadership position. I was very disappointed in Nikki Kaye—very disappointed. 
I will tell members what Labour did. We prioritised. Nikki Kaye—let me say Ms Kaye—said that emissions had grown but I will tell members what Labour did. Labour came in and prioritised and said we had inherited a shattered economy. We had inherited an economy in the doldrums. It was diabolical to the point where we raised taxes and people said “Thank goodness! We will have a decent health system and a decent education system.” Well of course the economy was shattered because Bill English had been the Minister of Finance. It is like history being repeated is it not? It is like déjà vu. Oh my goodness me! But Labour took our economy which was in a state of disrepair and rebuilt it. 
Then we stepped back and asked what was important for New Zealand. How did we define ourselves? We had done it for nuclear ships because Labour is always the party that raises identity questions. We stood up and said that on emissions trading greenhouse gases and carbon zero we could be world leaders. Once again we grabbed that mantle with both hands and took it forward to the world stage. We rose above everyone else and we were leaders. We were global leaders and people knew that. People looked at Helen Clark and said she was a woman destined for global leadership. What happened? She has fulfilled her ambition; we were on our way to fulfilling our potential. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
STUART NASH 
: It is good to come back after dinner and get straight back into this debate. I was saying how disappointed I was because I had been overseas with Nikki Kaye and she had stood up in front of MPs from all around the world and said how great it was that New Zealand was leading climate change. She had said that we were global leaders. Yet about an hour and a half ago as I sat here I heard Nikki Kaye say that we cannot lead global climate change that we are not leaders in emissions trading and that we cannot do that. I was so disappointed. I had thought that here was a young National MP who was a person of her word but true to form she could not say what she had said earlier. 
But the worst thing was when Louise Upston stood up and said that there were people in Taupo who did not know what to do with their land because of this legislation. She said they did not know whether to put their land into dairying or forestry. Goodness me with all due respect to Louise— 
Amy Adams 
: Ms Upston! 
STUART NASH 
: —I am sorry Ms Upston—I think that she should go and talk to the landowners in Taupo because I have no doubt that they know what to do with their land. In fact if the emissions trading scheme had been introduced when it was supposed to be introduced those landowners would have had a lot more certainty and they would have been doing what they are supposed to be doing now which is making the best use of their land. It was all a shame really; she showed about as much energy as everyone else over that side quite frankly but that is OK. 
But I would like to say what forestry can do for New Zealand. I am a huge fan of forestry. Forestry is the way forward for this country because it is so innovative. 
Amy Adams 
: Because it is so wooden! 
STUART NASH 
: I say to Ms Adams from the  
The Addams Family 
 that we can actually farm for carbon. Gone are the days when we planted trees to cut them down for timber or pulp—we farm for carbon. In fact every time that member opens her mouth the emissions trading scheme goes through the roof because so much hot air comes out as I think Mr Hughes would agree. I fully support this bill; I just wish we had been a lot bolder in doing what we said we would do—in fact not “we” but what those guys opposite said they would do but did not. 
I used to write forestry plans for farmers in Taranaki. I used to advise them on the best use of their land because that is what it is about in our country. We have to optimise the use of our land. I can tell members that the plans I would write today would be completely different from the ones I wrote 10 years ago because there are so many different uses for forestry these days. Not only do we plant for timber which is what we have done for 140 years but now we can also plant in order to farm for carbon. It is absolutely fantastic. That is a viable part of the industry and in a way it could be the saviour of the industry because with marginal land in the past— 
Amy Adams 
: How many people does it feed? 
STUART NASH 
: —as Ms Adams would know—we would plant forestry out in the backblocks but now we can plant for carbon. I tell members that if this bill had gone through when it was supposed to then people could have started to plant for carbon in a month’s time. It will now be in 13 months’ time and that is a shame. This is a Government of inaction but that is OK because it has only 2½ more years. 
One of the great things we can now do as well is get an economic rent for marginal land. It is a wonderful opportunity. I personally believe that forestry will undergo significant growth due to the emissions trading scheme. I for one as Labour’s associate spokesperson on forestry will be looking at that in partnership with the industry. Labour is a party that goes out and talks to industry groups. We find out what they want and we work closely together so that we can come up with schemes that work. There are some great innovative schemes when thinking outside the square in which we can really drive forestry growth. 
So I say “Well done!” to the Labour Government for getting the emissions trading scheme up and running in spite of ACT and Mr Hide. Can members imagine Helen Clark going into coalition with someone who is a global-warming doubter? I just wish that this Government had been bolder. As Mr Chauvel said there is another broken promise but I do support the bill because at least now the forestry industry will have a little bit of certainty. It is a pity this certainty will not arrive next month it is a pity that it will arrive only in 13 months’ time but I support the bill and so I commend it to the House. Thank you.