Fitzsimons Jeanette: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6223] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I think members should pause for a moment to acknowledge a rare moment of consensus where virtually every party in the House is supporting an initiative to reduce climate change emissions. I feel the need particularly to draw attention to it because anyone who is listening on the radio would easily believe that the House was totally at loggerheads. We have heard nothing but the language of attack and denigration across the Chamber so perhaps it needs pointing out to listeners out there that the House is in agreement that the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative in this Climate Change Response Amendment Bill ought to go ahead. 
The Greens particularly support the initiative because it does as Marian Hobbs said address a number of environmental issues at the same time. Not only does it have the potential to increase our carbon storage; it has the potential to reduce erosion from steep hill country to reduce flooding to improve water quality downstream and to provide more habitat for native species particularly when native species are planted in those permanent forests. But I have also to agree with Eric Roy’s concern and ask whether we are perhaps taking one step forward with this bill and five steps backwards with the work that the Government’s own State-owned enterprise Landcorp is doing in converting existing forests to livestock farming in the central North Island. 
This morning I attended the Federated Farmers conference where I was invited to speak on Charlie Pederson’s latest initiative on farmers and water quality. The Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister were there as well. One of the questions they were asked by one of the farmers was: “Why is it then if climate change is so important that we’re allowing a State agency to clear forest and replace it with livestock farming where not only do you lose the carbon sink in the forest but you create the extra carbon emissions from the methane from the animals and nitrogen runoff at the same time?”. The Minister of Agriculture replied: “Landcorp is not making the policy decision. It doesn’t own the land. It’s simply carrying this out on contract for somebody else and this is its core business.” 
So we have a Government agency whose core business is converting forests to farmland. I have to admit that it sounds a little bit like: “Well Your Honour I didn’t commission the assassination I didn’t pay for it I simply carried it out on contract.” I do not think His Honour would be very impressed with that kind of excuse. We have to take a whole-of-Government approach to climate change issues otherwise all the good work that goes into an initiative like the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative can be undone at least in terms of the carbon storage very quickly by another arm of Government removing forests and increasing livestock farming. 
If the forest is on the wrong land and that land ought to be used for farming then let that conversion be accompanied by an obligation to increase forest areas somewhere else on more suitable land. We cannot simply leave this to the market in the day when log prices are low and dairy prices are high. We will never get on top of our climate change emissions unless we intervene in that process that is happening.